FOR weeks, Peruvians and Chileans have talked of little else. On January 27th the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague gave its ruling on a claim by Peru to fix a new maritime boundary that would give it a large swathe of fisheries-rich ocean at the expense of Chile. Many Peruvians saw in the case a chance to set aside lasting rancour at defeat in the War of the Pacific of 1879-83, aggravated by the failure of victorious Chile to implement the terms of a peace treaty. In the event the court gave Peru something—but less than it hoped and much less than Chile feared. Even so, the ruling offers a potential opportunity for the two countries to deepen growing economic and political co-operation.
The status quo in the Pacific was favourable to Chile: although the coast swings abruptly north-westwards at the border, forming an elbow, the de facto maritime boundary ran due west close to the 18th parallel. This was the result of a 1952 treaty involving the two countries and Ecuador. From the 1980s Peru began to argue that the treaty was merely a fishing agreement and did not fix the maritime boundary. In 2008 it asked the ICJ to rule on a...Continue reading
from Americas view http://ift.tt/1jBUQpi
No comments:
Post a Comment