Excellency,
EMBASSY OF NICARAGUA
THE HAGUE
The Hague, 1 March 2018
REF: HOL-EMB-019-2018
With reference to the request for an Advisory Opinion concerning the Legal
Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago fi·om .Mauritius in 1965, and in
particular to the Orders of the Court dated 14 July 2017 and 30 January 2018 fixing the time
limits to present written statements; I have the honour to transmit to the Court the Written
Statement of the Republic of Nicaragua filed within the time limit accorded by the Court.
The Written Statement comprises an Original of the statement, 30 hard copies and 2
electronic copies.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
His Excellency
Mr. Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court of justice
Camegieplein 2
2517 KJ, The Hague
- / ,
. c-.:.---z?' . '- /--- /
Carlos Jose Arguello Gomez
Ambassador
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE
CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA
01 March 2018
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................... 1
II. Jurisdiction and Admissibility ................................................................. 2
III. The request ................................................................................................. 3
A. Question A ................................................................................................... 3
B. Question B ................................................................................................... 5
IV. Conclusions ................................................................................................. 6
1
I. Introduction
1. On 15 June 2017 the Republic of the Congo, on behalf of the Group of African States
Members of the United Nations, submitted draft resolution A/71/L.73 entitled the "Request
for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the
separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965" (hereinafter “Request for the
Chagos Advisory Opinion”).
2. During the Seventy-First Session (22 June 2017) the General Assembly adopted
Resolution 71/292 which concerned the Request for the Chagos Advisory Opinion. In this
Resolution the General Assembly decided, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the
United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the
Statute of the Court, to render an advisory opinion on the following questions:
(a) “Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when
Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the
Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and having regard to international law,
including obligations reflected in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14
December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December
1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967?”;
(b) “What are the consequences under international law, including obligations reflected
in the above-mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued administration by
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Chagos
Archipelago, including with respect to the inability of Mauritius to implement a
programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in
particular those of Chagossian origin?”;
3. On 14 July 2017 the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) issued an Order inviting the
United Nations and its Member States to submit written statements concerning the questions
submitted to the Court for the Request for the Chagos Advisory Opinion. In the same Order
the Court fixed 30 January 2018 as the time limit within which written statements may be
presented, and 16 April 2018 as the time limit within which States and organizations having
2
presented written statements may submit written comments on the other written statements.
On 17 January 2018, the Court issued a new Order in which it decided to extend to 1 March
2018 the time-limits for the filing of all written statements and to 15 May 2018 the time-limit
within which States and organizations having presented written statements may submit
written comments on the other written statements1. The present written statement of
Nicaragua is filed within the time limit so fixed.
II. Jurisdiction and Admissibility
4. Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statue of the Court, states that the ICJ “may give an
advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by
or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request.”
Consequently, for the Court to proceed with the request addressed to it by the General
Assembly in Resolution 71/292, it needs to satisfy itself that a) the advisory opinion has been
requested by an organ duly authorized under the UN Charter and that b) the questions
formulated in the aforementioned Resolution are legal questions2 within the meaning of
Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of its Statute.
a) Article 96, paragraph 1, of the UN Charter provides that “The General Assembly or
the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an
advisory opinion on any legal question”. This provision not only authorizes the
General Assembly to request an advisory opinion, but it also makes it plain that there
is no other requisite than the need for the question to be of a legal nature.
b) Regarding the legal character of the questions, the Court has indicated that questions
“framed in terms of law and rais[ing] problems of international law . . . are by their
very nature susceptible of a reply based on law”3. The questions contained in the
Request for the Chagos Advisory Opinion meet that criterion. Question A refers to the
process of decolonization in accordance to international law, and Question B to the
consequences under international law, arising from the continued administration by
1 In the same Order the Court informed that the African Union may furnish information on the question
submitted to the Court for an advisory opinion.
2 See Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1982, pp. 333-334, para. 21.
3 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 18, para. 15.
3
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereinafter “United
Kingdom”) of the Chagos Archipelago. There is no doubt that both questions are of a
legal nature and susceptible of a reply based on law.
5. Therefore, Nicaragua, a State with a deep commitment to international law, considers
that the Court has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion in response to the questions
submitted by the General Assembly under Resolution 71/292, and that there are no reasons
that prevent the Court from giving the requested opinion.
