A Glimpse of Light at the End of the Chagos Tunnel
Kwang A Poon2023, Le Mauricien
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
Over many years, decades even, little material progress was made on the Chagos case. It was when the discourse was elevated to the geopolitical level that the protagonists started to see eye to eye when the tête-à-tête started zeroing in towards the nexus of the issue. As the stakeholders reached a shared Mahanian view over Chagos and the Indian Ocean, the pathway towards a solution was set whereby each party gets what it is actually after.
Related papers
CHAGOS - Where International Law Stops
Who should decide the future of the Chagos Archipelago? On 20 December 2010, Mauritius started proceedings against the United Kingdom at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). But before the Court can answer two of the questions set before it, it has to decide who has the better claim to the Chagos Archipelagos. It is generally assumed that this question has only two possible answers: the UK or Mauritius. I assert that there is a third possible claimant: the Chagossians. In this thesis, I will look at the question from the point of view of all three parties. Imagine that you are a judge and these three parties are going to tell you their story. In Chapters 1 and 2, you will hear a tale favorable to Mauritius. In Chapter 3, the UK defends herself. In Chapter 4, the Chagossians claim that it is they who should decide the future of the archipelago. In the end, I hope that you will come down in favor of the same winner as I.
Chagos : An ongoing sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius in the Indian Ocean
LawWorld, 2020
This article examines the ongoing sovereignty dispute between the UK and Mauritius over the Chagos Islands, focusing on its historical, legal, and humanitarian aspects. It traces the islands' colonial detachment from Mauritius in 1965, the forced displacement of the Chagossian population to establish a US military base, and the resulting socio-economic hardships. Key legal milestones, including the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion declaring the UK's administration unlawful, are discussed alongside environmental and geopolitical issues, such as the establishment of a Marine Protected Area. The article highlights the Chagossians' persistent fight for justice and the broader implications for decolonization and international law.
Chagos and the Commons: Sovereignty and Stewardship at sea
AArchitecture37 Recognition, 2019
By deploying Kathryn Milun’s, insights on terra nullius, the conceptual framework of Giorgio Agamben’s “States of Exception”, and Mick Smith’s provocations “Against Ecological Sovereignty”, this short reflection on the status of the Chagos Archipelago, presents an illustration of the complex transversal conflicts of interest that extend beyond the territorial claims of the islands and the human rights abuses of the islanders. In so doing it suggests that Chagos challenges orthodox notions of sovereignty, stewardship and the Global Commons. The archipelago therefore becomes a staging point from which we can revisit the Commons and by implication, models of governance, forms of agency (and hence practice), no longer premised on dominion and enclosure.
'We are the true guardians of the environment': human-environment relations and debates about the future of the Chagos Archipelago
2013
This article applies Ingold's conceptualization of environmental outlooks ranging from the ‘globe’ to the ‘sphere’ to explore human-environment relations and debates about the future of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. Chagossians and conservationists broadly represent the two extremes of the engaged lifeworld of the sphere and the detached worldview of the globe, respectively, but I argue that this does not necessarily determine their environmental outlooks for the future. It is not simply the case either that Chagossians uniformly advocate resettlement of Chagos or that conservationists uniformly oppose resettlement. Within each group two distinct environmental outlooks are identified: engagement versus withdrawal amongst Chagossians, and exclusion versus participation amongst conservationists. The article demonstrates, then, that environmental outlooks are influenced not only by understandings of human-environment relations but also by pragmatic and ideological considerations.
No Way Home for the Chagossians: Law and Power Politics
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 2018
If home is where the heart is, then home for the Chagossian people is the Chagos archipelago. The story of the Chagos people is not very well known, but it is a story of injustice and of a legal and political battle to bring an end to this injustice. Evicted from their homes following a decision by the British and American Governments to construct an Anglo-American military base on one of the archipelago’s islands, Diego Garcia, the Chagossians have fought in political and legal arenas for the right to return home for nearly 50 years. The basis for their demand to return home is well-founded under national and international legal principles. However, despite political and legal gains made throughout the years, the right to return home, remains elusive.
