Chilean–Peruvian territorial dispute

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.{{cite book| title=A Global Chronology of Conflict| last=Tucker| first=Spencer| publisher=ABC-CLIO, LLC| year=2010| page=1482}}{{cite book| title=The International Politics of Latin America| last=Calvert| first=Peter| publisher=Manchester University Press| year=1994| page=80}} 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.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}} 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 ({{langx|es|link=no|Tacna libre}}).{{Cite book |title=Plan Estratégico del Distrito de Locumba |publisher=Municipalidad de Locumba |year=2013 |location=Locumba |pages=9 |language=Spanish |url=http://www.munijorgebasadre.gob.pe/pagina/web_inst/archivos/transparencia/trans_1948.pdf |quote=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.}}

File:Fachada de la Intendencia de Tacna con la bandera de Chile, año 1920.jpg 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.{{Cite news|title=DISPUTE SETTLED AFTER 50 YEARS|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dG8tAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA13&article_id=3048,3695464|work=The Montreal Gazette|publication-date=Feb 22, 1929|agency=Associated Press}}{{Cite news|title=PERU AND CHILE CONTROVERSY EXPLAINED|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i21RAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA17&article_id=1841,4183827|work=The Gazette Times|publication-date=26 Jan 1919|agency=Associated Press}}{{Cite news|title=TACNA-ARICA PLESBICITE|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=behcAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA1&article_id=3852,1163593|work=The Sunday Tribune|publication-date=9 Mar 1925|agency=}}{{Cite news|title=COOLIDGE PUTS CHILE-PERU DISPUTE UP TO VOTERS|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LaohAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA8&article_id=3304,1778935|work=Reading Eagle|publication-date=9 Mar 1925|agency=}}{{Cite news|title=CHILEANS WIN PERU DISPUTE|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qdxPAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA7&article_id=4397,2373808|work=The Evening Independent|publication-date=9 Mar 1925|agency=}}{{Cite news|title=PERU WANTS HEARING|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gKZVAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA7&article_id=6484,1699178|work=The Spokesman-Review|publication-date=3 Feb 1919|agency=}}{{Cite news|title=Peruanos y Chilenos.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GuE8AAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA4&article_id=2225,21818335|work=Diario del Hogar|publication-date=27 Apr 1907|agency=}}{{Cite news|title=Chile Wins Verdict In Old Dispute Over Provinces|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E0FFAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA1&article_id=4185,6710506|work=The Telegraph-Herald|publication-date=9 Mar 1925|agency=}} During this time, the term Captive provinces ({{langx|es|link=no|Provincias cautivas}}) was used to refer to Tacna and Arica.{{Cite news |title=1921: Provincias cautivas |url=https://elcomercio.pe/opinion/efemerides/1921-provincias-cautivas-noticia/ |date=2021-12-29 |work=El Comercio}}

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.{{Cite news|title=American Boundary Lines|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=t2kuAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA10&article_id=4245,325917|date=Apr 15, 1925|work=Ottawa Citizen}} 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.{{cite journal |last=Borchard |first=Edwin M. |date=September 15, 1922 |title=The Tacna-Arica Controversy |jstor=20028196|journal=Foreign Affairs |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=29–48 |doi= 10.2307/20028196}} One legacy of Chilean presence in Tacna was the Tacna Prefecture, the building where the intendant resided.Varas, Carlos (1922). Tacna y Arica bajo la soberanía chilena. Santiago: Imp. de La Nación. p. 243-250 Local Peruvian loyalists also established resistance movements, which saw armed combat on at least one occasion.{{Cite news|title=NO PEACE FOR PERU.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mUZeAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA1&article_id=3264,2853400|work=The Morning Herald|publication-date=16 Nov 1882|agency=}} To counter this and to incite an exodus of Peruvians that remained in the area, groups known as Patriotic Leagues were established.Núñez Atencio, Lautaro y Maldonado Prieto, Carlos (2005). «[http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0717-73562005000100010&script=sci_arttext 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}}.

