The controversy over the land triangle between Chile and Peru is the name of a dispute raised between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile over the sovereignty of a land area - with a surface area of 37,610 m² - 3.7 ha - [1][note 1] that has been called "land triangle", located in the sector where their respective territorial sovereignty contacts the shore of the Pacific Ocean.[3] Both countries affirm that the land border binational is already defined, but they differ in their layout in that sector, since both Chile and Peru understand that it was attributed to them.[4].
Chile maintains that the land limit begins at the intersection of the parallel that crosses "Landmark No. 1" with the low tide line, located 323 meters to the west of that,[5] and that it corresponds to the starting point of the binational maritime border,[6] since according to the ruling of the Court of The Hague on the maritime delimitation between Chile and Peru of January 27, 2014, the easternmost point of the oceanic limit is located where the parallel that crosses the aforementioned milestone reaches the low tide line, whose coordinates are . That is to say, the starting point of the maritime boundary between both countries, in the coastal zone, decided by the International Court of Justice, would also be the starting point of the binational land border.
Peru maintains, on the other hand, that the land border between both countries begins where the Concord line intercepts the coastal edge "Litoral (geography)") at low tide, at the so-called "Point Concordia" - or "Point 266" according to the Peruvian law of baselines "Base line (right of the sea)") -, located 182.3 meters to the south of the limit considered by Chile, that is, following the arc that demarcates the border curvilinear about 264 meters beyond Milestone No. 1.[5][note 2] Always according to Peru, the beginning of the land border at "Point Concordia" is located at the coordinates,[8][9] at the point of low tide, right on the limit between the coastal strips of surf and wave edge - or swash zone and surf zone-, located towards the continent, and the coastal strip of breaking waves - or shore breaker zone - towards the sea,[10] thus creating a "dry coast".[11]
That according to paragraph 175 of the ruling of the Court of The Hague of 2014, expresses that it may be possible that the beginning of the maritime border does not coincide with the beginning of the land border and in addition the same paragraph 175 indicates that it is the .[12] The location of the starting point of the land border would be determined by the Treaty of Lima of 1929, which states that it begins at a point which called "Concordia", distant ten kilometers north of the Lluta river bridge. Furthermore, on the other hand, there is neither the 1929 Treaty nor the 1930 documents indicating that the land border from Milestone 1 to the beginning of the maritime border follows the line of a geographical parallel.
Review of old border milestones
Introduction
The controversy over the land triangle between Chile and Peru is the name of a dispute raised between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile over the sovereignty of a land area - with a surface area of 37,610 m² - 3.7 ha - [1][note 1] that has been called "land triangle", located in the sector where their respective territorial sovereignty contacts the shore of the Pacific Ocean.[3] Both countries affirm that the land border binational is already defined, but they differ in their layout in that sector, since both Chile and Peru understand that it was attributed to them.[4].
Chile maintains that the land limit begins at the intersection of the parallel that crosses "Landmark No. 1" with the low tide line, located 323 meters to the west of that,[5] and that it corresponds to the starting point of the binational maritime border,[6] since according to the ruling of the Court of The Hague on the maritime delimitation between Chile and Peru of January 27, 2014, the easternmost point of the oceanic limit is located where the parallel that crosses the aforementioned milestone reaches the low tide line, whose coordinates are . That is to say, the starting point of the maritime boundary between both countries, in the coastal zone, decided by the International Court of Justice, would also be the starting point of the binational land border.
Peru maintains, on the other hand, that the land border between both countries begins where the Concord line intercepts the coastal edge "Litoral (geography)") at low tide, at the so-called "Point Concordia" - or "Point 266" according to the Peruvian law of baselines "Base line (right of the sea)") -, located 182.3 meters to the south of the limit considered by Chile, that is, following the arc that demarcates the border curvilinear about 264 meters beyond Milestone No. 1.[5][note 2] Always according to Peru, the beginning of the land border at "Point Concordia" is located at the coordinates,[8][9] at the point of low tide, right on the limit between the coastal strips of surf and wave edge - or swash zone and surf zone-, located towards the continent, and the coastal strip of breaking waves - or shore breaker zone - towards the sea,[10] thus creating a "dry coast".[11]
"Point of Concordia, where the land border between the Parties begins"
The public discussion on this topic was situated within the framework of the maritime delimitation controversy held between Peru and Chile, and was reactivated in January 2014, as a consequence of the ruling of the International Court of Justice that resolved said controversy, defining the binational maritime border and the starting point of it, and the readings that the authorities of both countries made about it, as it influences this land dispute.[13][14].
Situation of the area in controversy
Contenido
El «Hito 1», punto «Concordia» para Chile, se encuentra localizado en las coordenadas: .
El punto «Concordia» según Perú se encuentra localizado en las coordenadas: según la ley peruana de líneas de base.
Para Chile el área se sitúa al norte de la ciudad de Arica, en la comuna homónima, de la provincia también homónima, localizada en el extremo noroeste de la Región de Arica y Parinacota.
Para el Perú en cambio, se encuentra al sur de la ciudad de Tacna (inmediatamente al sur de la localidad de Santa Rosa), capital de la provincia homónima y del departamento homónimo.
Los beneficios que otorgaba al definitivo poseedor de dicho triángulo revestían cierta importancia cuando aún no estaba definido el límite marítimo, pues si este se apoyaba en un paralelo o en una equidistante, el depender desde cuál de los dos puntos partía comprometería una superficie de mar territorial y patrimonial significante.
Access and exercise of sovereignty
Access from Chilean territory is only possible by four-wheel drive vehicles and in the company of Carabineros de Chile personnel.
From Arica, drive north to an unpaved detour that starts to the left, which is marked by a mound of stones. Traveling through it you travel through a desert area, which after 1 kilometer passes over the railway tracks of the train that connects Arica with Tacna. 1 km from this area is the Chacalluta International Airport, and to the west is the Limar Lighthouse, belonging to the Chilean Navy, as well as the “Enfilación Concordia” Lighthouse, which marks the location of the parallel of the maritime limit for vessels. Continuing along the path, the difference in level of about 2 meters represented by the Escritos ravine is overcome by means of a bridge, which empties its waters into the Pacific Ocean south of “Point Concordia”. About 8 km further south of that mouth is the Lluta River, a regionally important river course. The area in controversy is located in an area planted with dangerous antipersonnel mines; Their presence, indicated by signs, is delimited by barbed wire fences. Likewise, torrential rains can change the position of these war artifacts.
According to the Peruvian version, the police monitor the triangle area based on the "Francisco Bolognesi surveillance post."[15].
According to the Chilean version, the Milestone 1 sector is guarded 24 hours a day by 3 officials from the "Quebrada de Escritos observation post" which is in charge of police from the "Fourth Chacalluta Police Station", while another official is in charge of monitoring the border on the beach, from a sentry box 304 meters south of Milestone 1[1][16].
It is not clear whether the triangle itself is patrolled by Chile, Peru, both, or neither. Although it has buildings from both countries in its vicinity, none have remained within the same triangle. In the past, there was a Peruvian lighthouse (about 6 meters west of milestone I and crossed by its parallel), which was destroyed by an earthquake, and a guardhouse built by the Chilean Navy (in the area adjacent to the beach immediately south of the parallel of milestone I), which generated a note of protest from the Peruvian state, and which was removed a few days later by order of the Chilean state itself, so as not to alter the harmony in the border area and between both countries as the official position maintained. Chilean.
Background
Originalmente la zona, al igual que la región septentrional de Chile, pertenecía al Perú, pero como consecuencia de la derrota militar de este a manos de aquel en un conflicto suscitado en el siglo (denominado Guerra del Pacífico) Chile pasó a controlar no solo el sector actualmente situado en el extremo norte chileno sino que también lo que hoy es el extremo sur del Perú.[17] Mediante el Tratado de Ancón (del 20 de octubre de 1883) Chile logró «perpetua e incondicionalmente» el dominio sobre el departamento peruano de Tarapacá "Departamento de Tarapacá (Perú)"), y el control por 10 años de las provincias también peruanas de Tacna y Arica "Provincia de Arica (Perú)"). Al expirar dicho plazo, mediante un plebiscito a sus pobladores se definiría a quién serían adjudicadas.[18].
La consulta a los pobladores de Tacna y Arica no se realizó, y en cambio el límite binacional fue definido mediante el Tratado de Lima, firmado el 3 de junio de 1929.
Treaty of Lima of 1929
After the Pacific War, the Treaty of Ancón of 1883 and the subsequent Treaty of Lima of 1929 established the land border between Chile and Peru.
