Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute

Chilean–Peruvian conflict
Part of the South American territorial disputes
Map of the dispute c. 1929
Date 1883 – present Location Chile–Peru border (since 2014) Tacna–Arica (1883–1929) Result The Treaty of Lima is signed in 1929, with Peru keeping Tacna and ceding Arica to Chile. The International Court of Justice rules in favor of Peru in 2014, ceding the country some maritime territory.
Belligerents
Chile	Peru

The Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute is a territorial dispute between Chile and Peru that started in the aftermath of the War of the Pacific and ended significantly in 1929 with the signing of the Treaty of Lima and in 2014 with a ruling by the International Court of Justice. The dispute applies since 2014 to a 37,610 km² territory in the Chile–Peru border, as a result of the maritime dispute between both states.

Background

Unlike other South American border conflicts, after the Chilean and Peruvian wars of independence, both countries did not share a border until 1883 due to Bolivia's Litoral Department. With the War of the Pacific beginning in 1879, the Chilean land and naval campaigns saw quick success, with the war ending with Peru signing the Treaty of Ancón in 1883, and Bolivia signing the Treaty of Valparaiso the following year.^[1][2] As a result of the former treaty, Peru ceded its Tarapacá Department and established a new border with Chile, while the Chilean government administered the territories of Tacna and Arica under the newly established Tacna Province until a plebiscite could be held in 1894.^[3] From 1890 to 1929, Locumba served as the provisional capital of the area of the Department of Tacna not under Chilean administration, which came to be known as Free Tacna (Spanish: Tacna libre).^[4]

Tacna and Arica dispute

The Tacna Prefecture in 1920

In the aftermath of the signing of the Treaty of Ancón, the Department of Tarapacá was unconditionally ceded to Chile, being replaced by Tarapacá Province, and the provinces of Tacna and Arica were placed under the administration of the new Tacna Province. As per the treaty, a plebiscite was to be held in 1894, which would determine the fate of the province. The plebiscite, however, was never carried out.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]} During this time, the term Captive provinces (Spanish: Provincias cautivas) was used to refer to Tacna and Arica.^[13]

During the early years of the post-war era, the Chilean and Peruvian governments exercised extensive campaigns to solidify their control over the region. On one hand, Peru established a campaign of foreign support, which attracted the attention of the United States as a mediator in the conflict.^[14] On the other hand, Chile established a campaign of acculturation known as Chilenization, which saw the establishment of Chilean culture and a Chilean population in the region.^[15] One legacy of Chilean presence in Tacna was the Tacna Prefecture, the building where the intendant resided.^[16] Local Peruvian loyalists also established resistance movements, which saw armed combat on at least one occasion.^[17] To counter this and to incite an exodus of Peruvians that remained in the area, groups known as Patriotic Leagues were established.^[18]

Tarata Department

Main article: Tarata Department

In 1885, the Department of Tarata was established by Chile as a subdivision of Tacna Province. The creation of the Department caused controversy in Peru, due to both countries disagreeing on their border in the Sama River. While the Chilean government argued the town was to the east of the river, the border agreed upon by both countries, Peru disputed this claim on the grounds that the territory was not affected by the Treaty of Ancón and established a policy of non-recognition.^{[19][20][21][22]} Around this time, there were claims of military escalation, including claims of Peruvian troops mobilizing near the Chilean border, which were denied by the Peruvian government.^[23][24][25]

The flag of Peru flies over the Tacna Cathedral during the handover.

The Department was abolished under Arturo Alessandri's administration by law No. 3,802 on September 22, 1921.^[26] On September 1, 1925, at exactly 10 am, Chile handed over the former Department to Peru in a ceremony that took place in the main square, with representatives from both countries present: with Agustín Edwards Budge [es] representing Chile, Manuel de Freyre y Santander representing Peru, and General Pershing representing the United States.^[27][28][29]

