The dispute between Chile and Peru over a maritime zone of 38,000 km2 in the Pacific Ocean, rich in fishing resources, derived from different interpretations of signed treaties. Chile has maintained the argument that the maritime boundary is a continuation of the parallel that sets the land border. Peru, on the other hand, has always indicated that the 200 nautical miles from its coast must be respected. Following Chilean logic, the border would be about 182 meters inland, since at that point the coast slopes towards the northwest. In January 2008 , the Peruvian government requested the intervention of the International Court of Justice in The Hague to resolve the dispute, which led to the January 2014 ruling. The two countries, which are trade partners and members of the Pacific Alliance, had committed in advance to abide by the ruling and to continue collaborating in the post-Hague scenario
Well, the Court of Justice in The Hague has pronounced somewhat Solomonic:the judges have set the limit in the form of a perpendicular line to the coast for 80 nautical miles (to a point designated A); from this point the dividing line descends to the south to a point B situated 200 miles from the coast; then it continues in a straight line to an end point (C).
This is how the new maritime boundary between Peru and Chile has remained:The Hague Judgment MAP. According to The Hague ruling, Peru won some 50,000 square kilometers of the 66,000 that were in dispute. 1 up to 80 miles, and from there an equidistant line will be drawn up to 200 miles. A failure that should not surprise anyone, if we take into account that their failures tend to be so controversial. They never leave the parties happy, at least not completely. Today has not been the exception. I imagine how they will feel in Tacna, which was left without sea. Now we all have to turn the page and start a new chapter. THIS WAS WHAT PERU AND CHILE WANTED This is what the maritime limits were like before the Hague Judgment
DISPUTED TERRITORIES IN LATIN AMERICA