Installation of border markers and act of 1930
The mixed binational commission in charge of putting into practice what was established in the Treaty of Lima of 1929, a few months after its signing, differed on what was the starting point from which the border should then be drawn to the east. The delegate for Chile proposed that in the area called Pampa de Escritos be found the point that is located 10 km to the true north of the bridge over said river, and from that point begin to head east following the arc that would always remain parallel 10 km from the railway tracks that connect Arica with La Paz; Furthermore, from that initial point, the border had to continue to the coast of the Pacific Ocean through the parallel of latitude of said point. The delegate from Peru, on the other hand, argued that the limit should be marked by milestones starting from the coast at a point located 10 km away from the Lluta River bridge. The last sector of the border - towards the west - should follow an arc. Each point of that arc would be ten kilometers from said bridge.
Due to this divergence, in February 1930 the demarcation of the border was not continued and the decision was made to take the problem to the chancelleries so that it could be resolved by common agreement.
Delegates from both countries met in Santiago. Chile was represented by Minister Manuel Barros Castañón"), while ambassador César Elguera did the same for Peru. As a result of this meeting, a series of provisions were drafted to be applied when demarcating the border from the Pampa de Escritos to the sea coast; these guidelines were sent to the mixed commission on April 28, 1930. Those received by each delegation were identical to those given to the counterpart delegation. As for Concerning the terrestrial triangle, the guidelines sent to Enrique Brieba - head of the Chilean delegation -, as published the following year by Brieba himself, were the following:
The mixed commission acted according to the instructions given, actions that were later recorded in a report called: "Final Act of the Boundary Commission with the description of the milestones placed" dated July 21, 1930. It bears the signatures of both delegates: Enrique Brieba - for Chile - and Federico Basadre - for Peru. The phrases related to the triangle in question are the following:.
According to the orders given by the representatives of both countries, the landmark that begins could be installed “at any point of the arch, as close to the sea as possible” but “protected from being destroyed by ocean waters”. The demarcators agreed that the most appropriate point to erect the milestone was the one located at the coordinates: , which was located 180 meters from the coastline. In the coding used by the mixed commission it was called "Hito I", with the situation clarified: "Orilla de Mar". In Brieba's work, a photograph was published showing the delegates in charge of demarcating the border located on the same seashore; The image has the phrase written on it: “The border on the beach.”
History of the controversy
Events that occurred during the 20th century
On August 18, 1952, both countries (along with Ecuador) signed in Santiago de Chile the so-called: "Declaration of Maritime Zone", through which they claimed marine waters up to 200 nautical miles immediately off their coasts. In its article IV it said:
Two years later, to complement the previous agreement, the three countries signed on December 4, 1954 in Lima the so-called: "Agreement on special maritime border zone." With it they sought to create a special zone in the sea that would be located beyond 12 nautical miles from its shores and that would consist of a strip with a width of 10 nautical miles. The objective was to organize coastal artisanal fishing and thus avoid jurisdictional conflicts. Here, as in the previous treatise, we speak again of limits located on parallels:
Weeks later, the president of the Republic of Peru Manuel A. Odría and David Aguilar Cornejo - his minister of foreign affairs - signed Supreme Resolution No. 23 on January 12, 1955, called: "Delimitation of the 200-mile maritime zone", which was published on the 23rd of the same month. It ordered how the external delimitation of the Peruvian sea should be drawn. Point 2 refers to the fact that in the layout of the 200 nautical miles of Peru's heritage sea, the parallel marked by the point where the international border arrives cannot be exceeded:
In the second half of the 1960s, representatives of both countries agreed on the need to build land aids to facilitate navigation and thus avoid incidents that occurred when vessels from one country mistakenly crossed to fish in the waters of the neighboring country. It was agreed that two lighthouses would be erected aligned in line on the parallel that crosses Milestone I and on both sides of it.
On April 26, 1968, the technical delegations designated by both countries to build physical navigation aids signed an agreement. The minutes indicate that the mark before milestone 1 would be in Peruvian territory and the mark after in Chilean territory.
On August 22, 1969, a mixed commission was formed with representatives of the two countries, which had to verify the original geographical position of Milestone I (concrete) and.
The members of the mixed commission, meeting in Arica, signed a record listing the tasks carried out, and in which the methodology used is technically detailed. The state of abandonment of landmark I (which was down) is also described. Two towers would be built (one for each country and on its respective soil), so that they can be seen from the sea forming a row, with the focal point of each lighthouse being located at an approximate height above the ground of 22 meters in the case of the previous tower (Peruvian, called "Faro de la Concordia")[24] and 20 meters in the later tower (Chilean). Point A2 states:
At point B2 it is indicated that to the west of milestone 1 is Peruvian territory and to the east of milestone 1 is Chilean territory:.
As a consummation of the work carried out by the mixed commission, in 1972 each country built its own lighthouse at the points already agreed upon, both on the parallel and, as stated in the minutes, in its own territory.
. However, given the possibility that the 1969 Act had unified the maritime term with the land term as of Milestone I, it has been pointed out that, in 1999, Ignacio Llanos Mardones - then first secretary of the Chilean diplomatic service - was against such an idea, in a book of his authorship, by maintaining "'that the terminus of the land border corresponds to the terminal point of the arc, Concordia", although this does not agree with the point of the beginning of the maritime limit.[26] This opinion is not in line with the position of your country in which both terms (maritime and land) must converge at the same point.
On May 23, 1986, the Foreign Minister of Peru Allan Wagner sent his ambassador in Santiago de Chile, Juan Miguel Bákula, to report the need for his government to begin negotiations that would allow the signing of a border treaty that defines the maritime border between the two republics, which, according to what Peru had postulated, still remained to be drawn.[27] At the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, the ambassador explained to the chancellor Chilean Jaime del Valle the reasons for his mission. At the end, del Valle asked him to write down what he said, so as to leave it in writing. Responding to the request, the ambassador quickly drafted the document that would later be called, in the context of the border problems between these nations, as the 'Bákula Memorandum'.[27] In said document the Peruvian ambassador expressed himself about the significance of the point that originates the parallel that demarcates the special fishing zone:
On August 30, 1998[28] the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Service of the Chilean Navy (SHOA) published the tenth edition of the navigation chart named 'Chile. Rada and Puerto de Arica'', on a scale of 1: 25,000,[29] the same chart that it had been publishing since 1973, with the addition of the new changes produced in the covered area, just as it had done with the 1989 edition (navigation chart No. 101). In previous editions, the Chile-Peru land boundary was drawn as the extension of the arc that joins the first milestones until it touches the sea; but in the 1998 edition, the curved line upon reaching milestone I no longer continues in said curvilinear orientation until it reaches the maritime edge, since from that milestone it continues westwards on the parallel of said milestone and thus crosses the coastal shore, continuing then into the ocean, also demarcating with said parallel the territorial waters of both countries. The degree of detail that the chosen scale gives to the map is adequate to show what the binational demarcation is according to the opinion that Chile will maintain during the century. This letter was sent to the United Nations, and was later reproduced by the Division of Ocean Affairs. Fernando de Trazegnies, the chancellor of Peru at that time, showed his government's disagreement with the Chilean navigation chart through a note of protest, which was received by the Chilean embassy in Lima on October 20, 2000.[30].
The response from the Chancellor of the Government of Chile, Soledad Alvear, was received on November 22, 2000, and it emphatically notified the Peruvian government that the Navigation Chart in question "has been prepared based on international law and in strict respect of the agreements signed with Peru, previously", and added that the treaties of 1952 and 1954 were ratified in the minutes of 1968 and 1969.[30].
On December 27, 2000, the note was responded to by the chancellor of the government of Peru, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, indicating to his colleague that he did not share his position, since both countries had not yet signed a maritime border treaty, as Peru had already communicated at the time through the so-called 'Bákula memorandum'.[30]
Furthermore, the acts of 1968 and 1969 were not approved by the Congress of Peru, as required by the Constitution in force at that time.
Half a month later, the Peruvian government delivered a statement to Kofi Annan – Secretary General of the United Nations – in which it notified the Organization of its disagreement with the document that Chile had presented in September 2000.[30].
Events that occurred during the 21st century
The Peruvian law of territorial demarcation of the province of Tacna, Department of Tacna (Law No. 27415) of February 2001, states that the Province of Tacna limits to the southwest with the Pacific Ocean and that.
In March 2001 the guardhouse incident occurred, on that occasion the Marine Corps of the Chilean Navy located a guardhouse between Hito I and the seashore.[24] On April 10 of that year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, protested through a diplomatic note, in which he expressed:
The Chilean Foreign Minister, Soledad Alvear, responded in a note on April 11, 2001, stating that:
The incident was finally overcome on April 12, with the decision of the Government of Chile to remove the booth from its location, due to the exclusive and lofty purpose of contributing to harmony in the border area",[32] although the chancellor pointed out that its removal did not mean the recognition by the Chilean government of the land limit postulated by Peru.[30].