The shadow of Pelindaba: Chagos and the African nuclear-weapon-free zone
South African Journal of International Affairs, 2019
The Chagos Archipelago off the East African coast has been the subject of a territorial and humanitarian dispute ever since it was 'excised' from the former British colony of Mauritius and forcibly depopulated, 50 years ago, to make place for an American military base on the principal island of Diego Garcia. Starting from a historic advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 25 February 2019 and an implementing resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 22 May 2019, this article aims at broadening the debate so as to take into account (i) the general context of relevant treaty instruments potentially affecting the Chagos and the Chagossians (primarily in the fields of human rights and environment); and (ii) the specific concerns of denuclearisation and disarmament raised by the Treaty on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, in particular.
Indian Ocean futures: new partnerships, new alliances and academic diplomacy
Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, 2015
Much of the job which falls to the editors of relatively new academic journals such as the Journal of the Indian Ocean Region (JIOR) is to forge epistemic and intellectual networks and alliances across an emerging academic field. And there can be no doubt that Indian Ocean studies and associated research ventures are relatively recent pursuits when compared to those works which have focused more heavily upon the Atlantic and Pacific oceanic geopolitical spheres. This is not to say that Indian Ocean interests have only recently emerged, but that rather, over recent decades, the intellectual and critical gaze of the academic Anglosphere has been largely focused elsewhere. JIOR also addresses the necessity of academic diplomacy: building bridges, not just in a purely intellectual sense, but by constructing widespread relationships in terms of 'real-time' geography, inventing previously non-existent or under-nourished links in an almost 'biophysical' manner between people and key institutions across what was once the Ocean of the South, and which, in the twenty-first Century, is rapidly becoming the Ocean of the Centre, the Ocean of the Future. In this vein, this edition begins with celebrating two such new and vital relationships. To begin with, as the words of the Foreword have already explained, this is the first edition of JIOR which has been officially affiliated with the hallmark, Track One, regional governance organisation for the Indian Ocean region (IOR): the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA). This affiliation has been made possible through the construction of a very close relationship between the Indian Ocean Research Group (IORG) and IORA. Some years ago now, IORG was granted Observer status at IORA meetings, and since this time a richly productive relationship in both intellectual and policy-making terms has emerged. This relationship is now even stronger, with JIOR now jointly endorsed by these two organisations. Of course, the full and independent editorial control of the journal remains firmly with IORG. As explained on the inside cover of this edition: 'The contents of this journal are based exclusively on the views of the authors and, in no way, do these views reflect the interests or opinions of Indian Ocean Rim Academic Group (IORAG), IORA, or the position of its Member States'. So, let us echo the inspirational words of Ambassador K.V. Bhagirath, Secretary-General of the IORA in his opening statement, in our firm hope that this marks an even stronger period of development for JIOR, and that the journal continues not just to build academic enquiry in the IOR but also continues to be actively engaged in actual regionbuilding. With Australia as the current Chair, a recent tradition of reinvigoration of IORAled by India, and to be followed by Indonesia and South Africa after the completion of Australia's termis continuing at a pace which is credible, innovative and responsible. As mentioned in a previous edition, the IOR, of vital geopolitical importance, is a celebration in terms of its diversity in political systems, cultural institutions and ethno-religious
Diego Garcia: British-American legal black hole in the Indian Ocean?
2009
Environmental risks from US military construction on the atoll of Diego Garcia (British Indian Ocean Territory) since 1971 include damage caused by large-scale 'coral mining', the introduction of invasive alien plant species, continuous transits of nuclear material and unreported major fuel spills; these risks are now compounded by those of sea-level rise and ocean acidification due to global climate change. The US and UK governments have evaded accountability by way of a persistent 'black hole' strategy, contending that some national laws and international treaties for the protection of human rights and the environment do not apply to the island-a position confirmed by a controversial appellate judgment of the House of Lords in October 2008, essentially relying on 'prerogative' colonial law. This article draws attention to the fallacy of the black-hole syndrome, and to its potentially fatal consequences for the British claim to a 200-mile environment protection zone in the Chagos Archipelago.
