This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/world/americas/court-grants-peru-ocean-territory-claimed-by-chile.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Court Grants Peru Ocean Territory Claimed by Chile | Court Grants Peru Ocean Territory Claimed by Chile |
| (7 months later) | |
| SANTIAGO, Chile — A six-year maritime dispute between Chile and Peru was settled on Monday when the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled largely in favor of Peru, stripping Chile of economic rights over a swath of the Pacific Ocean. | |
| Off the coast of Arica, a city on the border with Peru, the court set the boundary at 80 miles. Beyond that, it drew a diagonal line southwest, slicing about 8,000 square miles of ocean from Chile’s “exclusive economic zone.” | Off the coast of Arica, a city on the border with Peru, the court set the boundary at 80 miles. Beyond that, it drew a diagonal line southwest, slicing about 8,000 square miles of ocean from Chile’s “exclusive economic zone.” |
| Although the decision, which cannot be appealed, was considered more likely to affect industrial fishing, hundreds of Arica fishermen and residents marched through the city waving black flags and Chilean flags, complaining about the loss of access to resources beyond the 80-mile point. Local fishing associations had already said they would seek compensation from the Chilean government if the ruling deprived them of their livelihood. | Although the decision, which cannot be appealed, was considered more likely to affect industrial fishing, hundreds of Arica fishermen and residents marched through the city waving black flags and Chilean flags, complaining about the loss of access to resources beyond the 80-mile point. Local fishing associations had already said they would seek compensation from the Chilean government if the ruling deprived them of their livelihood. |
| Chile lost special rights to marine resources in about 8,000 square miles of ocean near its northern border, but retained control over its 12-mile territorial waters, where most small-scale fishing activity takes place. The president of Peru, Ollanta Humala, said the ruling granted Peru most of what it had wanted. | Chile lost special rights to marine resources in about 8,000 square miles of ocean near its northern border, but retained control over its 12-mile territorial waters, where most small-scale fishing activity takes place. The president of Peru, Ollanta Humala, said the ruling granted Peru most of what it had wanted. |
| In a televised address, Chile’s president, Sebastián Piñera, whose term ends in March, said Chile disagreed with the court’s reducing the boundary to 80 miles off Arica but would respect the ruling. He added that it would have to be “implemented gradually,” and that giving up part of the economic zone was “an unfortunate loss for the country.” | In a televised address, Chile’s president, Sebastián Piñera, whose term ends in March, said Chile disagreed with the court’s reducing the boundary to 80 miles off Arica but would respect the ruling. He added that it would have to be “implemented gradually,” and that giving up part of the economic zone was “an unfortunate loss for the country.” |
| The dispute was a legacy of the War of the Pacific, which lasted from 1879 to 1883. Chile won, conquering Peruvian territory and depriving Bolivia of a coastline. A treaty between Peru and Chile in 1929 granted Chile control of Arica, and the countries later fixed a land boundary. The maritime boundary, however, was never fully defined. | The dispute was a legacy of the War of the Pacific, which lasted from 1879 to 1883. Chile won, conquering Peruvian territory and depriving Bolivia of a coastline. A treaty between Peru and Chile in 1929 granted Chile control of Arica, and the countries later fixed a land boundary. The maritime boundary, however, was never fully defined. |
| In 2008, Peru, under President Alan García, took Chile to the World Court. Peru’s proposal would have allowed it to project a 200-mile maritime zone across waters that Chile considered high seas, giving Peru an additional 15,000 square miles. | In 2008, Peru, under President Alan García, took Chile to the World Court. Peru’s proposal would have allowed it to project a 200-mile maritime zone across waters that Chile considered high seas, giving Peru an additional 15,000 square miles. |
| Chile argued that the border had been clearly established by fishing treaties signed by Chile, Peru and Ecuador in 1952 and 1954; by subsequent agreements; and by customary practice and the unilateral actions of Peru. | Chile argued that the border had been clearly established by fishing treaties signed by Chile, Peru and Ecuador in 1952 and 1954; by subsequent agreements; and by customary practice and the unilateral actions of Peru. |
| The court settled on a compromise, recognizing that while the treaties had not expressly established the maritime boundary, the 1954 document had “cemented” a “tacit agreement.” Through fishing activities, enforcement and other practices based on those treaties and subsequent agreements, the court said, both countries had acknowledged a maritime border running 80 miles from the coast along a line of latitude. | The court settled on a compromise, recognizing that while the treaties had not expressly established the maritime boundary, the 1954 document had “cemented” a “tacit agreement.” Through fishing activities, enforcement and other practices based on those treaties and subsequent agreements, the court said, both countries had acknowledged a maritime border running 80 miles from the coast along a line of latitude. |
| Still, Chilean officials said they were confused by the court’s reasoning in setting the boundary at 80 miles off Arica. | Still, Chilean officials said they were confused by the court’s reasoning in setting the boundary at 80 miles off Arica. |
| “We still don’t understand the arguments of the court for reducing the extension of the parallel,” said Mario Artaza, a former Foreign Ministry official and diplomat. “However, Chile lost relatively little compared to what Peru was demanding.” | “We still don’t understand the arguments of the court for reducing the extension of the parallel,” said Mario Artaza, a former Foreign Ministry official and diplomat. “However, Chile lost relatively little compared to what Peru was demanding.” |
| The ruling, Mr. Artaza added, “offers the opportunity to begin a new stage in our relationship.” | The ruling, Mr. Artaza added, “offers the opportunity to begin a new stage in our relationship.” |