WRITTEN REPL Y OF THE AFRICAN UNION TO
JUDGE CANCADO TRINDADE'S QUESTION
"As recal/ed in paragraph (a) of the U.N General Assembly's request for an
Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (General Assembly
resolution 71/292 of 22.06.2017), the General Assembly refers to obligations
enshrined into successive pertinent resolutions of its own, as from 1960, namely:
General Assemb/y reso/utions 1514(XV) of 14.12.1960, 2066(XX) of 16.12.1965,
2232(XXI) of 20.12.1966, and 2357(XXII) of 19.12.1967.
ln the course of the present oral advisory proceedings, references were often made
to such reso/utions by several de/egations of participants.
ln your understanding, what are the lega/ consequences ensuing from the
formation of customary international law, with the significant presence of opinio
juris communis, for ensuring compliance with the obligations in those General
Assembly resolutions?"
1. As the African Union emphasised in its Written Statement, its Written Observations
as well as its Oral Statement of 6 September 2018 , the evolution of the principle of selfdetermination
of colonial peoples and territories from 1945 until the adoption of Resolution
1514 (XV) in 1960, suggests that there existed, under general international law, a right to
self-determination at the time of the adoption of the Resolution. Resolution 1514
crystallised the customary international law on decolonisation and self-determination.
2. The opinio juris communis of States was subsequently confirmed in 1965 in
Resolution 2066(XX) of 16 December 1965 but aise in other Resolutions such as
Resolutions 2232(.XXI) of 20 December 1966 and Resolution 2357(.XXII) of 19 December
1967.
3. ln particular, as the African Union stated during its Oral Statement, Resolution
2066 (XX) was indicative and confirmative of the prescriptions enshrined in Resolution
1514. Resolution 2066 clearly recalled that any attempt aimed at partial disruption of the
territorial unit of Mauritius would be contrary to international law.
4. ln this regard, the African Union reiterates and fully endorses the positions taken
by Argentina, Botswana and Vanuatu as well as Mauritius regarding the legal
consequences ensuing from the customary nature of the obligations enshrined in
Resolutions 1514(XV), 2066(.XX), 2232(.XXI) and 2357(.XXII).
5. First, the Administering Power is under an obligation to cease its unlawful conduct
and any action or omission contrary to the principle of self-determination and territorial
integrity of Mauritius.
6. Secondly, by virtue of the customary nature of the right to self-determination and
the violation of such right by the administering Power, all States shall refrain from
recognising the illegal administration of the Chagos Archipelago and any other action or
omission pertaining to such unlawful administration.
7. Thirdly, all international organisations, such as the African Union, must ensure that
their members act in compliance with the customary prescriptions of the above-mentioned
Resolutions aimed at ending colonialism and by the same token ensuring promotion of
peaceful regional integration.
8. Fourthly, the African Union is of the view that the obligation to ensure compliance
with international law is also placed upon the system of the United Nations to advance
further its mandate on decolonisation in compliance with the above-mentioned
Resolutions.
9. To conclude, the African Union respectfully submits that all legal consequences
should be drawn from the incomplete decolonisation process of Mauritius and the
unlawful continued administration of Chagos by the United Kingdom:
i. consequences for the United Kingdom under the customary rules of state
responsibility;
ii. consequences for Mauritius, and in particular, reparations that are due to the
Chagossians by the United Kingdom;
iii. consequences for members of the United Nations;
iv. consequences for third states;
v. consequences for the United Nations System, including the General Assembly;
and
vi. consequences for the international community as a whole.
Written Comments of the African Union to the question put by Judge Cançado Trindade at the end of the hearing held on 5 September 2018