Related topics
Related papers
The Myth of the Empty Territory: The Tragedy of the Chagos Islanders
2021
In this article we outline the tragedy of the Chagos Islanders forcibly evicted from their homeland to make way for an American military base. A new colony was invented, the British Indian Ocean Territory, which would be declared a marine reserve in 2010. The British have refused to allow the Chagossians the right to return to their homelands not to protect the environment, but rather to safeguard the political agreement based on economic and military imperialism. Therefore this community has been condemned to historical erasure as their stories are imbricated in the official narration of an empty territory. To prevent the plight of the Chagossians from falling into oblivion, we organized a creative writing workshop with members of the community in order to grant visibility to the Chagossian fight for identity and recognition.
Chagos and the ICJ – The Marine Protected Area [The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on The Chagos Archipelago: An Anticipatory Analysis (Part I, II & III)]
2018
There has been considerable debate, presented before the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court), regarding the scope of the request to the ICJ and the powers of the Court to express an opinion on the matter. There does, however, seem to be general consensus in the arguments put before the ICJ, that it is now a rule of customary international law that there is a right to self-determination for former colonies. When it became so is debated. Integral to this is the self-determination of the whole of the territory encompassed in the current or former colony. UNGA Resolution 2066(XX), registers the ‘deep concern’ of the GA in respect of ‘any step taken by the administering Power to detach certain islands from the Territory of Mauritius for the purpose of establishing a military base’ and invited the UK (the administering Power) ‘to take no action which would dismember the Territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity’. Arguably, the establishment of the Marine Prote...
The Chagos Archipelago Cases: Nature Conservation between Human Rights and Power Politics
This note summarizes past and current case law concerning one of the last-born colonies of our times, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Created -and depopulated -for the sole purpose of accommodating a strategic US military base, the territory has since generated extensive litigation in the national courts of the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights, an ongoing arbitration under Annex VII of the Convention on the Law of the Sea (Mauritius v. UK) and a potential dispute over continental shelf claims (UK, Mauritius and the Maldives). The principal actors, besides the governments involved, have been the Chagos islanders, whose exile from their home archipelago has lasted more than forty years now. The material analysed and referenced in this note covers a range of legal and historical sources documenting the underlying disputes.
Decolonising the Chagos Islands?
Nigerian Yearbook of International Law, 2019
The story of the Chagos archipelago is a familiar one in the history of international law. It is indicative of international law’s complicity in European oppression and dispossession of colonised peoples and places. Yet while much of the machinations of colonial rule were spannered – at least nominally in the form of sovereignty-as-independence – by the national liberation movements of the 20th century, the Chagos travesty persists into our 21st century colonial present. Britain’s refusal to let go of the small group of faraway islands serves as a contradictory symbol of both its self-deluding pretensions of empire on one hand, and its self-abasing servitude to United States imperialism on the other. It reminds us that colonialism is still very much with us, and that self-determination remains contingent. International law’s ode to sovereign equality and territorial integrity is as much about concealing its own colonial foundations as it is about delivering on a promise of liberation. This essay reflects on these themes in light of the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago, engaging with critical questions of international law as well as with the insights of Third World thinkers including Kwame Nkrumah, Amílcar Cabral and Eduardo Galeano.
The partition of the Chagos Archipelago and the haunting spectre of the South West Africa Cases
EJIL: Talk!