The earthquake in southern Peru that occurred on June 23, 2001 (magnitude 8.4) severely damaged the Peru lighthouse, its remains falling on both sides of the parallel. Peruvian machinery removed it in December of that year. The Chilean Foreign Ministry made a formal complaint to its Peruvian counterpart, alleging that these machinery entered Chilean territory (the terrestrial triangle) without authorization.
On October 28, 2005, a bill was presented to the Peruvian Congress for the establishment of straight baselines that would allow defining the domain of the Peruvian maritime territory. With No. 28621, the so-called "Law of baselines of the maritime domain of Peru" was approved by 98 votes in favor and none against[33] during the presidency of Alejandro Toledo, being promulgated on November 3, published the next day in the Official Gazette El Peruano, coming into force on November 5, 2005.
To define the southern sector of the Peruvian sea, said law does not use the parallel of milestone I but a bisector, which, as indicated in article 2, starts from a point located at the coordinates: WGS84,[34] that is, at the 'Concordia point', a place that Peru postulates is where the land limit agreed in 1929 ends and that, until before the ruling was known, it claimed as the starting point of the maritime limit.
The Foreign Minister of Chile, Ignacio Walker, sent the Peruvian government a note of protest, in which he notified that the project and the determinations made by Peru lack any legal effect for Chile and the international community.[33] It also generated a crisis between the governments of both countries, chaired by Alejandro Toledo in Peru and Ricardo Lagos in Chile, which resulted in the latter canceling agreements and meetings with his northern counterpart, while at the same time ordering his Foreign Minister a series of trips to reinforce Chile's position on the litigation.[33].
Dispute in the framework of the case before the Court of The Hague concerning maritime delimitation
On November 9, 2010, the Peruvian agent Wagner presented before the International Court of Justice the 3 volumes that constituted the Peruvian reply to Chile's countermemorial delivered on March 9 of that year. There Peru indicates that the maritime dividing line must start from the “Point of La Concordia”.[39].
In the reply, Peru points out that the photo published in the work of the Chilean delegate Enrique Brieba, before the mixed commission of 1930, is in line with the plans signed by Brieba in 1930, which, according to its position, would demonstrate that the demarcators were convinced that the border began at “Point Concordia”, and that “milestone I” was only the beginning of the series of physical marks and signs that make the limit visible. binational.[10].
During oral arguments, Peru maintained that Chile had been changing its maps and erasing the line from Milestone 1 to Point Concordia, indicating that "'...on the official map of Arica published by Chile in 1966...you can see there that the land border follows the arc past Milestone number 1 to Point Concordia on the coast. That Point Concordia is not in the same place as Milestone number 1...In 1989, Chile republished another large-scale map of the Arica area...the course of the land border that follows an arc in a south-west direction from Landmark number 1 to the coast. However, in 1998, Chile suddenly modified the form of its cartographic presentation... First of all, Chile has deleted, it has deleted that part of the land border that is between Landmark number 1 and the coast. There is simply nothing, they have deleted it. dotted following the parallel of latitude that passes through Milestone number 1, out to sea".[40].
The International Court of Justice was not authorized to define the location of the beginning of the land border, but it did emphasize in paragraph 175 that both the land and maritime borders could begin at different points and that the starting point of the land border is Point Concordia, but that it was not its job to locate it, although it did explain that there are maps that were exposed during the trial where the aforementioned Point Concordia is located.
According to the writer, journalist, diplomat and professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Chile, José Rodríguez Elizondo, the dispute over the micro-territory adjacent to Hito I that occurred in 2005 was one of the triggers for the maritime controversy to be brought to be settled by the International Court of Justice.[41] According to the same author, for this objective, the political power of Peru designed a national strategy, nourishing it with historical, military, political, geopolitical, geographical, oceanographic, commercial, economic, cultural, diplomatic and, privilegedly, legal, to accept and support the initiative through the “surprise factor”, choosing the best moments to act and relying on international public opinion. As a guideline, he developed a handful of tactical directives that had to be executed in parallel. One of these guidelines was related to the terrestrial triangle: "'Actions aimed at preventing Chile from carrying out acts of terrestrial sovereignty in the coastal space juxtaposed to Milestone 1*."[41]*.
Peruvian law creating the La Yarada-Los Palos district of 2015
On November 7, 2015, Law No. 30358 was promulgated by the President of Peru, creating the district of La Yarada-Los Palos in the province of Tacna in the department of Tacna, which was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano the following day. To the northeast it limits with the district of Tacna, to the east it limits with the district of Tacna, and with respect to the south and west, the following:.
Regarding the limit with Chile, established by the aforementioned law, the latter country presented a note of protest, estimating that such law is unenforceable, that is, that it has no legal value to affect the international limit between Chile and Peru.[61].
• - Maritime delimitation controversy between Chile and Peru.
• - History of Chile.
• - History of Peru.
• - Pacific War.
References
[1] ↑ Una referencia indica 16 000 m²[2].
[2] ↑ Un jurista chileno indica 140 metros.[7].
[3] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[4] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[5] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[6] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[7] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[13] ↑ Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Rejoinder of the Government of Chile Archivado el 2 de febrero de 2014 en Wayback Machine. (en inglés) - Dúplica del Gobierno de Chile (en español).: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17192.pdf
[14] ↑ Llanos Mansilla, Hugo (2006). Teoría y práctica del derecho internacional público. Tomo II, volumen I. página 157 Editorial Jurídica de Chile. Santiago.
[15] ↑ La demanda peruana ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia Archivado el 22 de febrero de 2012 en Wayback Machine. Delimitación Marítima entre el Perú y Chile. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú.: http://delimitacionmaritima.rree.gob.pe/demanda.html
[17] ↑ a b Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Reply of the Government of Peru Archivado el 2 de febrero de 2014 en Wayback Machine. (en inglés) - Réplica del Gobierno del Perú (en español).: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17190.pdf
[24] ↑ Varigny, Charles (1974). La guerra del Pacífico. Editorial del Pacífico S.A. Santiago, Chile.
[25] ↑ Tratado de Ancón en Wikisource.
[26] ↑ Brieba, Enrique (1931). Memoria sobre los límites entre Chile y Perú: de acuerdo con el tratado del 3 de junio de 1929 presentada al Ministerio de relaciones exteriores de Chile, Volumes 1-2. Vol. I: Estudio técnico y documentos. Instituto Geográfico Militar, Santiago. Chile.
[27] ↑ Comisión Mixta de Límites entre Perú y Chile Acta Final de la Comisión de Límites con la descripción de los hitos colocados. Arica. 21 de julio de 1930. (Wikisource).
[28] ↑ Declaración sobre zona marítima (1952) Santiago de Chile, 18 de agosto de 1952. (Wikisource).
[29] ↑ Convenio sobre zona especial fronteriza marítima Lima, 4 de diciembre de 1954. (Wikisource).
[30] ↑ Odría, Manuel A. & David Aguilar-Cornejo (1955). Resolución Suprema N.º 23. Delimitación de la zona marítima de las 200 millas. Diario "El Peruano" edición del 23 de enero de 1955.
[31] ↑ a b Embajador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber Pezet (2001). Delimitación de la frontera marítima entre Perú y Chile.(pdf) Archivado el 22 de febrero de 2014 en Wayback Machine.: http://www.contexto.org/pdfs/delimitacion_frontera.pdf
[32] ↑ Acta de la comisión mixta entre Chile y Perú de 1969 Arica, 22 de agosto de 1969. (Wikisource).
[33] ↑ Llanos-Mardones, Ignacio (1999). El Derecho de la Delimitación Marítima en el Pacífico Sudeste. RIL editores. Santiago de Chile. (cita en el párrafo 9.3.3, p.154.
[35] ↑ Servicio Hidrográfico y Oceanográfico. Armada de Chile (pdf) Archivado el 26 de junio de 2011 en Wayback Machine. Catálogo de Cartas y Publicaciones Náuticas - Shoa. 1 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 1 de febrero de 2014.: http://www.shoa.cl/servicios/descargas/pdf/catalogo_03.pdf
[48] ↑ a b Rodríguez-Elizondo, José (junio de 2009). «Conflicto Chile-Perú: Los Hechos que ocultó el Derecho» (PDF). En Fundación Friedrich Ebert, ed. “Análisis y Propuestas - Política Internacional”. Consultado el 1 de febrero de 2014.: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/chile/06784.pdf
[59] ↑ a b Tapia, Alejandro (31 de enero de 2014). «Alan García: "Lo del triángulo terrestre es un problema menor (...). No es el tema básico, esencial ni grande"». Santiago, Chile: Diario La Tercera. Falta la |url= (ayuda).
That according to paragraph 175 of the ruling of the Court of The Hague of 2014, expresses that it may be possible that the beginning of the maritime border does not coincide with the beginning of the land border and in addition the same paragraph 175 indicates that it is the "Point of Concordia, where the land border between the Parties begins".[12] The location of the starting point of the land border would be determined by the Treaty of Lima of 1929, which states that it begins at a point which called "Concordia", distant ten kilometers north of the Lluta river bridge. Furthermore, on the other hand, there is neither the 1929 Treaty nor the 1930 documents indicating that the land border from Milestone 1 to the beginning of the maritime border follows the line of a geographical parallel.
