Informe Jurídico sobre la Sentencia de la Corte Internacional de Justicia en el caso del «Diferendo Marítimo (Perú c. Chile)», de 27 de enero de 2014
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2023-11-27
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
El caso objeto de estudio desarrolla la controversia entre el Perú y Chile relativa a su límite marítimo
lateral sobre el Océano Pacífico. Ambos Estados tenían puntos de vista diametralmente opuestos.
Si bien para el Perú no existía un límite marítimo establecido, para Chile éste se hallaba plenamente
definido por una serie de instrumentos suscritos por las partes. Luego de buscar, sin éxito, una
solución a este desencuentro por la vía diplomática, empleando los medios de solución pacífica de
controversias reconocidos internacionalmente, el 16 de enero de 2008 el caso fue elevado por el
Perú a la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Durante el proceso, las partes presentaron sus posiciones
respecto de la existencia de un límite marítimo entre ellas y del curso que éste debería tener. Tras
analizar las argumentaciones y los instrumentos que fueron considerados relevantes, el 27 de enero
de 2014, la Corte emitió la sentencia que puso fin a la controversia, valiéndose de un recurso no
previsto por las partes y asumiendo parcialmente la posición de ambos Estados. El fallo, en primer
lugar, estableció la existencia de una frontera convenida, sobre la base de un acuerdo tácito, de una
extensión únicamente de 80 millas náuticas, teniendo como criterio de su curso el paralelo
geográfico, con su punto de inicio en la bajamar alineada al hito N° 1. El Tribunal interpretó que, en
adelante, el límite marítimo no había sido acordado, por lo que decidió su trazado utilizando el
principio de equidistancia del “método de tres pasos”.
The case under study develops the dispute between Peru and Chile regarding their lateral maritime boundary on the Pacific Ocean. Both States had diametrically opposed points of view, because although for Peru there was no established maritime limit, for Chile it was fully defined by a series of instruments signed by both parties. After unsuccessfully seeking a solution to this disagreement through diplomatic channels, using internationally recognized peaceful means of settlement of disputes, on January 16, 2008, the case was submitted by Peru to the International Court of Justice. During the process, the parties presented their positions regarding the existence of a maritime boundary between them and the course that it should have. After analyzing the arguments and the instruments that were considered relevant, on January 27, 2014, the Court issued the Judgement that put an end to the controversy, using a recourse not provided by the parties and partially assuming the position of both States. The judgement, in the first place, established the existence of an agreed border, on the basis of a tacit agreement, with an extension of only 80 nautical miles, having as a criterion of its course the geographical parallel, with its starting point at low -water line aligned to Boundary Marker No. 1. The Tribunal interpreted that, henceforth, the maritime boundary had not been agreed upon, therefore it decided its layout using the equidistance principle of the “three-step method”.
The case under study develops the dispute between Peru and Chile regarding their lateral maritime boundary on the Pacific Ocean. Both States had diametrically opposed points of view, because although for Peru there was no established maritime limit, for Chile it was fully defined by a series of instruments signed by both parties. After unsuccessfully seeking a solution to this disagreement through diplomatic channels, using internationally recognized peaceful means of settlement of disputes, on January 16, 2008, the case was submitted by Peru to the International Court of Justice. During the process, the parties presented their positions regarding the existence of a maritime boundary between them and the course that it should have. After analyzing the arguments and the instruments that were considered relevant, on January 27, 2014, the Court issued the Judgement that put an end to the controversy, using a recourse not provided by the parties and partially assuming the position of both States. The judgement, in the first place, established the existence of an agreed border, on the basis of a tacit agreement, with an extension of only 80 nautical miles, having as a criterion of its course the geographical parallel, with its starting point at low -water line aligned to Boundary Marker No. 1. The Tribunal interpreted that, henceforth, the maritime boundary had not been agreed upon, therefore it decided its layout using the equidistance principle of the “three-step method”.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Derecho del mar, Derecho internacional, Perú--Límites--Chile, Chile--Límites--Perú, Corte Internacional de Justicia, Solución pacífica de controversias internacionales
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess