해양경계획정에 있어 분쟁당사국간 행위의 법적 효과－페루와 칠레 사건을 중심으로

Abstract

International Court of Justice(ICJ) determined that the course of the single maritime boundary between Peru and Chile on 27 January 2014. The controversial issue was whether there is an agreed maritime boundary between the Parties in this Case. The Court examined the following facts. First, does the 1947 Proclamations of Chile and Peru establish an international maritime boundary. Second, does the 1952 Santiago declaration was signed by Chile, Ecuador and Peru provide a maritime boundary between the Parties. Third, do the 1954 Agreements reflect a tacit agreement which the Parties had reached earlier. Fourth, do the 1968-1969 lighthouse arrangements include the factor concerning a maritime boundary. The Court concluded that the 1954 Special Maritime Frontier Zone Agreement cements the tacit agreement which that the maritime boundary along a parallel already existed between the Parties. The 1954 Agreement, however, gives no indication of the nature and extent of the maritime boundary. The Court ruled that the agreed maritime boundary between the Parties extended to a distance of 80 nautical miles along the parallel from its starting-point. I have some questions about the reasoning and judgment of the Court. This paper will analyze legal validity of the judgment, going through separate and dissenting opinions, and other Cases relating to maritime delimitation.