{{main|Tarata Department (Chile){{!}}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.{{Cite news|title=PERU DEMANDS CHILE SETTLE PROVINCE DISPUTE|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RM5iAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA24&article_id=7327,138714|date=2 Jan 1922|work=Providence News}}{{Cite news|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ERBEAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA2&article_id=3639,6054719|title=Bolivian Bid Meets New Parley Rebuff|date=1922-05-21|access-date=2021-08-19|publisher=Newark Sunday Call|page=1}}{{Cite news|title=Peru Renews Demands That Chilean Issue Be Given to Arbitration|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=X7sLAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA1&article_id=3912,8258|date=2 Jan 1922|work=The Deseret News}}{{Cite news|title=PERU'S DETERMINED BID FOR A SLICE OF SHIPPING|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q4M-AAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA36&article_id=819,1615211|work=Boston Evening Transcript|publication-date=11 Nov 1911|agency=}} 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.{{Cite news|title=General News|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IdhUAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA1&article_id=6912,3578367|date=Dec 20, 1921|work=The Free Lance}}{{Cite news|title=Opiniones de un General Chileno sobre la probabilidad de otra guerra con el Perú|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dgseAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA2&article_id=7150,2144168|date=2 Jun 1911|work=El Tiempo}}{{Cite news|title=INFORMACION CABLEGRAFICA|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_00qAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA3&article_id=972,1860834|work=El Tiempo|publication-date=28 Nov 1925|agency=}}

File:Bandera peruana en la catedral durante la reincorporación.jpg 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.{{Cite web |url=https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=24257 |title=LEI NUM. 3,802, QUE SUPRIME EL DEPARTAMENTO DE TARATA. |date=1921-09-22 |website=Congress of Chile}} 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 {{ill|Agustín Edwards Budge|es|Agustín Edwards Budge}} representing Chile, Manuel de Freyre y Santander representing Peru, and General Pershing representing the United States.{{Cite news|title=LA ACTITUD DEL PERU ANTE LA RESPUESTA DE MR. COOLIDGE|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O8wdAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA3&article_id=1086,5531180|date=14 Apr 1925|work=El Tiempo}}{{Cite news|title=EL GOBIERNO DE CHILE DA DE BAJA A OCHO GENERALES Y CINCO CORONELES|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oDYgAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA13&article_id=7049,5737493|date=16 Apr 1925|work=El Tiempo}}{{Cite book |title=El representante del gobierno de Chile hizo entrega ayer del Departamento de Tarata al representante peruano |publisher=La Nación |year=1925 |url=https://culturadigital.udp.cl/dev/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LN_1925_09_02.pdf |access-date=2022-09-05 |archive-date=2021-08-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824155449/https://culturadigital.udp.cl/dev/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LN_1925_09_02.pdf |url-status=dead }}

{{main|Treaty of Lima (1929){{!}}Treaty of Lima|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.{{Cite news|title=Bolivia Wants Seaport Along Pacific Coast|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=neNZAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA1&article_id=3379,938787|date=24 Jan 1919|work=Urbana Daily Democrat}}{{Cite news|title=Tacna-Arica|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tetXAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA4&article_id=5226,6404912|date=Feb 25, 1929|work=The Toledo News Bee}}{{Cite news|title=BOLIVIA NO ABANDONA SUS PRETENSIONES A UN PUERTO MARITIMO (Bolivia does not abandon its claims to a maritime port)|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=unwcAAAAIBAJ&dq=Tarata%2C+Peru&pg=PA4&article_id=4700,1403627|work=El Tiempo|publication-date=20 May 1929|agency=}} 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.{{Cite news|title=Tacna Province Now Back in Peru's Hands|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Nn5GAAAAIBAJ&dq=%22Tacna+Province%22+Chile&pg=PA7&article_id=6559,6855780|date=Aug 31, 1929|work=Schenectady Gazette}}