The public discussion on this topic was situated within the framework of the maritime delimitation controversy held between Peru and Chile, and was reactivated in January 2014, as a consequence of the ruling of the International Court of Justice that resolved said controversy, defining the binational maritime border and the starting point of it, and the readings that the authorities of both countries made about it, as it influences this land dispute.[13][14].
Situation of the area in controversy
Contenido
El «Hito 1», punto «Concordia» para Chile, se encuentra localizado en las coordenadas: .
El punto «Concordia» según Perú se encuentra localizado en las coordenadas: según la ley peruana de líneas de base.
Para Chile el área se sitúa al norte de la ciudad de Arica, en la comuna homónima, de la provincia también homónima, localizada en el extremo noroeste de la Región de Arica y Parinacota.
Para el Perú en cambio, se encuentra al sur de la ciudad de Tacna (inmediatamente al sur de la localidad de Santa Rosa), capital de la provincia homónima y del departamento homónimo.
Los beneficios que otorgaba al definitivo poseedor de dicho triángulo revestían cierta importancia cuando aún no estaba definido el límite marítimo, pues si este se apoyaba en un paralelo o en una equidistante, el depender desde cuál de los dos puntos partía comprometería una superficie de mar territorial y patrimonial significante.
Access and exercise of sovereignty
Access from Chilean territory is only possible by four-wheel drive vehicles and in the company of Carabineros de Chile personnel.
From Arica, drive north to an unpaved detour that starts to the left, which is marked by a mound of stones. Traveling through it you travel through a desert area, which after 1 kilometer passes over the railway tracks of the train that connects Arica with Tacna. 1 km from this area is the Chacalluta International Airport, and to the west is the Limar Lighthouse, belonging to the Chilean Navy, as well as the “Enfilación Concordia” Lighthouse, which marks the location of the parallel of the maritime limit for vessels. Continuing along the path, the difference in level of about 2 meters represented by the Escritos ravine is overcome by means of a bridge, which empties its waters into the Pacific Ocean south of “Point Concordia”. About 8 km further south of that mouth is the Lluta River, a regionally important river course. The area in controversy is located in an area planted with dangerous antipersonnel mines; Their presence, indicated by signs, is delimited by barbed wire fences. Likewise, torrential rains can change the position of these war artifacts.
According to the Peruvian version, the police monitor the triangle area based on the "Francisco Bolognesi surveillance post."[15].
According to the Chilean version, the Milestone 1 sector is guarded 24 hours a day by 3 officials from the "Quebrada de Escritos observation post" which is in charge of police from the "Fourth Chacalluta Police Station", while another official is in charge of monitoring the border on the beach, from a sentry box 304 meters south of Milestone 1[1][16].
It is not clear whether the triangle itself is patrolled by Chile, Peru, both, or neither. Although it has buildings from both countries in its vicinity, none have remained within the same triangle. In the past, there was a Peruvian lighthouse (about 6 meters west of milestone I and crossed by its parallel), which was destroyed by an earthquake, and a guardhouse built by the Chilean Navy (in the area adjacent to the beach immediately south of the parallel of milestone I), which generated a note of protest from the Peruvian state, and which was removed a few days later by order of the Chilean state itself, so as not to alter the harmony in the border area and between both countries as the official position maintained. Chilean.
Background
Originalmente la zona, al igual que la región septentrional de Chile, pertenecía al Perú, pero como consecuencia de la derrota militar de este a manos de aquel en un conflicto suscitado en el siglo (denominado Guerra del Pacífico) Chile pasó a controlar no solo el sector actualmente situado en el extremo norte chileno sino que también lo que hoy es el extremo sur del Perú.[17] Mediante el Tratado de Ancón (del 20 de octubre de 1883) Chile logró «perpetua e incondicionalmente» el dominio sobre el departamento peruano de Tarapacá "Departamento de Tarapacá (Perú)"), y el control por 10 años de las provincias también peruanas de Tacna y Arica "Provincia de Arica (Perú)"). Al expirar dicho plazo, mediante un plebiscito a sus pobladores se definiría a quién serían adjudicadas.[18].
La consulta a los pobladores de Tacna y Arica no se realizó, y en cambio el límite binacional fue definido mediante el Tratado de Lima, firmado el 3 de junio de 1929.
Treaty of Lima of 1929
After the Pacific War, the Treaty of Ancón of 1883 and the subsequent Treaty of Lima of 1929 established the land border between Chile and Peru.
Installation of border markers and act of 1930
The mixed binational commission in charge of putting into practice what was established in the Treaty of Lima of 1929, a few months after its signing, differed on what was the starting point from which the border should then be drawn to the east. The delegate for Chile proposed that in the area called Pampa de Escritos be found the point that is located 10 km to the true north of the bridge over said river, and from that point begin to head east following the arc that would always remain parallel 10 km from the railway tracks that connect Arica with La Paz; Furthermore, from that initial point, the border had to continue to the coast of the Pacific Ocean through the parallel of latitude of said point. The delegate from Peru, on the other hand, argued that the limit should be marked by milestones starting from the coast at a point located 10 km away from the Lluta River bridge. The last sector of the border - towards the west - should follow an arc. Each point of that arc would be ten kilometers from said bridge.
Due to this divergence, in February 1930 the demarcation of the border was not continued and the decision was made to take the problem to the chancelleries so that it could be resolved by common agreement.
Delegates from both countries met in Santiago. Chile was represented by Minister Manuel Barros Castañón"), while ambassador César Elguera did the same for Peru. As a result of this meeting, a series of provisions were drafted to be applied when demarcating the border from the Pampa de Escritos to the sea coast; these guidelines were sent to the mixed commission on April 28, 1930. Those received by each delegation were identical to those given to the counterpart delegation. As for Concerning the terrestrial triangle, the guidelines sent to Enrique Brieba - head of the Chilean delegation -, as published the following year by Brieba himself, were the following:
The mixed commission acted according to the instructions given, actions that were later recorded in a report called: "Final Act of the Boundary Commission with the description of the milestones placed" dated July 21, 1930. It bears the signatures of both delegates: Enrique Brieba - for Chile - and Federico Basadre - for Peru. The phrases related to the triangle in question are the following:.
According to the orders given by the representatives of both countries, the landmark that begins could be installed “at any point of the arch, as close to the sea as possible” but “protected from being destroyed by ocean waters”. The demarcators agreed that the most appropriate point to erect the milestone was the one located at the coordinates: , which was located 180 meters from the coastline. In the coding used by the mixed commission it was called "Hito I", with the situation clarified: "Orilla de Mar". In Brieba's work, a photograph was published showing the delegates in charge of demarcating the border located on the same seashore; The image has the phrase written on it: “The border on the beach.”
History of the controversy
Events that occurred during the 20th century
On August 18, 1952, both countries (along with Ecuador) signed in Santiago de Chile the so-called: "Declaration of Maritime Zone", through which they claimed marine waters up to 200 nautical miles immediately off their coasts. In its article IV it said:
Two years later, to complement the previous agreement, the three countries signed on December 4, 1954 in Lima the so-called: "Agreement on special maritime border zone." With it they sought to create a special zone in the sea that would be located beyond 12 nautical miles from its shores and that would consist of a strip with a width of 10 nautical miles. The objective was to organize coastal artisanal fishing and thus avoid jurisdictional conflicts. Here, as in the previous treatise, we speak again of limits located on parallels:
Weeks later, the president of the Republic of Peru Manuel A. Odría and David Aguilar Cornejo - his minister of foreign affairs - signed Supreme Resolution No. 23 on January 12, 1955, called: "Delimitation of the 200-mile maritime zone", which was published on the 23rd of the same month. It ordered how the external delimitation of the Peruvian sea should be drawn. Point 2 refers to the fact that in the layout of the 200 nautical miles of Peru's heritage sea, the parallel marked by the point where the international border arrives cannot be exceeded:
In the second half of the 1960s, representatives of both countries agreed on the need to build land aids to facilitate navigation and thus avoid incidents that occurred when vessels from one country mistakenly crossed to fish in the waters of the neighboring country. It was agreed that two lighthouses would be erected aligned in line on the parallel that crosses Milestone I and on both sides of it.
On April 26, 1968, the technical delegations designated by both countries to build physical navigation aids signed an agreement. The minutes indicate that the mark before milestone 1 would be in Peruvian territory and the mark after in Chilean territory.
On August 22, 1969, a mixed commission was formed with representatives of the two countries, which had to verify the original geographical position of Milestone I (concrete) and.