The advisory proceedings concerning the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 are over, but an opinion that answers the legal questions raised in the request could have consequences well beyond the Indian Ocean. Earlier this month, Stephen Allen contributed a post on the self-determination arguments made in relation to the first question asked of the court. Like Allen, I have taken sides in my scholarly work, although unlike Allen, I have argued that self-determination emerged as a customary norm of international law before 1970. As I argued in my article on the arbitration (2010-2015) between the UK and Mauritius (published in volume 19 of The Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 2016, pp. 419-468), the emergence of a norm prohibiting partition in the decolonization context would have outlawed the division of the archipelago before independence in 1968, unless it could be shown that Mauritius consented to the separation. In this post, I argue that the legal arguments raised by the Applicants in the South West Africa Cases could be of direct relevance to the opinion, because although the ICJ refused to address the merits, the cases spanned a period of time (1960-1966) that is germane to any contemporary assessment of the legality of the decision to partition the Chagos Archipelago in 1965. While the Applicants did not reference the Colonial Declaration (GAR 1514 (XV) (1960) in their pleadings, they nevertheless argued that international law in the 1960s prohibited partition, demonstrating that there were principles of law at stake that proscribed the non-consensual division of territory. What remains missing is an authoritative opinion from the world court.
Review of Stephen Allen: The Chagos Islanders and International Law Hart Publishing 2014, Oxford (published in 55(4) Indian Journal of International Law (2015), pp. 583-589.)
Stephen Allen's The Chagos Islanders and International Law offers the most detailed treatment to date of the protracted legal struggle of the Chagossians (Îlois) to return to their homes on a group of islands in the Indian Ocean from where they were unceremoniously deported by the United Kingdom (UK) between 1967 and 1973. The islanders had been tricked into leaving their homes so that the UK could lease the islands to the United States to establish an American military facility on the largest island of Diego Garcia at the height of the Cold War. The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)-a new colony-was established in 1965 when the Chagos islands were excised from Mauritius, then a non-self-governing territory of the UK, in direct violation of The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) (hereafter 'Colonial Declaration'). 2 The only reason the islander's deportation did not make news headlines at the time was because the British government misled the United Nations into believing that the islands were uninhabited (p. 6).
The Shadow of Pelindaba: Chagos and the African Nucelar-Weapon-Free Zone
South African Journal of International Affairs, 2019
On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered a historic advisory opinion on the status of the Chagos Archipelago (‘British Indian Ocean Territory’) and the possible resettlement of the former inhabitants of the islands, who had forcibly been removed fifty years ago to make place for a major UK-US military base on the principal island of Diego Garcia. While the focus of the wide-ranging legal and political debate leading up to the ICJ opinion (with statements submitted to the Court by 31 states and the African Union) has primarily been on the issues of decolonization and self-determination surrounding the independence of Mauritius in 1968, this article centers on the potential significance for Chagos of several related international treaties in the fields of human rights, environment and disarmament – including the Pelindaba Treaty on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in particular.
Legal Consequences of The Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019, General List No. 169)
Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 2020
On 25 February 2019 the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) issued its advisory opinion on legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The request for the advisory opinion was made by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) through its Resolution 71/292. The Resolution adopted on 22 June 2017 with 94 votes in favor, 15 against and 65 abstantions. The Court held unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion as requested and by 13 votes to one decided that the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago immediately before the final stage of decolonization was wrongful thus violating international law and specifically the right to self-determination. Inter alia the court was of the opinion that the agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) and Mauritius concluded in 1965 leaving Chagos Archipelago under administration of United Kingdom after completion of decolonization was flawed because it lacked the free expression of the will of the people on the side of Mauritius. Therefore according to the Court the United Kingdom is obliged to bring to an end its administration over Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible and that all members states are obliged to cooperate in the process. Eight judges presented their declarations among whom two presented a joint declaration, four judges presented separate opinions and one of the judges presented a dissenting opinion at the end of the proceedings. Thirty three states have submitted written statements. In addition the African Union organization was allowed to submit written statement. Eleven state have submitted comments related to written statements and 23 states have presented their oral argument before the ICJ. The Chagos Archipelago is located in the Indian Ocean about 500 km from the Maldives archipelago.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.