The Beagle Channel Arbitration Award
| Published date | 01 October 1978 |
| Author | Malcolm Shaw |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711787800600204 |
| Date | 01 October 1978 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
415
THE
BEAGLE
CHANNEL
ARBITRATION
AWARD
by
MALCOLM
SHAW
THE
awards
of
arbitral
tribunals
in
matters
relating
to
problems
of
the
attribution
of
territorial
sovereignty
over
land
and
sea
areas
have
constituted
an
important,
if
rather
underrated,
source
of
material
for
the
resolution
of
boundary
disputes.
Although
much
of
the
law
relating
to
territorial
conflicts
has
tended
to
revolve
around
Roman
law
theoretical
categories,
as
developed
by
a
series
of
leading
cases
before
the
Permanent
Court
of
International
Justice
and
the
International
Court
of
Justice,
much
valuable
dis-
cussion
and
elucidation
of
relevant
criteria
is
available
in
the
various
arbitral
reports
dealing
with
boundary
problems.
Central
and
South
America
has
figured
highly
both
as
an
area
of
boundary
problems
and
as
the
region
with
the
foremost
tradi-
tion
of
arbitration
as
the
means
of
resolving
differences,
between
the
States.
Of
the
many
boundary
disputes,
those
between
Argentina
and
Chile
with
their
3,000
mile
long
frontier
have been
of
special
interest.
To
date
three
awards
have
been
presented
dealing
with
aspects
of
their
boundary
conflicts,
the
Cordillera
of
the
Andes
Boundary
case
of
1902,1
the
Argentine-Chile
frontier
case
of
19662
and
the
Beagle
Channel
case.’3
The
dispute
between
the
two
South
American
States
to
be
con-
sidered
in
this
article
centres
around
their
territorial
and
maritime
boundaries
(including
the
title
to
particular
islands,
islets
and
rocks)
at
the
southern
tip
of
the
American
continent
in
the
region
of
the
eastern
Beagle
Channel.
This
region
was
specifically
defined
for the
purposes
of
the
arbitration
by
means
of
straight
lines
connecting
six
agreed
points
(termed
A,
B,
C,
D,
E
and
F)
marked
on
a
map.
The
area
in
question
as
defined
became
known
as
&dquo;the
hammer&dquo;
in
view
of
its
shape;
as
its
eastern
portion
extended
further
south
than
its
western
arm.
The
&dquo;hammer&dquo;
included
the
eastern
part
of
the
Beagle
Channel
and
the
territory
immediately
adjoining
it
north
and
south
until
the
sea
was
reached,
and
three
*
Principal
Lecturer
in
Law
at
the
Liverpool
Polytechnic.
1
RIAA
vol.
9,
p.31,
2
38
ILR
p.10.
3
Award
of
Her
Britannic
Majesty’s
Government
Pursuant
to
the
Agree-
ment
for
Arbitration
(Compromiso)
of
a
Controversy
between
the
Argentine
Republic
and
the
Republic
of
Chile
Concerning
the
Region
of
the
Beagle
Channel,
1977,
published
by
HMSO.
Hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
Award.
A
series
of
maps
is
annexed
to
the
Award.
416
important
islands
lying
to
the
south
of
the
southern
shore
of
Isla
Grande
de
Tierra
del
Fuego
(indisputably
Argentinian
territory)
and
to
the
east
of
the
eastern
shore
of
the
Isla
Navarino
(indisput-
ably
Chilean
territory).
These
three
islands,
Picton
in
the
north,
Lennox
in
the
south-west
and
Nueva
in
the
south-east
were
at
the
centre
of
the
dispute.
Prior
to
reaching
Picton,
the
Beagle
Channel
split
into
two
arms,
one
extending
south-east
passing
to
the
north
of
Picton
and
Nueva,
the
other
flowing
south-southeast in
between
Picton
and
Lennox
on
the
east
and
Isla
Navarino
on
the
west.
Since
the
dispute
turned
in
the
event
on
the
placement
of
the
Beagle
Channel,
the
question
arose
as
to
which
of
these
two
arms
constituted
the
eastern
end
of
the
Channel.
Upon
this
decision,
the
determination
of
sovereignty
over
Picton,
Nueva
and
Lennox
(re-
ferred
to
collectively
by
the
court
as
the
PNL
group)
depended.
The
Channel
itself,
situated
some
70
miles
north
of
Cape
Horn,
is
only
a
narrow
passage-way
of
about
3
to
3.5
miles
wide
and
over
100
miles
long,
connecting
the
Pacific
and
Atlantic
oceans.
It
was
named
after
the
British
naval
vessel
&dquo;Beagle&dquo;
which
in
the
years
1831-4
determined
the
existence
and form
of
the
Channel.
It
was
this
vessel
which
later
achieved
somewhat
greater
fame
as
the
means
of
conveyance
of
one
Charles
Darwin.
In
the
event,
the
British
origin
of
the
name
of
the
Channel
afforded
a
senti-
mental
connection
between
the
geographical
area
under
dispute
and
the
arbitrator,
which
in
a
sense
also
underlined
the
contrast
between
the
past
and
present
roles
of
the
United
Kingdom
relative
to
South
America.
Although
the
problem
concerned
the
siting
of
the
Chilean-
Argentinian
boundary
in
a
relatively
restricted
area
and
the
con-
sequent
sovereignty
over
the
geographically
small
islands
of
the
PNL
group,
larger
issues
were
involved.
The
islands
covered
the
eastern
entrance
to
the
important
Argentinian
naval
base
at
Ushuaia,
the
western
entrance
to
which
passed
through
Chilean
territory.
Sovereignty
over
the
islands
would
also
have
a
vital
im-
pact
upon
the
extent
of
the
continental
shelf
which
could
be
claimed
by
either
party
and
which
may
well
be
oil
bearing.
Similarly,
claims
to
territory
in
Antarctica4
could
be
affected
by
ownership
of
the
PNL
group.
Not
the
least
of
possible
repercus-
sions
would
be
the
affect
of
sovereignty
over
the
islands
with
regard
to
the
200
mile
economic
zone,
which
now
appears
to
form
part
of
customary
law,
having
regard
to
the
important
fish
re-
4
By
s.4
(2)
of
the
Antarctic
Treaty
1959
territorial
claims
in
that
area
made
inter
alia
by
the
UK,
Argentina
and
Chile
were
suspended
dur-
ing
the
life
of
the
Treaty,
see
Shaw,
International
Law,
1977
p.231.
To continue reading
Request your trial