The members of the mixed commission, meeting in Arica, signed a record listing the tasks carried out, and in which the methodology used is technically detailed. The state of abandonment of landmark I (which was down) is also described. Two towers would be built (one for each country and on its respective soil), so that they can be seen from the sea forming a row, with the focal point of each lighthouse being located at an approximate height above the ground of 22 meters in the case of the previous tower (Peruvian, called "Faro de la Concordia")[24] and 20 meters in the later tower (Chilean). Point A2 states:
At point B2 it is indicated that to the west of milestone 1 is Peruvian territory and to the east of milestone 1 is Chilean territory:.
As a consummation of the work carried out by the mixed commission, in 1972 each country built its own lighthouse at the points already agreed upon, both on the parallel and, as stated in the minutes, in its own territory.
. However, given the possibility that the 1969 Act had unified the maritime term with the land term as of Milestone I, it has been pointed out that, in 1999, Ignacio Llanos Mardones - then first secretary of the Chilean diplomatic service - was against such an idea, in a book of his authorship, by maintaining "'that the terminus of the land border corresponds to the terminal point of the arc, Concordia", although this does not agree with the point of the beginning of the maritime limit.[26] This opinion is not in line with the position of your country in which both terms (maritime and land) must converge at the same point.
On May 23, 1986, the Foreign Minister of Peru Allan Wagner sent his ambassador in Santiago de Chile, Juan Miguel Bákula, to report the need for his government to begin negotiations that would allow the signing of a border treaty that defines the maritime border between the two republics, which, according to what Peru had postulated, still remained to be drawn.[27] At the headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, the ambassador explained to the chancellor Chilean Jaime del Valle the reasons for his mission. At the end, del Valle asked him to write down what he said, so as to leave it in writing. Responding to the request, the ambassador quickly drafted the document that would later be called, in the context of the border problems between these nations, as the 'Bákula Memorandum'.[27] In said document the Peruvian ambassador expressed himself about the significance of the point that originates the parallel that demarcates the special fishing zone:
On August 30, 1998[28] the Hydrographic and Oceanographic Service of the Chilean Navy (SHOA) published the tenth edition of the navigation chart named 'Chile. Rada and Puerto de Arica'', on a scale of 1: 25,000,[29] the same chart that it had been publishing since 1973, with the addition of the new changes produced in the covered area, just as it had done with the 1989 edition (navigation chart No. 101). In previous editions, the Chile-Peru land boundary was drawn as the extension of the arc that joins the first milestones until it touches the sea; but in the 1998 edition, the curved line upon reaching milestone I no longer continues in said curvilinear orientation until it reaches the maritime edge, since from that milestone it continues westwards on the parallel of said milestone and thus crosses the coastal shore, continuing then into the ocean, also demarcating with said parallel the territorial waters of both countries. The degree of detail that the chosen scale gives to the map is adequate to show what the binational demarcation is according to the opinion that Chile will maintain during the century. This letter was sent to the United Nations, and was later reproduced by the Division of Ocean Affairs. Fernando de Trazegnies, the chancellor of Peru at that time, showed his government's disagreement with the Chilean navigation chart through a note of protest, which was received by the Chilean embassy in Lima on October 20, 2000.[30].
The response from the Chancellor of the Government of Chile, Soledad Alvear, was received on November 22, 2000, and it emphatically notified the Peruvian government that the Navigation Chart in question "has been prepared based on international law and in strict respect of the agreements signed with Peru, previously", and added that the treaties of 1952 and 1954 were ratified in the minutes of 1968 and 1969.[30].
On December 27, 2000, the note was responded to by the chancellor of the government of Peru, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, indicating to his colleague that he did not share his position, since both countries had not yet signed a maritime border treaty, as Peru had already communicated at the time through the so-called 'Bákula memorandum'.[30]
Furthermore, the acts of 1968 and 1969 were not approved by the Congress of Peru, as required by the Constitution in force at that time.
Half a month later, the Peruvian government delivered a statement to Kofi Annan – Secretary General of the United Nations – in which it notified the Organization of its disagreement with the document that Chile had presented in September 2000.[30].
Events that occurred during the 21st century
The Peruvian law of territorial demarcation of the province of Tacna, Department of Tacna (Law No. 27415) of February 2001, states that the Province of Tacna limits to the southwest with the Pacific Ocean and that.
In March 2001 the guardhouse incident occurred, on that occasion the Marine Corps of the Chilean Navy located a guardhouse between Hito I and the seashore.[24] On April 10 of that year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, protested through a diplomatic note, in which he expressed:
The Chilean Foreign Minister, Soledad Alvear, responded in a note on April 11, 2001, stating that:
The incident was finally overcome on April 12, with the decision of the Government of Chile to remove the booth from its location, due to the exclusive and lofty purpose of contributing to harmony in the border area",[32] although the chancellor pointed out that its removal did not mean the recognition by the Chilean government of the land limit postulated by Peru.[30].
The earthquake in southern Peru that occurred on June 23, 2001 (magnitude 8.4) severely damaged the Peru lighthouse, its remains falling on both sides of the parallel. Peruvian machinery removed it in December of that year. The Chilean Foreign Ministry made a formal complaint to its Peruvian counterpart, alleging that these machinery entered Chilean territory (the terrestrial triangle) without authorization.
On October 28, 2005, a bill was presented to the Peruvian Congress for the establishment of straight baselines that would allow defining the domain of the Peruvian maritime territory. With No. 28621, the so-called "Law of baselines of the maritime domain of Peru" was approved by 98 votes in favor and none against[33] during the presidency of Alejandro Toledo, being promulgated on November 3, published the next day in the Official Gazette El Peruano, coming into force on November 5, 2005.
To define the southern sector of the Peruvian sea, said law does not use the parallel of milestone I but a bisector, which, as indicated in article 2, starts from a point located at the coordinates: WGS84,[34] that is, at the 'Concordia point', a place that Peru postulates is where the land limit agreed in 1929 ends and that, until before the ruling was known, it claimed as the starting point of the maritime limit.
The Foreign Minister of Chile, Ignacio Walker, sent the Peruvian government a note of protest, in which he notified that the project and the determinations made by Peru lack any legal effect for Chile and the international community.[33] It also generated a crisis between the governments of both countries, chaired by Alejandro Toledo in Peru and Ricardo Lagos in Chile, which resulted in the latter canceling agreements and meetings with his northern counterpart, while at the same time ordering his Foreign Minister a series of trips to reinforce Chile's position on the litigation.[33].
Dispute in the framework of the case before the Court of The Hague concerning maritime delimitation
On November 9, 2010, the Peruvian agent Wagner presented before the International Court of Justice the 3 volumes that constituted the Peruvian reply to Chile's countermemorial delivered on March 9 of that year. There Peru indicates that the maritime dividing line must start from the “Point of La Concordia”.[39].
In the reply, Peru points out that the photo published in the work of the Chilean delegate Enrique Brieba, before the mixed commission of 1930, is in line with the plans signed by Brieba in 1930, which, according to its position, would demonstrate that the demarcators were convinced that the border began at “Point Concordia”, and that “milestone I” was only the beginning of the series of physical marks and signs that make the limit visible. binational.[10].
During oral arguments, Peru maintained that Chile had been changing its maps and erasing the line from Milestone 1 to Point Concordia, indicating that "'...on the official map of Arica published by Chile in 1966...you can see there that the land border follows the arc past Milestone number 1 to Point Concordia on the coast. That Point Concordia is not in the same place as Milestone number 1...In 1989, Chile republished another large-scale map of the Arica area...the course of the land border that follows an arc in a south-west direction from Landmark number 1 to the coast. However, in 1998, Chile suddenly modified the form of its cartographic presentation... First of all, Chile has deleted, it has deleted that part of the land border that is between Landmark number 1 and the coast. There is simply nothing, they have deleted it. dotted following the parallel of latitude that passes through Milestone number 1, out to sea".[40].
The International Court of Justice was not authorized to define the location of the beginning of the land border, but it did emphasize in paragraph 175 that both the land and maritime borders could begin at different points and that the starting point of the land border is Point Concordia, but that it was not its job to locate it, although it did explain that there are maps that were exposed during the trial where the aforementioned Point Concordia is located.
According to the writer, journalist, diplomat and professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Chile, José Rodríguez Elizondo, the dispute over the micro-territory adjacent to Hito I that occurred in 2005 was one of the triggers for the maritime controversy to be brought to be settled by the International Court of Justice.[41] According to the same author, for this objective, the political power of Peru designed a national strategy, nourishing it with historical, military, political, geopolitical, geographical, oceanographic, commercial, economic, cultural, diplomatic and, privilegedly, legal, to accept and support the initiative through the “surprise factor”, choosing the best moments to act and relying on international public opinion. As a guideline, he developed a handful of tactical directives that had to be executed in parallel. One of these guidelines was related to the terrestrial triangle: "'Actions aimed at preventing Chile from carrying out acts of terrestrial sovereignty in the coastal space juxtaposed to Milestone 1*."[41]*.