Treaty of Lima

Main articles: Treaty of Lima and Handover of Tacna

On June 3, 1929, the Treaty of Lima was signed by then Peruvian Representative Pedro José Rada y Gamio and Chilean Representative Emiliano Figueroa Larraín, leading to the effective return of Tacna to Peru at midnight, on the 28th of August 1929, creating the Department of Tacna, and Arica (both the former Peruvian Department as well as some territory of the Department of Tacna ceded by the treaty) was permanently given to Chile, being integrated into the Tarapacá Province, ending the existence of the Chilean Province of Tacna. Nevertheless, even with the border conflict officially over, controversy would continue among nationals of both Peru and Bolivia, who would continue her claims over her lost territories, seeking once again a connection to the ocean with the assistance of international mediators on the issue which is yet to be solved, and continues to this day.^{[5][20][30][31][32]} The handover had no official ceremony, with some Chilean officials temporarily staying behind to assist Peru regarding the new administration. Nonetheless, the return of the territory was met with celebrations in Peru, with President Augusto B. Leguía overseeing a military parade in Lima, and church bells ringing in celebration. Some Chilean citizens, who had remained in the province after the handover asked to be repatriated.^[33]

Charaña Accords

Pinochet's proposed corridor

Main article: Charaña Accords

In 1975, the Chilean government of Augusto Pinochet made a proposal to Bolivia consisting in a swap of a narrow continuous corridor of Chilean land from the sea to the border between Chile and Bolivia, running parallel to the border between Chile and Peru, making the Lluta River Chile's northern border, in exchange for the same amount of Bolivian territory.^[34][35] The proposal, known as the Charaña Accords,^[36] involved former Peruvian land and according to the Treaty of Ancón, Chile could not give former Peruvian territories to other nations without Peru's agreement. Then dictator of Peru Francisco Morales-Bermúdez was opposed to these changes but proposed to make Arica a territory governed by the three states. Chile responded that it could not accept this complicated shared sovereignty.^[35]

Since Pinochet was likely aware that the Charaña proposals would fail in the end due to Peruvian opposition, legal and political analysts have suggested that he raised them just as a gesture towards Bolivia.^[37][38] Around the same time, from 1968 to 1980, President Juan Velasco Alvarado once again referred to Arica and Tarapacá with the term captive provinces.

Maritime dispute

Main article: Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute

The disputed area (left) and the boundary as per the ICJ ruling (right)

The maritime dispute between Chile and Peru concerned the sovereignty of an area in the Pacific Ocean approximately 37,900 square kilometres (14,600 sq mi) in size. Peru contended that its maritime boundary delimitation with Chile was not fixed, but Chile claimed that it holds no outstanding border issues with Peru. On January 16, 2008, Peru brought forth the case to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, the Netherlands, which accepted the case and formally filed it as the Case concerning maritime delimitation between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile – Perú v. Chile.

The issue was first addressed in the 1980s by the then Foreign Minister of Peru, Allan Wagner, with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile at the time, Jaime del Valle. The following year, the Peruvian Ambassador Juan Miguel Bákula Patiño [es] had an interview with Foreign Minister Jaime del Valle on this matter, and handled a diplomatic note, dated May 23, 1986, known as the Bákula Memorandum (Spanish: Memorándum Bákula). The document proposed the negotiation of maritime boundaries, supporting the Peruvian position that Chile and Peru had never signed a treaty that would delimit the maritime boundary between the two countries.^[39][40]

On January 27, 2014, the court ruled in favor of Peru. Under the ruling, Chile lost control over part of its formerly claimed maritime territory and ceded additional maritime territory to Peru.^[41][42] The ruling was met with criticism in Chile, with several figures criticizing the government's handling of the case.

Punto Concordia dispute

1941 Chilean map of the border area labelling the border point as 'CONCORDIA'.^[43]

A dispute regarding a milestone known as Milestone 1 or Concordia Point (Spanish: Hito 1 / Punto Concordia) and the area it establishes, known as the land triangle (Spanish: triángulo terrestre), was revived as a result of the ICJ ruling, due to the disagreement on where the new maritime border was to begin. The dispute consists of a bilateral disagreement on the exact location of the milestone, as both Chile (18°21′03″S 70°22′56″W) and Peru (18°21′08″S 70°22′39″W) have different locations for the exact placement. Both countries also claim to patrol the area, the former with the Quebrada de Escritos observation point and the latter with the Francisco Bolognesi outpost.^[44][45][46]

