- By David BoscoDavid Bosco is a Foreign Policy contributing editor and assistant professor at American University's School of International Service. He is at work on a book about the International Criminal Court's first decade.
Peru claims that “the maritime zones between Chile and Peru have never been delimited by agreement or otherwise” and that accordingly, “the delimitation is to be determined by the Court in accordance with customary international law”. Peru explains that “since the 1980s, [it] has consistently endeavoured to negotiate the various issues in dispute, but . . . has constantly met a refusal from Chile to enter into negotiations”….
Peru now “requests the Court to determine the course of the boundary between the maritime zones of the two States in accordance with international law . . . and to adjudge and declare that Peru possesses exclusive sovereign rights in the maritime area situated within the limit of 200 nautical miles from its coast but outside Chile’s exclusive economic zone or continental shelf”.
As the hearings begin, Chile’s president is warning against an upsurge in nationalism:
As tensions ratchet up ahead of the court proceedings, Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera spoke out against "exacerbated nationalism, which poisons the soul of the people," in a column published Sunday in Chilean newspaper El Mercurio.
"This dispute granted Chile and Peru an opportunity to renew our relationship and embrace together with conviction and courage the future agenda, which should be of friendship, cooperation, progress and peace," he said.
Both countries have pledged to respect the court’s eventual ruling.