This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25911867

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Peru-Chile border ruling due in The Hague Peru-Chile border redrawn by UN court at The Hague
(about 7 hours later)
The United Nations' highest court is due to rule on an acrimonious dispute between Peru and Chile over their maritime border. The United Nations' highest court has redrawn the maritime boundary between Peru and Chile after an acrimonious dispute between the two neighbours.
At stake are 38,000 square kilometres (14,670 square miles) of ocean and extremely lucrative fishing grounds. Judges at The Hague awarded Peru parts of the Pacific Ocean but kept rich fishing grounds in Chilean hands.
Peru asked the International Court of Justice in The Hague to rule on the matter in 2008, saying there was no legally defined sea border. At stake were 38,000 square kilometres (14,670 square miles) of ocean and some of the world's richest fishing grounds.
It believes the border should extend in line with from the coast. In 2008, Peru asked the International Court of Justice to rule on the matter, saying the border was not legally set.
But Chile insists it is on a line horizontal to the earth's axis, citing treaties agreed in 1952 and 1954 which it says settled the maritime border on that basis. It wanted the boundary to extend roughly south-west, perpendicular to the point where the two countries' land border meets the ocean.
Peru's fishing industry estimates that the disputed zone has an annual catch of 565m Peruvian nuevo sol ($200m; £121m), particularly of anchovies. But Chile insisted it should extend from the coast parallel to the equator.
Correspondents say that with intense interest in the case in both countries, there is considerable national pride at stake too. It cited treaties agreed in 1952 and 1954 which it said had settled the maritime boundary on that basis.
With patriotic fervour rising over the case, Peruvian politicians have urged their countrymen to remain calm, while their Chilean counterparts have promised their fisherman financial help in the event of an ruling that affects them adversely. Both countries have pledged to abide by The Hague ruling.
The leaders of both countries have also promised to abide by the decision. Peruvian ex-President Alan Garcia welcomed the court decision as positive for Peru, saying: "We have gained something and we are happy."
This is just the latest development in a history of disputes between the two, dating back to the 19th Century. BBC Mundo's Paula Molina in Chile said analysts there see it as the end of tensions between the two neighbours, which have maintained close economic ties despite the long disagreement.
Such disagreements are common in the region, including a long-running spat between Chile and Bolivia. Peru's fishing industry estimates that the disputed zone has an annual catch of 565m Peruvian nuevo soles ($200m; £121m), particularly of anchovies, which are used to make fishmeal.
The disputes mainly date back to the 1879-1883 War of the Pacific, in which Chile took mineral-rich land from both and, in the case of Bolivia, its only outlet to the sea, which it is determined to regain. Chile has promised financial help to its fishing industry in the event that the court decision affects it adversely.
Venezuela also claims a part of Guyana, and the same court in The Hague, recently ruled against Colombia over waters claimed by Nicaragua. Correspondents say that, with intense interest in the case in both countries, there was considerable national pride at stake too.
Some Peruvians saw the ruling as a chance to win back national pride and territory, after a humiliating defeat to Chile in the 19th Century.
In the 1879-1883 War of the Pacific, Chile took mineral-rich land from both Peru and Bolivia.
Bolivia lost its only outlet to the sea, and has also instituted proceedings against Chile at the ICJ.