Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) (I.C.J.)

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Riesenberg
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Pacific Ocean ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Pacific Ocean ◽  
The Subject

In 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in a maritime boundary dispute between Peru and Chile (Judgment). The subject of the dispute was an area of maritime space in the Pacific Ocean comprising nearly seventy thousand square kilometers, or roughly “an area the size of Sri Lanka or Georgia.”

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 347-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg
Keyword(s):  
Pacific Ocean ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
Coastal Regions ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Pacific Ocean

More than thirteen decades after Chile annexed Bolivia's coastal regions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) denied Bolivia's longstanding claim that Chile had undertaken a legal obligation to negotiate granting it sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile): Preliminary Objection (I.C.J.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian G. Ku
Keyword(s):  
Pacific Ocean ◽  
Good Faith ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Pacific Ocean

On September 24, 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released its judgment on the preliminary objection filed by Chile in Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean.1 Chile had objected to the ICJ’s jurisdiction arguing that Bolivia’s application raises a dispute that had already been settled by the 1904 Peace Treaty Between Bolivia and Chile. The ICJ, however, rejected this jurisdictional objection and agreed to consider the merits of Bolivia’s claim that Chile has an obligation to negotiate in good faith the issue of Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Timor Leste ◽  
The Pacific Ocean ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the latest in a series of annual surveys in this Journal reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. It covers developments during 2018. The most significant developments during the year were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, delimiting the maritime boundaries between the two States’ overlapping maritime zones in both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean; the report of the Conciliation Commission concerning maritime boundary arrangements between Timor-Leste and Australia; and the findings of a dispute settlement body of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.

Bolivia-Chile border issue will benefit Morales

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Good Faith ◽  
Water Usage ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Subject

Significance Oral hearings regarding the dispute begin at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 19 and will last for nine days. The case is unusual in that the plaintiff (landlocked Bolivia) wishes to oblige the defendant (Chile) to negotiate a territorial settlement ‘in good faith’ to restore its access to the sea. Chile, which has long sought to prevent the issue becoming the subject of international jurisdiction, asserts the matter is purely bilateral. Impacts Peru is likely to play a role in any eventual scheme to give Bolivia access to the Pacific. International opinion will remain sympathetic to Bolivia’s claim but, ultimately, unable to force a solution. With Chile also taking Bolivia to the ICJ over water usage, any territorial resolution may depend on that issue’s progress.

The 2015 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Surabhi Ranganathan
Keyword(s):  
Good Faith ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Points Of Interest ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
The Pacific Ocean ◽  
The Individual

The International Court of Justice (Court or ICJ) delivered three judgments in 2015. The first, delivered on February 3, 2015, determines claims of genocide made by Croatia and Serbia against each other. The second, delivered on September 24, 2015, addresses Chile’s preliminary objection in a case brought against it by Bolivia, which asserted that Chile had violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith to secure Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The third, delivered on December 16, 2015, concerns the joined cases brought by Costa Rica and Nicaragua, each party alleging territorial violations and transboundary environmental harms by the other. This review highlights notable points of interest in the judgments and draws attention to particular insights and critiques afforded by the individual opinions that accompany each judgment.

Vacancies on ICJ Filled by Election

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-200
Author(s):  
T. M. F.
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On February 5, 1991, the terms of five members of the International Court of Justice expired: those of President J. M. Ruda (Argentina) and Judges K. Mbaye (Senegal), Sir Robert Jennings (United Kingdom), G. Guillaume (France) and R. S. Pathak (India). In conformity with Articles 4 and 13 of the Statute of the Court, the General Assembly and the Security Council, on November 15, 1990, elected five persons to nine-year terms of office. Judges Mbaye, Ruda and Pathak did not stand for reelection. Judges Jennings and Guillaume were reelected. The newly elected judges are Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley (Venezuela), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) and Christopher Gregory Weeramantry (Sri Lanka).

scholarly journals Objectivity versus Subjectivity in the Context of the icj’s Three-stage Methodology of Maritime Boundary Delimitation

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fayokemi Olorundami
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Three Stages ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

With the International Court of Justice (icj) moving away from the application of equitable principles in favour of its three-stage delimitation methodology, maritime boundary delimitations are now described as objective and predictable. This article assesses the accuracy of this description by examining the decisions of the Court and Tribunals in some recent delimitation cases. It is argued that the delimitation of maritime boundaries cannot still be regarded as objective and predictable as exemplified in the decisions discussed. Each of the three stages in the three-stage methodology, namely the drawing of a provisional equidistance line, the adjustment or shifting of that line based on the presence of relevant circumstances and the (dis)proportionality test will be analysed in order to support this position. This article identifies a fixation with following the three-stage methodology (even when inappropriate) as, ironically, the driver for subjectivity and unpredictability in maritime boundary delimitation decisions.

Maritime Dispute

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Abhimanyu George Jain
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On January 27, 2014, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered its judgment in a dispute between Peru and Chile concerning the maritime boundary between them. The Court held that a partial maritime boundary already existed between the parties, and it proceeded to analyze both its nature and its extent on the basis of agreements between the parties, their practice, and other evidence. For the remainder of the boundary extending up to 200 nautical miles, the Court applied the rule of equitable delimitation found in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the fourth of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2007 was the busiest year for dispute settlement in the law of the sea for some time. The main developments under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname Case and two prompt-release-of-vessel judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Outside the framework of the Convention, the International Court of Justice gave judgments in two maritime boundary cases—one on the merits (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and the other on jurisdiction (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document