Currently before the International Court of Justice is a hearing between Peru and Chile regarding a maritime dispute. Peru brought this dispute before the International Court of Justice on January 16, 2008 in order to define the maritime territorial boundary between Peru and Chile. The territory in dispute takes place between the maritime zones in the Pacific Ocean. The area in dispute is made up of the end points of the land border and the coasts between Chile and Peru. The boundary dispute starts at a point on a coast called Concordia. The country that gains sovereignty over this area in dispute will also have control over fishing in this area.
Peru brought this maritime dispute before the International Court of Justice claiming that the maritime boundary delimitation between itself and Chile has never been fixed by any treaty or otherwise. Chile, however, contends that it has no border issues with Peru because a delimitation line has been established through trilateral treaties signed together with Peru and Ecuador in 1952 and 1954. Furthermore, Chile cites its 1997 ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was deposited with the United Nations, indicating that there is a maritime boundary between Chile and Peru.
The International Court of Justice is to deliver its judgment on this boundary delimitation on Monday January 27, 2014.
How do you think the Court will rule? Which side do you believe has the stronger argument for this issue? It seems that Chile has much more evidence to support its claims. Do you think the Court feels the same way and will rule in favor of Chile? Or is there a possibility that Peru will be able to win this dispute and ultimately gain sovereignty to this area? Are there real benefits to gain by claiming sovereignty over this area?