File:Acuerdos de Charaña.svg's proposed corridor]]

{{main|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.{{cite web |url=http://siglo20.tercera.cl/1970-79/1975/notas1.htm |title=Abrazo de Charaña |accessdate=2008-03-12 |author=Diario La Tercera |language=es|quote=Chile y Bolivia restablecen relaciones diplomáticas, después de trece años |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080323115336/http://siglo20.tercera.cl/1970-79/1975/notas1.htm |archivedate=2008-03-23 |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41798571 |title=Evo Morales: Chile offered Bolivia sea access in 1975 |author= |date=29 October 2017 |publisher=BBC News |access-date=2017-10-31 }} The proposal, known as the Charaña Accords,{{cite journal |first=Javier A. |last=González Vega |title=En busca del esquivo mar: La controversia Bolivia-Chile ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia |url=https://digibuo.uniovi.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10651/56908/Gonzalez%20Vega%20-%20REDI.pdf |language=es|journal=Revista Española de Derecho Internacional |publication-place=Madrid, España |pages=75–99 |doi=10.17103/redi.71.2.2019.1.03 |publisher=Asociación de Profesores de Derecho internacional y Relaciones Internacionales (Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations) |issn=0034-9380 |volume=71 |issue=2 |date=15 July 2019 |editor1-first=Marcial |editor1-last=Pons |editor2-first=Jorga |editor2-last=Cardona Lloréns |editor3-first=Montserrat |editor3-last=Abad Castelos |editor4-first=María Asunción |editor4-last=Cebrián |editor5-first=Guillem |editor5-last=Gabriel |editor6-first=Mercedes |editor6-last=Guinea |editor7-first=Laura |editor7-last=Movilla |editor8-first=Antonio |editor8-last=Sánchez |editor9-first=Alejandro |editor9-last=Sánchez Frías |hdl=10651/56908 |s2cid=211320377 |hdl-access=free }} 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.

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.{{cite report |title=From Rivalry to Mutual Trust: The Othering Process between Bolivia and Chile |department=GIGA Research Programme: "Power, Norms and Governance in International Relations" (GIGA Institute of Latin American Studies) |publisher=German Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) |first=Leslie |last=Wehner |number=135 |date=1 May 2010 |editor2-first=Melissa |editor2-last=Nelson |editor3-first=Silvia |editor3-last=Bücke |editor1-first=Bert |editor1-last=Hoffmann |publication-place=Hamburg, Germany |url=http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep07650 |jstor= resrep07650|format=PDF |language=en|access-date=7 July 2021 }}{{cite journal |last=López Scarcena |first=SebaStián |title=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. |journal=Revista Chilena de Derecho |volume=47 |issue=3 |date=1 December 2020 |language=es, en|publisher=Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile |publication-place=Santiago de Chile, Chile |format=PDF |issn=0718-3437 |url=http://ojs.uc.cl/index.php/Rchd/article/view/28137/22663 |access-date=7 July 2021 |pages=925–951 |doi=10.7764/r.473.17 |s2cid=234206590 |editor1-first=Álvaro |editor1-last=Paúl D. |editor2-first=Cristóbal |editor2-last=García-Huidobro Becerra |editor3-first=Enrique |editor3-last=Alcalde Rodríguez |editor4-first=Valenzuela Niemann |editor4-last=Andrea |editor5-first=María José |editor5-last=Gómez Álvarez |archive-date=27 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227205154/http://ojs.uc.cl/index.php/Rchd/article/view/28137/22663 |doi-access=free }} Around the same time, from 1968 to 1980, President Juan Velasco Alvarado once again referred to Arica and Tarapacá with the term captive provinces.

