LIMA, Peru – A dispute over regulatory oversight of the burgeoning Chancay Port, a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project spearheaded by Chinese shipping giant Cosco, has escalated sharply, with Peru’s infrastructure regulator, Ositrán, asserting that Cosco’s legal challenge represents a violation of Peruvian sovereignty. The claim, made public on February 18th, 2026, comes after a Peruvian court initially sided with Cosco, temporarily shielding the port from Ositrán’s supervision.
The core of the conflict centers on whether Ositrán, the Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión en Infraestructura de Transporte de Uso Público, has the authority to regulate the Chancay Port, or whether that responsibility falls solely to the Autoridad Portuaria Nacional (APN). Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú argued in court that Ositrán’s oversight would be duplicative and impede the port’s operations. The initial ruling by Judge Juan Carlos Núñez Matos granted Cosco’s request for an injunction, preventing Ositrán from intervening in the port’s activities. This decision, yet, has triggered a strong response from Peruvian authorities, who fear it could set a dangerous precedent and undermine the country’s control over critical infrastructure.
Sovereignty at Stake: Ositrán’s Response
Verónica Zambrano, President of Ositrán, has been vocal in her criticism of the court’s decision. According to reporting from La República, Zambrano stated that Ositrán has concluded, after reviewing Cosco’s legal arguments, that a violation of Peruvian sovereignty is indeed occurring. She emphasized that the law explicitly grants Ositrán regulatory authority and that the APN is not intended to replace it. “There cannot be two entities of the State duplicating functions of regulation,” Zambrano reportedly said. The regulator intends to appeal the ruling to the Poder Judicial, framing the case as a matter of national importance.
The concern, as articulated by Zambrano, is that allowing Cosco to operate outside of Ositrán’s oversight could compromise Peru’s maritime domain. The Chancay Port, located approximately 80 kilometers north of Lima, is strategically significant, and its operation is intrinsically linked to national security and economic interests. Ositrán’s appeal will argue that the court’s decision effectively cedes control over a vital piece of Peruvian infrastructure to a foreign entity, potentially impacting the country’s ability to regulate maritime traffic and enforce its laws. This is a particularly sensitive issue given China’s growing economic and political influence in the region.
The Court Ruling and Cosco’s Position
The initial ruling in favor of Cosco, reported by El Comercio on February 6th, 2026, stemmed from the company’s claim that Ositrán’s attempts to regulate the port were unwarranted and exceeded its legal authority. Cosco argued that the port’s operations fall under the purview of the APN, and that Ositrán’s involvement would create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. The court agreed, issuing an order preventing Ositrán from “directly or indirectly” exercising regulatory control over the port.
While Cosco has not directly addressed the sovereignty concerns raised by Ositrán, the company has maintained that its actions are in full compliance with Peruvian law. Gestión reported that Cosco indicated that further investment in the port is contingent on a clear definition of tariffs, suggesting that regulatory certainty is a key priority. The company has too distanced itself from similar port projects elsewhere, stating that each operation is subject to its own interpretation of local laws. This stance, however, has done little to quell the concerns of Peruvian officials who view the situation as a potential threat to national interests.
Broader Implications and Institutional Risk
The dispute extends beyond the immediate regulatory oversight of the Chancay Port. Revista Caretas reported that Peruvian regulators are expressing concerns about a broader institutional risk, fearing that the court’s decision could embolden other companies to challenge the authority of regulatory bodies. If other investors were to successfully circumvent established regulatory frameworks, it could undermine investor confidence and create a climate of legal uncertainty, potentially hindering future infrastructure projects.
The situation has also sparked a political debate within Peru, with some lawmakers questioning the government’s handling of the issue. Critics argue that the administration should have taken a more assertive stance from the outset and that the court’s decision reflects a lack of resolve in protecting national sovereignty. The government, however, maintains that it is committed to defending Peru’s interests and that it is working to find a resolution that balances the need for foreign investment with the imperative of maintaining regulatory control.
The Role of the APN
A central point of contention is the role of the Autoridad Portuaria Nacional (APN). Ositrán argues that the APN is not intended to supplant its regulatory functions, but rather to complement them. The APN is responsible for planning and promoting the development of the national port system, while Ositrán is tasked with ensuring that port operations comply with safety, environmental, and quality standards. The court’s decision, however, effectively grants the APN sole authority over the Chancay Port, potentially weakening Ositrán’s ability to enforce these standards.
Next Steps and Potential Outcomes
The case is now headed to the Corte Superior, where three magistrates will review the initial ruling. Zambrano expressed confidence that the higher court will reverse the decision, citing the clear legal mandate for Ositrán’s oversight. The outcome of this appeal will have significant implications for the future of the Chancay Port and for Peru’s broader relationship with China. A reversal of the ruling would reaffirm Ositrán’s authority and send a strong signal that Peru is committed to protecting its sovereignty. However, if the court upholds the initial decision, it could open the door to further legal challenges and create a more uncertain regulatory environment.
The legal battle is unfolding against a backdrop of increasing Chinese investment in Latin America. The Chancay Port is a key component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure development program aimed at connecting China with markets around the world. The project has been lauded by some as a catalyst for economic growth, but it has also raised concerns about China’s growing influence in the region and the potential for debt traps and geopolitical leverage. The outcome of this dispute will likely be closely watched by other countries in Latin America as they navigate their own relationships with China.
The next key date to watch is the scheduled hearing at the Corte Superior, the date of which has not yet been publicly announced. Updates on the case will likely be available through the Poder Judicial’s website and through Peruvian news outlets. The resolution of this dispute will be a critical test of Peru’s ability to balance its economic interests with its national sovereignty.
What are your thoughts on the Chancay Port dispute? Share your comments below and let us know what you think. Don’t forget to share this article with your network to retain the conversation going.
Related reading