The 2010 Declaration of a Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Archipelago: Some Legal Reflections

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 15-37
Author(s):  
Milan J N Meetarbhan
2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill

AbstractThis is the seventh of a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea both under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. The main developments during 2010 were the commencement of four new, and very different, cases—a request for an advisory opinion in the Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area case and three contentious cases, the Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), the M/V Louisa (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain) and Dispute concerning the ‘Marine Protected Area’ related to the Chagos Archipelago (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) cases—and an order by the ITLOS declining to prescribe provisional measures in the M/V Louisa case.


2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. C. Sheppard ◽  
M. Ateweberhan ◽  
B. W. Bowen ◽  
P. Carr ◽  
C. A. Chen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 671-707
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen

On February 8, 2018, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its judgment in R (Bancoult No 3) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The case concerned a challenge to the validity of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) extending 250,000 square miles around the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT or Chagos Archipelago). Declared in 2010, the MPA was justified on the ground of environmental protection and resulted in a ban on all commercial fishing in this zone. The appellant alleged that the MPA had been established for an improper purpose—to prevent the Chagos Islanders from resettling the Archipelago. He claimed that this was evidenced by a diplomatic cable sent from the U.S. embassy in London. It recorded a 2009 meeting in which U.S. and British officials discussed the reasons behind the MPA. The cable was subsequently leaked via the WikiLeaks website and published in two national newspapers. Accordingly, as Lady Hale rightly observed, “[t]he crucial legal issue in this case is therefore the admissibility of the cable.”


2014 ◽  
Vol 506 ◽  
pp. 175-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Sturaro ◽  
G Lepoint ◽  
A Pérez-Perera ◽  
S Vermeulen ◽  
P Panzalis ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 609 ◽  
pp. 239-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
TL Silva ◽  
G Fay ◽  
TA Mooney ◽  
J Robbins ◽  
MT Weinrich ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirin Apps ◽  
Kay Dimmock ◽  
David J. Lloyd ◽  
Charlie Huveneers

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document