The milestones were first established by a border commission in 1930, 180 meters away from the coast (18°21′03″S 70°22′56″W).^[47][48] In the 1950s, maritime-related treaties and documents were signed by both countries: Ecuador, Chile and Peru in 1952^[49] and 1954,^[50] and Peru in 1955.^[51] Several inconsistencies regarding the exact placement of the border and is continuity with the maritime border led to a notification sent from Peru to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000.^[52] In 2001, several incidents occurred: a Chilean outpost was established in the disputed area, which led to controversy and protests by and was eventually removed by Chile "exclusively for the purpose of keeping the peace in the border area."^[52][53] On another occasion, a lighthouse in the area was destroyed by the 2001 southern Peru earthquake, with debris falling into the disputed area. After Peruvian authorities cleared the debris, the Chilean government alluded that Peru had entered Chilean territory without proper authorization.^[52]

A law was passed in Peru in 2005 which led to more controversy, and the dispute reached the United Nations a second time in 2007.^[54][55][56] During this time, both countries established subdivisions that made reference to the disputed area.^[57][58]

With the 2014 ruling, the ICJ clarified that it was not authorized to establish the exact location of Punto Concordia, and noted that the border established by the court had a possibility to not match said location, but that such a situation was to be coordinated by both parties to the dispute.^[59] Both parties subsequently argued this section of the ruling in their favor, with the maritime part of dispute solved, but the terrestrial part continuing.

Peru established the La Yarada-Los Palos District in 2015, with its borders once again alluding to the disputed area.^[60] Chile protested against the law, and declared it null and void in the context of the border between both states.^[61]

See also

• Bolivian–Peruvian territorial dispute
• Bolivian–Chilean territorial dispute
• Colombian–Peruvian territorial dispute
• Ecuadorian–Peruvian territorial dispute