Peruvian law creating the La Yarada-Los Palos district of 2015
On November 7, 2015, Law No. 30358 was promulgated by the President of Peru, creating the district of La Yarada-Los Palos in the province of Tacna in the department of Tacna, which was published in the Official Gazette El Peruano the following day. To the northeast it limits with the district of Tacna, to the east it limits with the district of Tacna, and with respect to the south and west, the following:.
Regarding the limit with Chile, established by the aforementioned law, the latter country presented a note of protest, estimating that such law is unenforceable, that is, that it has no legal value to affect the international limit between Chile and Peru.[61].
• - Maritime delimitation controversy between Chile and Peru.
• - History of Chile.
• - History of Peru.
• - Pacific War.
References
[1] ↑ Una referencia indica 16 000 m²[2].
[2] ↑ Un jurista chileno indica 140 metros.[7].
[3] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[4] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[5] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[6] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[7] ↑ Documento editado por el Gobierno del Perú y presentado ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia en la Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile).
[13] ↑ Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Rejoinder of the Government of Chile Archivado el 2 de febrero de 2014 en Wayback Machine. (en inglés) - Dúplica del Gobierno de Chile (en español).: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17192.pdf
[14] ↑ Llanos Mansilla, Hugo (2006). Teoría y práctica del derecho internacional público. Tomo II, volumen I. página 157 Editorial Jurídica de Chile. Santiago.
[15] ↑ La demanda peruana ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia Archivado el 22 de febrero de 2012 en Wayback Machine. Delimitación Marítima entre el Perú y Chile. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores del Perú.: http://delimitacionmaritima.rree.gob.pe/demanda.html
[17] ↑ a b Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) - Reply of the Government of Peru Archivado el 2 de febrero de 2014 en Wayback Machine. (en inglés) - Réplica del Gobierno del Perú (en español).: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17190.pdf
[24] ↑ Varigny, Charles (1974). La guerra del Pacífico. Editorial del Pacífico S.A. Santiago, Chile.
[25] ↑ Tratado de Ancón en Wikisource.
[26] ↑ Brieba, Enrique (1931). Memoria sobre los límites entre Chile y Perú: de acuerdo con el tratado del 3 de junio de 1929 presentada al Ministerio de relaciones exteriores de Chile, Volumes 1-2. Vol. I: Estudio técnico y documentos. Instituto Geográfico Militar, Santiago. Chile.
[27] ↑ Comisión Mixta de Límites entre Perú y Chile Acta Final de la Comisión de Límites con la descripción de los hitos colocados. Arica. 21 de julio de 1930. (Wikisource).
[28] ↑ Declaración sobre zona marítima (1952) Santiago de Chile, 18 de agosto de 1952. (Wikisource).
[29] ↑ Convenio sobre zona especial fronteriza marítima Lima, 4 de diciembre de 1954. (Wikisource).
[30] ↑ Odría, Manuel A. & David Aguilar-Cornejo (1955). Resolución Suprema N.º 23. Delimitación de la zona marítima de las 200 millas. Diario "El Peruano" edición del 23 de enero de 1955.
[31] ↑ a b Embajador Alfonso Arias-Schreiber Pezet (2001). Delimitación de la frontera marítima entre Perú y Chile.(pdf) Archivado el 22 de febrero de 2014 en Wayback Machine.: http://www.contexto.org/pdfs/delimitacion_frontera.pdf
[32] ↑ Acta de la comisión mixta entre Chile y Perú de 1969 Arica, 22 de agosto de 1969. (Wikisource).
[33] ↑ Llanos-Mardones, Ignacio (1999). El Derecho de la Delimitación Marítima en el Pacífico Sudeste. RIL editores. Santiago de Chile. (cita en el párrafo 9.3.3, p.154.
[35] ↑ Servicio Hidrográfico y Oceanográfico. Armada de Chile (pdf) Archivado el 26 de junio de 2011 en Wayback Machine. Catálogo de Cartas y Publicaciones Náuticas - Shoa. 1 de diciembre de 2013. Consultado el 1 de febrero de 2014.: http://www.shoa.cl/servicios/descargas/pdf/catalogo_03.pdf
[48] ↑ a b Rodríguez-Elizondo, José (junio de 2009). «Conflicto Chile-Perú: Los Hechos que ocultó el Derecho» (PDF). En Fundación Friedrich Ebert, ed. “Análisis y Propuestas - Política Internacional”. Consultado el 1 de febrero de 2014.: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/chile/06784.pdf
[59] ↑ a b Tapia, Alejandro (31 de enero de 2014). «Alan García: "Lo del triángulo terrestre es un problema menor (...). No es el tema básico, esencial ni grande"». Santiago, Chile: Diario La Tercera. Falta la |url= (ayuda).
On December 19, 2006, the National Congress of Chile approved the bill creating the Arica and Parinacota Region. The second paragraph contemplated the limits of the new region; Its article 1 stated that the northwest border was "the parallel of Milestone No. 1 in the Chilean Sea." This section originated in an indication presented by President Michelle Bachelet during the second constitutional process of the project. On January 10, 2007, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry delivered to the Chilean ambassador in Lima, Cristián Barros, a note of protest for the limits considered in said bill as the northern border of the new region, indicating that they violate the Treaty of Lima 1929. On January 24, 2007, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry sent Chile a second protest note.
On January 26, 2007, the section in question was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Chile due to a formal defect, "because its content has no direct relationship with the matrix or fundamental ideas of the original Executive project on the matter, thus violating article 69, first paragraph, of the Fundamental Charter", referring to the procedure for the formation of the law, being eliminated from its text. By virtue of said elimination, those that had already been designated for the provinces of Arica and Parinacota in 1989 by Decree with Force of Law No. 2-18175 of the Ministry of the Interior were considered as limits of the new region, which indicates in a more ambiguous way - with regard to the terrestrial triangle - as limits of the province of Arica:.
Following the publication of the "Baseline Law of the Maritime Domain of Peru" in the section on Legislation and Treaties of the website of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) - of the United Nations (UN) -, the government of Chile on May 27, 2007 sent a note to the aforementioned organization to inform of its disagreement with some statements of said law, as a reservation of its sovereign rights.
According to Chile, point No. 266, which this law calls “Southern Terminus Point” and “Point on the coast of the Chile-Peru international terrestrial boundary” and to which it assigns the coordinates, does not coincide with the measurements established by the mixed commissions, so it does not comply with the agreed boundary line.[36].
The Chilean document was published two days later on the website of the United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea.
In response, on August 10 of that year, the Peruvian government sent a document to the United Nations indicating that point No. 266 of its baseline law corresponds to “Point Concordia” cited in the 1929 Treaty, which during the demarcation of the border by the mixed commission agreed that the beginning of the land border is the point where the Pacific intersects with the 10 km radius arc that forms the axis of the bridge of the Lluta River, and that:.
On January 17, 2008, a law was published that modifies article 3 of Law No. 27415 on the demarcation of the Province of Tacna, issued in 2001, indicating that the limit begins at Point Concordia.
After the ruling, and regarding the land triangle, Chilean President Sebastián Piñera stated about the court's decision: "*... it substantially confirms the Chilean position. The confirmation of Milestone 1 ratifies our dominance over the respective land triangle."[42] He also indicated that: "this decision is of additional importance, since although both countries disagreed regarding where the maritime border began, Milestone 1, according to Chile, point 266, according to Peru, both Countries have always agreed that the maritime border begins at the last point of the land border”.[43].
For his part, the future Foreign Minister of Chile Heraldo Muñoz confirmed the president's statements, stating that "The so-called "Point Concordia" belongs to Chile and I believe that this is very clearly established. The president himself has said it."[44].
Former Foreign Minister Juan Gabriel Valdés stated on the subject that: “By marking Milestone 1, good common sense and the good will of the countries should make it clear that here is a picture that confirms Chile's historical position, that this triangle is part of Chilean territory.”[2].
Regarding the land delimitation controversy, the former president of Chile Eduardo Frei expressed that “it is absurd” that Peru maintains that the so-called "terrestrial triangle" is Peruvian, demanding more firmness from the authorities of his country: «La Moneda must “stand firm” and demand that Peru establish that there will be no more territorial claims. Not two days have passed since the ruling and we are already seeing new situations. Yesterday we saw the Peruvian Parliament, the president of the Foreign Relations Commission, then the minister, then various authorities» (...) «*Until when? We cannot continue to accept it. (...) «I believe that Chile has to be extremely firm in this.» (...) «Here comes an execution document in which all this has to be clear: that there are no pending conflicts, that once and for all they will end and Peru recognizes this situation...» «One, two, three, four or five years may pass... Suppose that Mr. Alan García is elected again – I hope not for the interests of Chile – is he going to raise another case again? That is why this has to be absolutely closed when the Hague ruling is executed. Chile must ask the United Nations, under whose umbrella the International Court operates, to make a clear and resounding statement and establish that all pending issues have been completed."[45].