{{Main|Chilean–Peruvian maritime dispute}}

{{Multiple image | align = right | image1 = Maritime Claims of Peru and Ecuador.svg | width1 = 175 | image2 = Maritime Claims of Ecuador and Peru.svg | width2 = 175 | footer = 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 {{convert|37900|km2}} 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 {{ill|Juan Miguel Bákula Patiño|es|Juan Miguel Bákula Patiño}} 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 ({{langx|es|link=no|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.{{Cite web |url=https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-482X.2019.52443 |title=La misión del embajador Juan Miguel Bákula en Santiago en mayo de 1986 |website=Revista Tribuna Internacional |last=Flores Díaz |first=Sebastián |year=2020}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0121-182X2020000100165 |title=Analysis of the Bákula Memorandum: The Document that Initiated the New Definition of Chilean-Peruvian Maritime Boundaries |website=SciELO |last=Flores Díaz |first=Sebastián |year=2020}}

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.{{Cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf |title=Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile) |date=2014-02-27 |website=International Court of Justice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202143900/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17928.pdf |archive-date=2014-02-02}}{{cite web |url=http://bigstory.ap.org/article/world-court-draws-new-peru-chile-maritime-border |title=World court draws new Peru-Chile maritime border |last1=Corder |first1=Mike |date=27 January 2014 |publisher=Associated Press |accessdate=27 January 2014}} The ruling was met with criticism in Chile, with several figures criticizing the government's handling of the case.

File:Punto-concordia-mapa-1941-instituo-geografico-militar-chile.jpg |year=2009 |language=es |url=http://www.rree.gob.pe/temas/Documents/MemoriaCAS.pdf |chapter=Corte Internacional de Justicia. Controversia Marítima (Perú v. Chile) |trans-chapter=International Court of Justice. Maritime Controversy (Peru v. Chile)}}]]

A dispute regarding a milestone known as Milestone 1 or Concordia Point ({{langx|es|link=no|Hito 1 / Punto Concordia}}) and the area it establishes, known as the land triangle ({{langx|es|link=no|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 ({{coord|18|21|03|S|70|22|56|W}}) and Peru ({{coord|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.{{Cite news |title=El triángulo que separa Chile y Perú |url=https://www.latercera.com/noticia/nacional/2014/01/680-563029-9-el-triangulo-que-separa-chile-y-peru.shtml |date=2014-01-29 |work=Diario La Tercera}}{{Cite news |title=Policía Nacional patrulla en zona de "triángulo terrestre" |url=http://www.larepublica.pe/01-02-2014/policia-nacional-patrulla-en-zona-de-triangulo-terrestre |last=Ferrer Rivera |first=Liz |work=La República |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202093134/http://www.larepublica.pe/01-02-2014/policia-nacional-patrulla-en-zona-de-triangulo-terrestre |archive-date=2014-02-02}}{{Cite news |title=Carabineros frustró este año ingreso ilegal de 29 extranjeros |url=http://impresa.elmercurio.com/Pages/SearchResults.aspx?ST=arica&SF=&SD=&ED=&NewsID=204263&IsExternalSite=False |work=El Mercurio |access-date=2022-09-05 |archive-date=2022-09-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220905042942/http://impresa.elmercurio.com/Pages/SearchResults.aspx?ST=arica&SF=&SD=&ED=&NewsID=204263&IsExternalSite=False |url-status=dead }}