References

1. Tucker, Spencer (2010). A Global Chronology of Conflict. ABC-CLIO, LLC. p. 1482.
2. Calvert, Peter (1994). The International Politics of Latin America. Manchester University Press. p. 80.
3. Egaña, Rafael (1900) The Tacna and Arica question. Historical antecedents.--Diplomatic action. Present state of the affair (translated from the Spanish edition by Edwin C. Reed) Barcelona Printing Office, Santiago, Chile, OCLC 19301902
4. Plan Estratégico del Distrito de Locumba (PDF) (in Spanish). Locumba: Municipalidad de Locumba. 2013. p. 9. Luego de los resultados de la guerra con Chile y producto de ello la ocupación de la ciudad de Tacna con las nuevas autoridades invasoras, se suscita el acontecimiento mediante el acuerdo de ambos países y mediante Resolución Suprema del 10 de Enero de 1890 se designa al pueblo de Locumba, como capital provisional tanto a nivel provincial como su reconocimiento en lo departamental, llamándosele desde entonces Tacna Libre. Este periodo duró 40 años aproximadamente, y durante el mismo fue recinto de las autoridades políticas, militares y judiciales hasta el 26 de Agosto de 1929, en que Tacna es reincorporada al Perú según plebiscito y aceptando el desmembramiento del Puerto de Arica, pasando este a poder de territorio chileno.
5. "DISPUTE SETTLED AFTER 50 YEARS". The Montreal Gazette. Associated Press. Feb 22, 1929.
6. "PERU AND CHILE CONTROVERSY EXPLAINED". The Gazette Times. Associated Press. 26 Jan 1919.
7. "TACNA-ARICA PLESBICITE". The Sunday Tribune. 9 Mar 1925.
8. "COOLIDGE PUTS CHILE-PERU DISPUTE UP TO VOTERS". Reading Eagle. 9 Mar 1925.
9. "CHILEANS WIN PERU DISPUTE". The Evening Independent. 9 Mar 1925.
10. "PERU WANTS HEARING". The Spokesman-Review. 3 Feb 1919.
11. "Peruanos y Chilenos". Diario del Hogar. 27 Apr 1907.
12. "Chile Wins Verdict In Old Dispute Over Provinces". The Telegraph-Herald. 9 Mar 1925.
13. "1921: Provincias cautivas". El Comercio. 2021-12-29.
14. "American Boundary Lines". Ottawa Citizen. Apr 15, 1925.
15. Borchard, Edwin M. (September 15, 1922). "The Tacna-Arica Controversy". Foreign Affairs. 1 (1): 29–48. doi:10.2307/20028196. JSTOR 20028196.
16. Varas, Carlos (1922). Tacna y Arica bajo la soberanía chilena. Santiago: Imp. de La Nación. p. 243-250
17. "NO PEACE FOR PERU". The Morning Herald. 16 Nov 1882.
18. Núñez Atencio, Lautaro y Maldonado Prieto, Carlos (2005). «Reseña bibliográfica: El Dios Cautivo. Las Ligas Patrióticas en la chilenización compulsiva de Tarapacá (1910–1922), Sergio González Miranda, LOM Ediciones, Santiago, 2004». Chungará (Arica), Universidad de Tarapacá 37 (1). ISSN 0717-7356.
19. "PERU DEMANDS CHILE SETTLE PROVINCE DISPUTE". Providence News. 2 Jan 1922.
20. "Bolivian Bid Meets New Parley Rebuff". Newark Sunday Call. 1922-05-21. p. 1. Retrieved 2021-08-19.
21. "Peru Renews Demands That Chilean Issue Be Given to Arbitration". The Deseret News. 2 Jan 1922.
22. "PERU'S DETERMINED BID FOR A SLICE OF SHIPPING". Boston Evening Transcript. 11 Nov 1911.
23. "General News". The Free Lance. Dec 20, 1921.
24. "Opiniones de un General Chileno sobre la probabilidad de otra guerra con el Perú". El Tiempo. 2 Jun 1911.
25. "INFORMACION CABLEGRAFICA". El Tiempo. 28 Nov 1925.
26. "LEI NUM. 3,802, QUE SUPRIME EL DEPARTAMENTO DE TARATA". Congress of Chile. 1921-09-22.
27. "LA ACTITUD DEL PERU ANTE LA RESPUESTA DE MR. COOLIDGE". El Tiempo. 14 Apr 1925.
28. "EL GOBIERNO DE CHILE DA DE BAJA A OCHO GENERALES Y CINCO CORONELES". El Tiempo. 16 Apr 1925.
29. El representante del gobierno de Chile hizo entrega ayer del Departamento de Tarata al representante peruano (PDF). La Nación. 1925. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-08-24. Retrieved 2022-09-05.
30. "Bolivia Wants Seaport Along Pacific Coast". Urbana Daily Democrat. 24 Jan 1919.
31. "Tacna-Arica". The Toledo News Bee. Feb 25, 1929.
32. "BOLIVIA NO ABANDONA SUS PRETENSIONES A UN PUERTO MARITIMO (Bolivia does not abandon its claims to a maritime port)". El Tiempo. 20 May 1929.
33. "Tacna Province Now Back in Peru's Hands". Schenectady Gazette. Aug 31, 1929.
34. Diario La Tercera. "Abrazo de Charaña" (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2008-03-23. Retrieved 2008-03-12. Chile y Bolivia restablecen relaciones diplomáticas, después de trece años
35. "Evo Morales: Chile offered Bolivia sea access in 1975". BBC News. 29 October 2017. Retrieved 2017-10-31.
36. González Vega, Javier A. (15 July 2019). Pons, Marcial; Cardona Lloréns, Jorga; Abad Castelos, Montserrat; Cebrián, María Asunción; Gabriel, Guillem; Guinea, Mercedes; Movilla, Laura; Sánchez, Antonio; Sánchez Frías, Alejandro (eds.). "En busca del esquivo mar: La controversia Bolivia-Chile ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia" (PDF). Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (REDI) (in Spanish). 71 (2). Madrid, España: Asociación de Profesores de Derecho internacional y Relaciones Internacionales (Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations): 75–99. doi:10.17103/redi.71.2.2019.1.03. hdl:10651/56908. ISSN 0034-9380. S2CID 211320377.
