..
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHA GOS ARCHIPELAGO
FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965 (REQUEST FOR AD V/SOR Y OPINION)
EFFETS JURIDIQUES DE LA SEPARATION DEL 'ARCHIPEL DES CHAGOS DE
.. MAURICE EN 1965 (RliQUETEPOURAVISCONSULTATJF)
Judge Gaja: ln the process of decolonization relating to the Chagos Archipelago, what is the
relevance of the will of the population o/Chagossian origin?
Comment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
on the Written Reply of Mauritius
1. The United Kingdom's comment on the Written Reply of Mauritius of7 September 2018
is without prejudice toits position.that the Court should exercise its discretion so as not to
give an Advisory Opinion.
2. The United Kingdom does not accept that there has been, or now should be, a "process of
decolonization relating to the Chagos Archipelago"1
• The process of decolonization is "of
Mauritius" according to Question (a) of the Request. The Chagos Archipelago was not an
integral part of Mauritius prior to 1965 and did not form a part of Mauritius at the time of
independence in 19682
• The process of decolonization "of Mauritius" was lawfully
completed in 1968 at the time of its independence.
3. The United Kingdom makes four observations on the Written Reply of Mauritius.
4. First, Mauritius asserts that "the will of the people of Mauritius, including the 'will of the
population of Chagossian origin', was not taken into account prior to the detachrnent of
[the] Chagos Archipelago in 1965, or prior to the independence of Mauritius"3• The United
Kingdom has set out in its written and oral pleadings that the people of Mauritius freely
consented to the detachment in exchange for concrete undertakings and substantial benefits
1 Emphasis added.
2 StGB, paras. 2.12-2.29; CoGB, paras. 2.5-2.13; cr 2018/21, pp. 10-11, paras. 19-21 (Buckland).
3 Written Reply of Mauritius, para. 5.
1
in the 1965 Agreement, and this consent was reaffirmed multiple limes at and after
independence4• The 1967 general election was another opportunity for the free expression
of will by the Mauritian people, and the party whose leaders had agreed to the detachment
was elected by majority5•
5. Second, as regards the will of the population of Chagossian origin, the United Kingdom
observes that this was not treated as a requirement by the representatives of Mauritius at
the time of the 1965 Agreement and independence in 1968. The Chagos Archipelago was
loosely administered - as a matter of convenience - as a dependency of Mauritius. The vast
distance of the Archipelago from Mauritius explains why its inhabitants had limited contact
with Mauritius. As can be seen from the Mauritius Written Statement, the only consistent
and in any way significant tie with Mauritius was the import of copra from the
Archipelago6
• This was the reality in the 1960s, and it is disingenuous of Mauritius in 2018
to say that the "will of the population of Chagossian origin" was "required to be taken into
account"7 when its own leadership did not consider this necessary in 1965 or at the time of
the subsequent reaffirmations of consent that were given (which Mauritius continues
determinedly to ignore).
6. It should also be recalled how little was known about Chagossians in 1965 given their small
population and the remoteness of the Archipelago. There were approximately 1360 people
resident on the islands in November 19658• Including those born on the islands, the total
population of persons of Chagossian origin was between 1500-17509•
7. Third, in Question (b) proposed to the General Assembly (and now addressed to the Court),
in its written and oral pleadings, and now in its Written Reply to Judge Gaja, Mauritius
continues to define the "population of Chagossian origin" as "Mauritians residing in the
Chagos Archipelago or of Chagossian origin" 10• The Republic of Seychelles emphasised
in its Written Statement that a significant number of persans of Chagossian origin are
4 StGB, paras 3.38-3.SO; CoGB, paras. 2.86-2.96; CR 2018/21, p. 9,, para. 18; p. 15, para. 41; pp 21-41, paras.
66-77 (Buckland); pp. 29-30, para. 8; p. 34, para. 15, p. 37, para. 22; p. 39, para. 27; p. 40, para. 30
(Wordsworth); p. 44, para. 8 (Webb); p. 54, para. 6; pp. 57-58, paras. 14-18 (Wood).
5 StGB, paras. 3.36-3.37; CoGB, paras. 2.17, 2.77-2.85, 4.10-4.11; CR 2018/21, p. 20, para. 64 (Buckland).
6 StMU, paras. 2.24-2.31.
7 Written Reply of Mauritius, para. 5.
8 The population of Mauritius in 1965 was more than 700,000.
9 Chagos Arbitration Award, para. 88 (UN Dossier 409).
10 Written Reply of Mauritius, para. 2. Emphasis added.
2
present in the Seychelles and have obtained citizenship11 • A significant number of
Chagossians also reside in the United Kingdom and have obtained British citizenship.
8. The question that Mauritius wishes the Court to determine is not about Chagossians
wherever they may live today, but about Mauritius and its claim to sovereignty over the
Chagos Archipelago12• Mauritius' motivations are apparent when it cornes to the question
of resettlement, which it also rai ses in its Written Reply (paras 6-7). Mauritius appears to
have in mind to settle its nationals generally, but only its nationals. In its understanding,
"resettlement" would both extend beyond Chagossians yet not cover all Chagossians (those
who do not have Mauritian nationality)13• It is noteworthy that Mauritius says that if it
exercised sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, it will allow return and resettlement
"in accordance with the laws of the Mauritius"14•
9. As the Courtis aware, the United Kingdom has renewed its commitment to work with ail
Chagossians in Mauritius, Seychelles and the United Kingdom, establishing in 2016 a new
fund of approximately :E40 million to improve their lives and present greater opportunities
for their families in the places where they now live, including outside ofMauritius15•
1 O. Fourth, Mauritius ignores the settlement that was individually agreed to by the very great
majority of Chagossians in Mauritius following the treaty between the Governments of the
UK and Mauritius of7 July 1982 (the 1982 Agreement)16• Ifit were appropriate to focus
on the population of the Chagos Archipelago, the voluntary renunciation by Chagossians
of all claims arising out of their removal from the Chagos Archipelago, following the
payment by the United Kingdom of compensation, would be a factor of great and
determinative importance, as follows not least from the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights in Chagos lslanders v United Kingdom in 201217•
11 Seychelles Written Statement, paras. 4, 6 (requesting "that the unique perspectives and legitimate concerns of
the Seychellois Chagossian community be taken into due consideration").
12 StGB, paras. 1.5, 9.8-9.10; CoGB, paras. 1.14 and 5.20; CoUS, para. 4.4; CR2018/21, p. 53, para. 2 and p.
61, paras. 24-25 (Wood). ·
13 CR 2018/21, p. 61, para. 25 (Wood).
14 Written Reply of Mauritius, para. 6.
15 CR 2018/21, p. 61, para. 25 (Wood).
16 StGB, paras. 4.9-4.19; CR 2018/21, p. 7, para. 6 (Buckland); p. 31, para. 9 (Wordsworth); p. 54, para. 6
(Wood).
17 Chagos lslanders v Attorney General and the BIOT Commissioner [2004] EWCA Civ 997, see para. 83
(StGB Judgtnents Volume, Tab 4).
3
Written Comments of the United Kingdom on the Written Reply of Mauritius to the question put by Judge Gaja at the end of the hearing held on 3 September 2018