III. The request
A. Question A
“Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius
was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos
Archipelago from Mauritius and having regard to international law, including
obligations reflected in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December
1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357
(XXII) of 19 December 1967?”;
6. One of the main purposes of the UN Charter is the development of friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples4, which can only be achieved through respect of the principle that the Organization
and its Member refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity of any State5. Additionally, the General Assembly has adopted several
Resolutions6 that not only enforce the principle of respect for the territorial integrity of states,
but that also call upon the administering powers to implement without delay the process of
decolonization.
7. It is in this regard that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples, Resolution 1514 (XV), recognized the right of self-determination in
4 UN Charter, Article 1 (2) and Article 55.
5 UN Charter, Article 2 (4).
6 General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI)
of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967
4
the context of decolonization and “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional
end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations”7. Furthermore, it states that “[t]he
subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of
fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an
impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation” and that “[a]ny attempt aimed
at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country
is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” 8
8. Following up on Resolution 1514 (XV), and in full recognition of the peoples’ right to
self-determination and territorial integrity, the General Assembly adopted in 1970 the
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation
among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 1970
(Resolution 2625 (XXV)9, which stressed the need bring to a “speedy end” colonialism10.
9. The principle of territorial integrity is a pivotal element of the process of
decolonization. The United Nations has been consistent in declaring that any attempt aimed
“at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of colonial
Territories and the establishment of military bases and installations in these Territories is
incompatible with the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of
General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)”11
10. As for the present case, the United Kingdom, prior to granting Mauritius
independence in 1968, detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in order to create the
so-called “British Indian Ocean Territory”, thus breaching its international obligation to
respect the territorial integrity and unity of Mauritius.
7 Italics added.
8 Italics added.
9 Resolution 2625 (XXV).
10 Resolution 2625 states that “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external
interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State
has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. Every State has the duty to
promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”
11 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. See also Resolution 1514 (XV)
and Resolution 2625 (XXV). Italic added.
5
11. On 16 December 1965 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2066 (XX) , which
not only put on record the failure of the United Kingdom to “fully implement […] resolution
1514 (XV)” with regard to Mauritius, but also noted “with deep concern that any step taken
by the administering Power [i.e.UK] to detach certain islands from the Territory of Mauritius
for the purpose of establishing a military base would be in contravention of [resolution 1514
(XV)], and in particular paragraph 6 thereof.”12 As a result of the lack of implementation of
Resolution 1514 by the United Kingdom, the General Assembly called on it to “take
effective measures with a view to the immediate and full implementation of resolution 1514
(XV)” and “to take no action which would dismember the Territory of Mauritius and [thus]
violate its territorial integrity”13.
12. As is evident from the public record14, up to date the United Kingdom has not
implemented its obligation to restore the dismembered territory to Mauritius nor has it
complied with the full extent of its obligation as stated in Resolution 1514.
13. Taking into account that the United Kingdom has violated the territorial integrity of
Mauritius by detaching from it the Chagos Archipelago in order to create the so-called
“British Indian Ocean Territory”, the Republic of Nicaragua considers that the process of
decolonization of Mauritius has not been lawfully completed to this day.
B. Question B
“What are the consequences under international law, including obligations
reflected in the above-mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued
administration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the
Chagos Archipelago, including with respect to the inability of Mauritius to
implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its
nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin?”;
12 Paragraph 6 reads as follow: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the
territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations”.
13 Resolution 2066 (XX), italic added.
14 See the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Dissenting Opinion and
Concurring Opinion, Judge James Kateka and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum, para.91, p.23.
6
14. As stated above, the Republic of Nicaragua considers that the process of
decolonization of Mauritius has not been lawfully completed. Thus, Nicaragua is of the
opinion that the clear consequence under international law is that the unlawful situation must
be brought to an end immediately and full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago should
be restored to Mauritius. For the United Kingdom to comply with its international obligation
it must bring the unlawful situation to an end and provide the means to implement a
programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular
those of Chagossian origin.
IV. Conclusions
15. For the reasons set out in this Written Statement, the Republic of Nicaragua requests
the Court to find that:
a. In accordance to international law, including obligations reflected in General
Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December
1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967, the
process of decolonization of Mauritius has not been lawfully completed to this day,
because of the partial disruption of its territory, and;
b. The consequence under international law is that the unlawful situation must be
brought to an end immediately and full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago
should be restored to Mauritius.
The Hague, 1 March 2018
Carlos J. Argüello-Gómez
Representative of the Republic of Nicaragua
Written Statement of Nicaragua