According to the Peruvian press, in a meeting at the Palacio de la Moneda that President Piñera held on January 28, 2014 with political leaders, the latter suggested that he demand that Peru recognize that the land limit ends at the parallel crossed by Milestone I.[46].
The Foreign Minister of Chile, Alfredo Moreno, pointed out that: «(about) this terrestrial triangle that is at the end, there is no pending issue, because that is Chilean. It should be something that was absolutely clear».[46] In response to the colleague from Peru, who indicated that there was a dry coast, the chancellor expressed: «...they have pointed out as an alternative that this point was “dry coast”, but that has a difficulty: it would be a dry coast that Peru has granted in the years 68 and 69 without having said a word about it».[46].
The same chancellor, in a note for Peruvian television, clarified that: "...the ruling has not said anything about the layout of the land border, as the Court has expressly said, and there is no disagreement between the two countries either, the only point here is that Peru maintained that the beginning of the maritime border was Point 266. Both countries were in full agreement that the beginning of the maritime border was where the land border ends."»[5].
Andrés Chadwick, Minister of the Interior of Chile, pointed out that: "...for Chile it is absolutely clear what its land limit is, it is in the 1929 Treaty, it is implemented in the binational boundary commissions and is established in the so-called Milestone 1 and was strongly supported by what was indicated by the Court of The Hague when it points out that the maritime limit begins in the parallel that passes through Milestone 1 and that in international law is very clear, that where the maritime limit begins is where the limit ends. terrestrial.»[5].
Chadwick also indicated that: "...what matters is that for Chile it is very clear where the land boundary begins, this has been respected, and has remained unchanged since 1929 (...) In the case of Chile the land border is finalized, ratified and reinforced by the ruling of the court in The Hague."[47].
Foreign Minister Eda Rivas, faced with the phrases of Chilean President Piñera, who proclaimed that the ruling “ratifies (Chilean) dominion over the respective terrestrial triangle*”, responded that:* «No, that is not the case. This [the land boundary] is not in controversy. This is an issue defined in the 1929 treaty. We are going to have about 300 meters of dry coast. It is not usual, but there are six cases in the world in which it has been determined that there is a dry coast."[11].
When delivering an analysis of the ruling, the chancellor noted that: "We consider that we do not have any pending issues regarding the land border, therefore this is not a matter of discussion nor has it been a matter of discussion in what has been the ruling, Peru considers that it has no pending issues regarding land matters. The terrestrial triangle is national territory."[48].
Allan Wagner, who was the Peruvian agent before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, agreed with the chancellor: "This is a case of maritime delimitation, which has nothing to do with territorial issues. In this way, there is no relationship with the so-called terrestrial triangle." ... "...the land border was established with the Treaty of 1929 and the demarcation commissions of 1929 and 1930, which set the limit point Concord”.[49].
José Antonio García Belaúnde, Peruvian co-agent before the International Court, pointed out that regarding the possibility that Chile attempted to condition the implementation of the ruling on a recognition by the Peruvian government of Chilean dominion in the area of the terrestrial triangle[46] the land limit with Chile is not in discussion because it was settled by the Treaty of 1929, indicating that in the ruling the Court of The Hague indicates this. "(That) «should not be the issue. It is clear in the Hague ruling». He also maintained that it is better to wait for «the waters to calm down».[50].
The former president of Peru, Alan García, maintained that the land triangle claimed by Chile belongs to Peru, that this is sealed in the Treaty of Lima of 1929 and that the Chilean demand for its transfer by Peru cannot be a condition for compliance with the ruling. «The court has not touched on the issue, it is part of another treaty, let's not mix potatoes with sweet potatoes. If it is immediate or gradual (the execution of the ruling), it must be done without conditions, that (from La Moneda) they do not tell me to sign the Sea Convention, they do not tell me to change the Constitution and they do not ask me for the terrestrial triangle, those are internal issues. It would be absurd for Peru to exacerbate this issue, legally that small triangle belongs to Peru. We have to act with serenity, not step on the stick, that only falls due to its weight, like the Hague ruling, because Peru was right.»[51].
In an interview given in Lima to a Chilean media, to the question: "What do you think of the signals that have been given from Chile regarding the terrestrial triangle, in terms of recognizing that this triangle belongs to Chile?" responded: «Well, there is a different opinion here in Peru. But I do not believe that destiny, the wealth of the well-being of the Chilean people, nor the well-being of the Peruvian people depend on that. It is a topic of discussion that always exists between nations. This has sometimes happened, even in smaller territories. The Earth triangle thing is a minor problem. Things cannot be done in the next 15 hours."[52] To the question: "Does the Hague ruling put a definitive end to the territorial disputes?" He responded: «I think so. Yes, absolutely. Although don't think that I'm not interested in the topic of the little triangle. It seems to me that it is going to stay there, but it has its own instruments and it is not the basic, essential or great theme. If we agree on the issue of the triangle or the president of the United States arbitrates - I think that's what the Treaty of '29 says -, if I were the president of Peru, I would sign something."[52].
Eduardo Ferrero, former chancellor of Peru and one of the members of that country's legal team before the court in The Hague, pointed out that the ruling does not affect the land limit: «The ruling is about maritime limits, not about land limits. The Point of Concord is in force as the terminus of the land border».[53].
Furthermore, in Peru it has been said that a "dry" coast is not formed in itself (without a drop of water), since the waters that for some hours of the day are on the beach from the low tide line to the high tide line are considered part of the land.[54] Legally, a state with territories with a "dry coast" cannot exercise sovereignty and economic exploitation over the adjacent waters that would have corresponded to it if it had had normal coasts there.
After the Congress of Peru approved the law that adapts the Base Lines of the Maritime Domain of Peru in accordance with the ruling of the Court of The Hague,[55] on August 18, 2014 in Lima, a supreme decree was published that approves the External Limits Charter -southern sector- of the maritime domain of Peru. Three days later, the Peruvian president, Ollanta Humala, announced that his country would send the External Limits Charter -southern sector- to the UN. However, after a conversation between the foreign ministers of Chile and Peru, the commitment of both countries to jointly present to the UN the cartography and the minutes of the bilateral commission that established the coordinates of the maritime limit established by the Hague ruling was ratified.[56][57].
In the External Limits Chart -southern sector- of the maritime domain of Peru, the beginning of the land border with Chile appears at the point of Concord, unlike the Chilean opinion that fixes it at the intersection of the parallel that crosses "Landmark No. 1" with the low tide line, and which corresponds to the starting point of the binational maritime border.[58].
On August 20, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies of Chile approved a draft agreement to support the position of the Chilean Government regarding the dissemination of the new Peruvian cartography.[59].
On December 19, 2006, the National Congress of Chile approved the bill creating the Arica and Parinacota Region. The second paragraph contemplated the limits of the new region; Its article 1 stated that the northwest border was "the parallel of Milestone No. 1 in the Chilean Sea." This section originated in an indication presented by President Michelle Bachelet during the second constitutional process of the project. On January 10, 2007, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry delivered to the Chilean ambassador in Lima, Cristián Barros, a note of protest for the limits considered in said bill as the northern border of the new region, indicating that they violate the Treaty of Lima 1929. On January 24, 2007, the Peruvian Foreign Ministry sent Chile a second protest note.
On January 26, 2007, the section in question was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Chile due to a formal defect, "because its content has no direct relationship with the matrix or fundamental ideas of the original Executive project on the matter, thus violating article 69, first paragraph, of the Fundamental Charter", referring to the procedure for the formation of the law, being eliminated from its text. By virtue of said elimination, those that had already been designated for the provinces of Arica and Parinacota in 1989 by Decree with Force of Law No. 2-18175 of the Ministry of the Interior were considered as limits of the new region, which indicates in a more ambiguous way - with regard to the terrestrial triangle - as limits of the province of Arica:.
Following the publication of the "Baseline Law of the Maritime Domain of Peru" in the section on Legislation and Treaties of the website of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS) - of the United Nations (UN) -, the government of Chile on May 27, 2007 sent a note to the aforementioned organization to inform of its disagreement with some statements of said law, as a reservation of its sovereign rights.
According to Chile, point No. 266, which this law calls “Southern Terminus Point” and “Point on the coast of the Chile-Peru international terrestrial boundary” and to which it assigns the coordinates, does not coincide with the measurements established by the mixed commissions, so it does not comply with the agreed boundary line.[36].
The Chilean document was published two days later on the website of the United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea.
In response, on August 10 of that year, the Peruvian government sent a document to the United Nations indicating that point No. 266 of its baseline law corresponds to “Point Concordia” cited in the 1929 Treaty, which during the demarcation of the border by the mixed commission agreed that the beginning of the land border is the point where the Pacific intersects with the 10 km radius arc that forms the axis of the bridge of the Lluta River, and that:.