37. Wehner, Leslie (1 May 2010). Hoffmann, Bert; Nelson, Melissa; Bücke, Silvia (eds.). From Rivalry to Mutual Trust: The Othering Process between Bolivia and Chile (PDF). GIGA Research Programme: "Power, Norms and Governance in International Relations" (GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies) (Report). Hamburg, Germany: German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA). Retrieved 7 July 2021 – via JSTOR.
38. López Scarcena, SebaStián (1 December 2020). Paúl D., Álvaro; García-Huidobro Becerra, Cristóbal; Alcalde Rodríguez, Enrique; Andrea, Valenzuela Niemann; Gómez Álvarez, María José (eds.). "El asunto de la obligación de negociar un acceso al Océano Pacífico. Comentario de la sentencia de la Corte Internacional de Justicia, de fecha 1 de octubre de 2018". Revista Chilena de Derecho (in Spanish and English). 47 (3). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: 925–951. doi:10.7764/r.473.17. ISSN 0718-3437. S2CID 234206590. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2021. Retrieved 7 July 2021.
39. Flores Díaz, Sebastián (2020). "La misión del embajador Juan Miguel Bákula en Santiago en mayo de 1986". Revista Tribuna Internacional.
40. Flores Díaz, Sebastián (2020). "Analysis of the Bákula Memorandum: The Document that Initiated the New Definition of Chilean-Peruvian Maritime Boundaries". SciELO.
41. "Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 2014-02-27. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-02-02.
42. Corder, Mike (27 January 2014). "World court draws new Peru-Chile maritime border". Associated Press. Retrieved 27 January 2014.
43. "Corte Internacional de Justicia. Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile)" [International Court of Justice. Maritime Controversy (Peru v. Chile)]. Memoria del Gobierno del Perú. Volumen I (PDF) (in Spanish). Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2009.
44. "El triángulo que separa Chile y Perú". Diario La Tercera. 2014-01-29.
45. Ferrer Rivera, Liz. "Policía Nacional patrulla en zona de "triángulo terrestre"". La República. Archived from the original on 2014-02-02.
46. "Carabineros frustró este año ingreso ilegal de 29 extranjeros". El Mercurio. Archived from the original on 2022-09-05. Retrieved 2022-09-05.
47. Brieba, Enrique (1931). Memoria sobre los límites entre Chile y Perú: de acuerdo con el tratado del 3 de junio de 1929 presentada al Ministerio de relaciones exteriores de Chile, Volumes 1–2. Vol. I: Estudio técnico y documentos (in Spanish). Santiago: Instituto Geográfico Militar.
48. "Acta Final de la Comisión de Límites con la descripción de los hitos colocados". Comisión Mixta de Límites entre Perú y Chile. 1930-07-21.
49. "Declaración sobre zona marítima (1952)". Santiago. 1952-08-18.
50. "Convenio sobre zona especial fronteriza marítima". Lima. 1954-12-04.
51. Odría, Manuel A.; Aguilar-Cornejo, David (1955). "Resolución Suprema N.º 23. Delimitación de la zona marítima de las 200 millas". El Peruano.
52. "La historia de cómo el diferendo marítimo llegó a la Corte de La Haya (Parte II)". La República. 2014-01-11. Archived from the original on 2014-01-31.
53. Rodríguez-Cuadros, Manuel (2007). "Delimitación marítima con equidad:El caso de Perú y Chile" (PDF). Congress of Peru. Lima: PEISA.
54. "La historia de cómo el diferendo marítimo llegó a la Corte de La Haya (Parte II)". La República. 2014-01-20. Archived from the original on 2014-01-31.
55. "Objeción del Gobierno de Chile respecto "Ley de Líneas de Base del Dominio Marítimo del Perú" enviada a las Naciones Unidas" (PDF). United Nations. 2007-05-27.
56. "Respuesta peruana a la objeción chilena a la Ley de Líneas de Base del Dominio Marítimo del Perú" (PDF). United Nations. 2007-08-10.
57. "Ley n.º 29189, que precisa el artículo 3º de la Ley N° 27415, Ley de demarcación territorial de la Provincia de Tacna, Departamento de Tacna, Perú" (PDF). Congress of Peru. 2008.
58. "Decreto con Fuerza de Ley Nº2-18175 (de Chile)". Biblioteca Nacional de Chile.
59. "MARITIME DISPUTE (PERU v. CHILE)" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 2014-02-27. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-02-02.
60. "Ley de creación del distrito de La Yarada Los Palos en la provincia de Tacna del departamento de Tacna LEY-N°30358" (PDF). Congress of Peru.
61. "Muñoz por creación del distrito La Yarada-Los Palos: No tiene valor jurídico para Chile". BioBioChile. 2015-11-08.