Do you mean the page which describes UNCLOS which Peru hasn't ratified?
As I've already said, Peru isn't bound to it.

boundary=maritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29

- UNCLOS is a convention and each state is free to ratify it or not. Peru hasn't ratified it so so it is irrelevant in this case.
- Due to the Antarctic treaty the territorial claims south of the 60°S latitude do rest. (Although I don't understand why you're refering to Antarctica, because this is a complete different situation)
- To which other international laws are you referring?

I could also say "Your point view is not convincing for changing for territorial to eez maritime border_type."

"like as the ICJ point view." The ICJ made no judgement regarding the extensive territorial waters claim of Peru!

For sake of freedom I've removed all boundary=* tags etc. from the boundary lines between Peru and Chile.

The Chilean boundary you've drawn exceedes 12 nautical miles. I've visualized it for you: http://i.imgur.com/EbjVqtG.jpg

The paragraph your're refering to is the opinion of one judge and not part of the judgement.

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part17.htm

No sentence that the convention is mandatory for every state in the world.

@trial: Peru hasn't ratified the convention (UNCLOS) so it isn't bound to it. As you've already said, the territorial waters usually measure 12 nautical miles, but not always...

It seems that you've obtained these informations from faulty secondary sources.

Please read the judgement: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17930.pdf

The dispute was about where to delimit the martitime boundaries between Chile and Peru and not if the Peruvian 200 nautical miles claim is justified or not.

@trial: 12 nautical miles limit of Chile, etc. is also a claim. All boundaries in the world are just claims.

@jptolosa87: This is a informations page, these are no rules. I've written some parts of this page and I can say that you've misunderstood what I've written on this page.

It seems that you haven't even read the ICJ decisian. Otherwhise you would know that that the judgement wasn't about the extensive 200 nautical miles territorial sea claim of Peru.

Peru hasn't ratified the "Law of the Sea" so it isn't bound to the 12 nm rule for territorial waters.
The Peruvian territorial waters currently measures 200 nautical miles (see Peruvian laws, ICJ decision Chile vs. Peru, etc.) Please be careful when you edit boundaries. Thanks.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf

Greetings from Germany!

The modifications where incorrect. The modified way exceeded 12 nm measured from the chilean coast.

reverted in changeset/34706486

Hallo, bitte gib etwas mehr Acht, wenn du Straßen editierst. Durch diese Änderung wurde die Autobahn unterbrochen, das heißt sämtliche Navis können hier nicht mehr darüber routen. Ein anderer Mapper hat das Stück mittlerweile repariert: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=52248

Gruß Arch

See changeset/34365232

I've reverted CS #34365399 to #34363418 as the edits of user mapmap12 do not meet OSM guidelines, etc.

It also other mappers have noticed and reverted the edits of mapmap12: changeset/34361683

Wenn man "s" drückt, kann man Gebäude rechtwinklig machen. Das würde hier aber auch nichts nützen, da das Gebäude offensichtlich falsch eingezeichnet wurde.

Das eingezeichnete Gebäude ist schief und stimmt nicht mit den Luftbildern überein.

Gruß