On January 17, 2008, a law was published that modifies article 3 of Law No. 27415 on the demarcation of the Province of Tacna, issued in 2001, indicating that the limit begins at Point Concordia.
After the ruling, and regarding the land triangle, Chilean President Sebastián Piñera stated about the court's decision: "*... it substantially confirms the Chilean position. The confirmation of Milestone 1 ratifies our dominance over the respective land triangle."[42] He also indicated that: "this decision is of additional importance, since although both countries disagreed regarding where the maritime border began, Milestone 1, according to Chile, point 266, according to Peru, both Countries have always agreed that the maritime border begins at the last point of the land border”.[43].
For his part, the future Foreign Minister of Chile Heraldo Muñoz confirmed the president's statements, stating that "The so-called "Point Concordia" belongs to Chile and I believe that this is very clearly established. The president himself has said it."[44].
Former Foreign Minister Juan Gabriel Valdés stated on the subject that: “By marking Milestone 1, good common sense and the good will of the countries should make it clear that here is a picture that confirms Chile's historical position, that this triangle is part of Chilean territory.”[2].
Regarding the land delimitation controversy, the former president of Chile Eduardo Frei expressed that “it is absurd” that Peru maintains that the so-called "terrestrial triangle" is Peruvian, demanding more firmness from the authorities of his country: «La Moneda must “stand firm” and demand that Peru establish that there will be no more territorial claims. Not two days have passed since the ruling and we are already seeing new situations. Yesterday we saw the Peruvian Parliament, the president of the Foreign Relations Commission, then the minister, then various authorities» (...) «*Until when? We cannot continue to accept it. (...) «I believe that Chile has to be extremely firm in this.» (...) «Here comes an execution document in which all this has to be clear: that there are no pending conflicts, that once and for all they will end and Peru recognizes this situation...» «One, two, three, four or five years may pass... Suppose that Mr. Alan García is elected again – I hope not for the interests of Chile – is he going to raise another case again? That is why this has to be absolutely closed when the Hague ruling is executed. Chile must ask the United Nations, under whose umbrella the International Court operates, to make a clear and resounding statement and establish that all pending issues have been completed."[45].
According to the Peruvian press, in a meeting at the Palacio de la Moneda that President Piñera held on January 28, 2014 with political leaders, the latter suggested that he demand that Peru recognize that the land limit ends at the parallel crossed by Milestone I.[46].
The Foreign Minister of Chile, Alfredo Moreno, pointed out that: «(about) this terrestrial triangle that is at the end, there is no pending issue, because that is Chilean. It should be something that was absolutely clear».[46] In response to the colleague from Peru, who indicated that there was a dry coast, the chancellor expressed: «...they have pointed out as an alternative that this point was “dry coast”, but that has a difficulty: it would be a dry coast that Peru has granted in the years 68 and 69 without having said a word about it».[46].
The same chancellor, in a note for Peruvian television, clarified that: "...the ruling has not said anything about the layout of the land border, as the Court has expressly said, and there is no disagreement between the two countries either, the only point here is that Peru maintained that the beginning of the maritime border was Point 266. Both countries were in full agreement that the beginning of the maritime border was where the land border ends."»[5].
Andrés Chadwick, Minister of the Interior of Chile, pointed out that: "...for Chile it is absolutely clear what its land limit is, it is in the 1929 Treaty, it is implemented in the binational boundary commissions and is established in the so-called Milestone 1 and was strongly supported by what was indicated by the Court of The Hague when it points out that the maritime limit begins in the parallel that passes through Milestone 1 and that in international law is very clear, that where the maritime limit begins is where the limit ends. terrestrial.»[5].
Chadwick also indicated that: "...what matters is that for Chile it is very clear where the land boundary begins, this has been respected, and has remained unchanged since 1929 (...) In the case of Chile the land border is finalized, ratified and reinforced by the ruling of the court in The Hague."[47].
Foreign Minister Eda Rivas, faced with the phrases of Chilean President Piñera, who proclaimed that the ruling “ratifies (Chilean) dominion over the respective terrestrial triangle*”, responded that:* «No, that is not the case. This [the land boundary] is not in controversy. This is an issue defined in the 1929 treaty. We are going to have about 300 meters of dry coast. It is not usual, but there are six cases in the world in which it has been determined that there is a dry coast."[11].
When delivering an analysis of the ruling, the chancellor noted that: "We consider that we do not have any pending issues regarding the land border, therefore this is not a matter of discussion nor has it been a matter of discussion in what has been the ruling, Peru considers that it has no pending issues regarding land matters. The terrestrial triangle is national territory."[48].
Allan Wagner, who was the Peruvian agent before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, agreed with the chancellor: "This is a case of maritime delimitation, which has nothing to do with territorial issues. In this way, there is no relationship with the so-called terrestrial triangle." ... "...the land border was established with the Treaty of 1929 and the demarcation commissions of 1929 and 1930, which set the limit point Concord”.[49].
José Antonio García Belaúnde, Peruvian co-agent before the International Court, pointed out that regarding the possibility that Chile attempted to condition the implementation of the ruling on a recognition by the Peruvian government of Chilean dominion in the area of the terrestrial triangle[46] the land limit with Chile is not in discussion because it was settled by the Treaty of 1929, indicating that in the ruling the Court of The Hague indicates this. "(That) «should not be the issue. It is clear in the Hague ruling». He also maintained that it is better to wait for «the waters to calm down».[50].
The former president of Peru, Alan García, maintained that the land triangle claimed by Chile belongs to Peru, that this is sealed in the Treaty of Lima of 1929 and that the Chilean demand for its transfer by Peru cannot be a condition for compliance with the ruling. «The court has not touched on the issue, it is part of another treaty, let's not mix potatoes with sweet potatoes. If it is immediate or gradual (the execution of the ruling), it must be done without conditions, that (from La Moneda) they do not tell me to sign the Sea Convention, they do not tell me to change the Constitution and they do not ask me for the terrestrial triangle, those are internal issues. It would be absurd for Peru to exacerbate this issue, legally that small triangle belongs to Peru. We have to act with serenity, not step on the stick, that only falls due to its weight, like the Hague ruling, because Peru was right.»[51].
In an interview given in Lima to a Chilean media, to the question: "What do you think of the signals that have been given from Chile regarding the terrestrial triangle, in terms of recognizing that this triangle belongs to Chile?" responded: «Well, there is a different opinion here in Peru. But I do not believe that destiny, the wealth of the well-being of the Chilean people, nor the well-being of the Peruvian people depend on that. It is a topic of discussion that always exists between nations. This has sometimes happened, even in smaller territories. The Earth triangle thing is a minor problem. Things cannot be done in the next 15 hours."[52] To the question: "Does the Hague ruling put a definitive end to the territorial disputes?" He responded: «I think so. Yes, absolutely. Although don't think that I'm not interested in the topic of the little triangle. It seems to me that it is going to stay there, but it has its own instruments and it is not the basic, essential or great theme. If we agree on the issue of the triangle or the president of the United States arbitrates - I think that's what the Treaty of '29 says -, if I were the president of Peru, I would sign something."[52].
Eduardo Ferrero, former chancellor of Peru and one of the members of that country's legal team before the court in The Hague, pointed out that the ruling does not affect the land limit: «The ruling is about maritime limits, not about land limits. The Point of Concord is in force as the terminus of the land border».[53].
Furthermore, in Peru it has been said that a "dry" coast is not formed in itself (without a drop of water), since the waters that for some hours of the day are on the beach from the low tide line to the high tide line are considered part of the land.[54] Legally, a state with territories with a "dry coast" cannot exercise sovereignty and economic exploitation over the adjacent waters that would have corresponded to it if it had had normal coasts there.
After the Congress of Peru approved the law that adapts the Base Lines of the Maritime Domain of Peru in accordance with the ruling of the Court of The Hague,[55] on August 18, 2014 in Lima, a supreme decree was published that approves the External Limits Charter -southern sector- of the maritime domain of Peru. Three days later, the Peruvian president, Ollanta Humala, announced that his country would send the External Limits Charter -southern sector- to the UN. However, after a conversation between the foreign ministers of Chile and Peru, the commitment of both countries to jointly present to the UN the cartography and the minutes of the bilateral commission that established the coordinates of the maritime limit established by the Hague ruling was ratified.[56][57].
In the External Limits Chart -southern sector- of the maritime domain of Peru, the beginning of the land border with Chile appears at the point of Concord, unlike the Chilean opinion that fixes it at the intersection of the parallel that crosses "Landmark No. 1" with the low tide line, and which corresponds to the starting point of the binational maritime border.[58].
On August 20, the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies of Chile approved a draft agreement to support the position of the Chilean Government regarding the dissemination of the new Peruvian cartography.[59].