scholarly journals Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives)

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-526
Author(s):  
Craig D. Gaver
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Documents ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

On January 28, 2021, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) dismissed all of the respondent's preliminary objections in Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean (Mauritius/Maldives). The proceeding arose out of Mauritius's long-running effort to regain sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which was originally “detached” from Mauritius in 1965 by the United Kingdom (UK). Although the Judgment will allow the case to proceed to the merits, it is significant in its own right for its engagement with several earlier legal decisions, including the arbitral award in Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration and the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, as well as UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295 affirming the Advisory Opinion. The Special Chamber stitched together a series of legal documents that, considered individually, were either non-binding or limited in scope to achieve a determination greater than the sum of its parts—one that effectively resolved the disputed sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.

Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the Indian Ocean, Preliminary Objections (ITLOS)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-69
Author(s):  
Thomas Burri ◽  
Jamie Trinidad
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
The Law ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

On January 28, 2021, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered a judgment in which it rejected preliminary objections raised by the Maldives in arbitral proceedings instituted by Mauritius, concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary north of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean.

Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (I.C.J.)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-602
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The Right ◽  
Chagos Archipelago ◽  
Legal Consequences

In its Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed two questions posed in a request from the UN General Assembly. First, had Mauritius's decolonization been completed when it gained independence in 1968, after the excision of the Chagos Archipelago? Second, what were the legal consequences flowing from the United Kingdom's continued administration of the Archipelago? It was thought that the Court might shy away from giving an Opinion in this case as, arguably, it concerned a bilateral sovereignty dispute that the United Kingdom had not agreed to have resolved by judicial decision. However, as it turned out, the Court delivered surprisingly robust responses to the questions posed. The Opinion—and the numerous Separate Opinions that accompanied it—offer a thorough re-evaluation of the customary international law (CIL) concerning the right to self-determination in cases of decolonization.

scholarly journals Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 784-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Marie Amann
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The Right ◽  
Chagos Archipelago ◽  
Legal Consequences

Decolonization and its quite valid discontents lay at the center of this advisory opinion regarding the territory and populations of islands located in the Indian Ocean. Answering questions posed by the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) concluded that because the Chagos Archipelago was detached from Mauritius as a condition of independence, the decolonization of Mauritius had not been completed in accordance with international law. The Court further ruled unlawful the United Kingdom's continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago and called upon all UN member states to aid completion of the decolonization process. Nearly unanimous—the sole dissenter on the merits was Judge Joan E. Donoghue of the United States—the advisory opinion contained significant pronouncements on decolonization, on the right of all peoples to self-determination, and on the formation of customary rules respecting both. It did so in a manner that implicated the ICJ's role as the judicial organ of the United Nations, in whose General Assembly and other political bodies the next episodes in the Chagos controversy seem destined to unfold.

scholarly journals Self-Determination in Light of the International Court of Justice’s Opinion in the Chagos Case

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-235
Author(s):  
Gino J Naldi
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Territorial Dispute ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Right ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

In its Advisory Opinion in Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, delivered in 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was of the view that the decolonisation of Mauritius by the United Kingdom had not been lawfully completed when it achieved independence in 1968. This was due to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago in 1965. After dismissing various challenges to the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction, including the argument that the issue at stake was a territorial dispute between the States and that its jurisdiction was, therefore, being misused to circumvent the UnitedKingdom’s lack of consent to contentious proceedings, the ICJ felt it necessary to explore the nature, scope and content of the right to self-determination and whether it had been validly exercised in this instance. The ICJ found that self-determination had become established as a legal right in the context of decolonisation by the time Mauritius was in the process of securing its independence in the 1960s and that a corollary of the right was that of the territorial integrity of a non-self governing territory, which had not been respected in the case of Mauritius. Accordingly, the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constituted an ongoing internationally wrongful act, entailing international responsibility, which the United Kingdom was under an obligation to put an end to as soon as possible. While it was for the United Nations (UN) General Assembly to determine how the decolonisation of Mauritius was to be realised, in view of the fact that the right to self- determination has an erga omnes character, the ICJ called on all States to co-operate with the UN to that end.

Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 463-479
Author(s):  
Paul Weismann
Keyword(s):  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Indian Ocean ◽  
Un General Assembly ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Chagos Archipelago

Abstract The Chagos Archipelago is a small group of islands and atolls in the Indian Ocean which traditionally has belonged to Mauritius. In 1965, when Mauritius was still a colony of the UK, the Chagos Archipelago was detached from Mauritius and the UK allowed the US to establish a military base on this territory. These occurrences have been highly disputed ever since. In February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), upon request by the UN General Assembly, has rendered its Advisory Opinion on a number of legal issues concerning the case. This contribution aims at presenting and discussing the facts of the case and its main legal aspects, encompassing material questions on the peoples’ right to self-determination, on territorial integrity and on international responsibility, but also procedural questions relating to the scope of the jurisdiction of the ICJ. In this context, not only the Advisory Opinion of the Court shall be analysed, but also the Separate Opinions and Declarations and in particular the Dissenting Opinion rendered by Judge Donoghue will be taken into account.

Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 725-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatrice I. Bonafé
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Indian Ocean

On February 2, 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) delivered a judgment rejecting preliminary objections to its jurisdiction in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean. The underlying contentious case between Somalia and Kenya concerns the establishment of a single maritime boundary between the two states. The decision on preliminary objections provides important insights on the Court's interpretation of optional clause declarations that include a reservation for alternative methods of dispute settlement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document