The milestones were first established by a border commission in 1930, 180 meters away from the coast ({{coord|18|21|03|S|70|22|56|W}}).{{Cite book |title=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 |last=Brieba |first=Enrique |publisher=Instituto Geográfico Militar |year=1931 |location=Santiago |language=es}}{{Cite web |url=https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Acta_Final_de_la_Comisión_de_Límites_con_la_descripción_de_los_hitos_colocados |title=Acta Final de la Comisión de Límites con la descripción de los hitos colocados |date=1930-07-21 |publisher=Comisión Mixta de Límites entre Perú y Chile}} In the 1950s, maritime-related treaties and documents were signed by both countries: Ecuador, Chile and Peru in 1952{{Cite web |url=https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaración_sobre_zona_marítima_(1952) |title=Declaración sobre zona marítima (1952) |date=1952-08-18 |location=Santiago}} and 1954,{{Cite web |url=https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Convenio_sobre_zona_especial_fronteriza_marítima |title=Convenio sobre zona especial fronteriza marítima |date=1954-12-04 |location=Lima}} and Peru in 1955.{{Cite news |title=Resolución Suprema N.º 23. Delimitación de la zona marítima de las 200 millas |last=Odría |first=Manuel A. |publisher=El Peruano |last2=Aguilar-Cornejo |first2=David |year=1955 |author-link=Manuel A. Odría}} 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.{{Cite news |title=La historia de cómo el diferendo marítimo llegó a la Corte de La Haya (Parte II) |url=http://www.larepublica.pe/11-01-2014/la-historia-de-como-el-diferendo-maritimo-llego-a-la-corte-de-la-haya-parte-ii |date=2014-01-11 |work=La República |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140131134847/http://www.larepublica.pe/11-01-2014/la-historia-de-como-el-diferendo-maritimo-llego-a-la-corte-de-la-haya-parte-ii |archive-date=2014-01-31}} 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."{{Cite web |url=http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/sicr/cendocbib/con3_uibd.nsf/9C8959EBD0B556CB0525790A0073C14C/$FILE/texto1.pdf |title=Delimitación marítima con equidad:El caso de Perú y Chile |website=Congress of Peru |last=Rodríguez-Cuadros |first=Manuel |publisher=PEISA |year=2007 |location=Lima}} 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.

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.{{Cite news |title=La historia de cómo el diferendo marítimo llegó a la Corte de La Haya (Parte II) |url=http://www.larepublica.pe/20-01-2014/la-historia-de-como-el-diferendo-maritimo-llego-a-la-corte-de-la-haya-parte-iv |date=2014-01-20 |work=La República |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140131134844/http://www.larepublica.pe/20-01-2014/la-historia-de-como-el-diferendo-maritimo-llego-a-la-corte-de-la-haya-parte-iv |archive-date=2014-01-31}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/communications/chile_re_baselines_peru2007.pdf |title=Objeción del Gobierno de Chile respecto "Ley de Líneas de Base del Dominio Marítimo del Perú" enviada a las Naciones Unidas |date=2007-05-27 |website=United Nations}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/communications/peru_re_objection_chile2007.pdf |title=Respuesta peruana a la objeción chilena a la Ley de Líneas de Base del Dominio Marítimo del Perú |date=2007-08-10 |website=United Nations}} During this time, both countries established subdivisions that made reference to the disputed area.{{Cite web |url=http://www.congreso.gob.pe/ntley/imagenes/Leyes/29189.pdf |title=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 |website=Congress of Peru |year=2008}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=3524 |title=Decreto con Fuerza de Ley Nº2-18175 (de Chile) |website=Biblioteca Nacional de Chile}}

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.{{Cite web |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf |title=MARITIME DISPUTE (PERU v. CHILE) |date=2014-02-27 |website=International Court of Justice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140202143909/https://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf |archive-date=2014-02-02}} 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.{{Cite web |url=http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/Leyes/30358.pdf |title=Ley de creación del distrito de La Yarada Los Palos en la provincia de Tacna del departamento de Tacna LEY-N°30358 |website=Congress of Peru}} Chile protested against the law, and declared it null and void in the context of the border between both states.{{Cite web |url=http://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/2015/11/08/heraldo-munoz-vamos-a-resguardar-nuestros-intereses-y-nuestro-territorio.shtml |title=Muñoz por creación del distrito La Yarada-Los Palos: No tiene valor jurídico para Chile |date=2015-11-08 |website=BioBioChile}}

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

{{reflist}}

{{Irredentism}}

Category:History of the foreign relations of Chile

Category:Territorial disputes of Chile

Category:Territorial disputes of Peru

Category:Chile–Peru border

Category:Chile–Peru relations

Category:Irredentism

Category:Territorial evolution of Peru