Separate opinion of Judge Robinson

Document Number
171-20230406-JUD-01-02-EN
Parent Document Number
171-20230406-JUD-01-00-EN
Incidental Proceedings
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
Guyana’s attainment of independence from the United Kingdom — Right to self-determination — Independence not a gift or grant from the United Kingdom — Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)).
1. I am in agreement with the findings of the Court in paragraph 108 of the Judgment. However, I utilize the medium of the separate opinion to comment on a particular issue relating to the Judgment.
2. In setting out the arguments of the Parties, the Court cites Guyana’s argument that the “United Kingdom has no current legal interest in, or claim to, the territory in question, having relinquished all territorial claims in relation to this dispute when the United Kingdom granted independence to Guyana in 1966” (Judgment, para. 81). However, as a matter of law, the United Kingdom did not grant independence to Guyana. At the time of Guyana’s independence in 1966, the right to self-determination had already become a rule of customary international law, on the adoption of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 (hereinafter “1514”); consequently, the attainment by former colonies of independence was not a gift, grant or concession of colonial Powers. Rather, independence resulted from the discharge by the colonial Powers of an obligation imposed on them by paragraph 5 of 1514, to transfer all powers to the peoples of colonized countries in accordance with their freely expressed will. The status of the right to self-determination, as a customary norm of international law, was confirmed by the Court in its 2019 Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. In light of that transformational development, it is a misstatement of the law to assert that, after the adoption of 1514, colonial Powers granted their former colonies independence, since independence was not theirs to grant.
3. The conclusion that colonized countries and peoples were not granted independence by their colonial Powers is arrived at notwithstanding the title of 1514, “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”. While the title may be relevant for the purpose of interpreting 1514, it cannot dictate an interpretation that finds no support in the text of the resolution. Nowhere in the text of 1514 is the term “grant of independence” used. The law of 1514 is that the right to self-determination is a human right that inheres in a people, and all that is required for its enjoyment is that it must reflect the freely expressed will of the people. 1514 wrested the attainment of independence from the grasp of the colonizers and placed it firmly in the hands of colonized peoples themselves.
(Signed) Patrick L. ROBINSON.
___________

Bilingual Content

296
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
Guyana’s attainment of independence from the United Kingdom — Right
to self-determination — Independence not a gift or grant from the
United Kingdom — Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)).
1. I am in agreement with the findings of the Court in paragraph 108 of the
Judgment. However, I utilize the medium of the separate opinion to comment
on a particular issue relating to the Judgment.
2. In setting out the arguments of the Parties, the Court cites Guyana’s
argument that “the United Kingdom has no current legal interest in, or claim
to, the territory in question, having relinquished all territorial claims in relation
to this dispute when the United Kingdom granted independence
to Guyana in 1966” (Judgment, para. 81). However, as a matter of law,
the United Kingdom did not grant independence to Guyana. At the time of
Guyana’s independence in 1966, the right to self-determination had already
become a rule of customary international law, on the adoption of General
Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 (hereinafter “resolution
1514”); consequently, the attainment by former colonies of independence
was not a gift, grant or concession of colonial Powers. Rather, independence
resulted from the discharge by the colonial Powers of an obligation imposed
on them by paragraph 5 of resolution 1514, to transfer all powers to the
peoples of colonized countries in accordance with their freely expressed
will. The status of the right to self-determination, as a customary norm of
international law, was confirmed by the Court in its 2019 Advisory Opinion
on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago
from Mauritius in 1965. In light of that transformational development,
it is a misstatement of the law to assert that, after the adoption of resolution
1514, colonial Powers granted their former colonies independence,
since independence was not theirs to grant.
3. The conclusion that colonized countries and peoples were not granted
independence by their colonial Powers is arrived at notwithstanding the title
of resolution 1514, “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples”. While the title may be relevant for the purpose of
interpreting resolution 1514, it cannot dictate an interpretation that finds no
support in the text of the resolution. Nowhere in the text of resolution 1514
296
OPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. LE JUGE ROBINSON
[Traduction]
Accession du Guyana à l’indépendance vis-à-vis du Royaume-Uni
— Droit à l’autodétermination — Indépendance n’ayant pas été offerte ou
octroyée par le Royaume-Uni — Déclaration sur l’octroi de l’indépendance
aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux (résolution 1514 (XV) de l’Assemblée
générale).
1. Je souscris aux conclusions qu’a formulées la Cour au paragraphe 108
de l’arrêt, mais tiens à commenter, par le truchement d’une opinion individuelle,
un point particulier se rapportant à l’arrêt.
2. La Cour, lorsqu’elle a présenté les arguments des Parties, a cité l’affirmation
du Guyana selon laquelle « le Royaume-Uni n’a[vait] aujourd’hui
aucun intérêt juridique ni aucune prétention à l’égard du territoire en question,
puisqu’il a[vait] renoncé à toute revendication territoriale liée au présent
différend lorsqu’il a[vait], en 1966, accordé l’indépendance au Guyana »
(arrêt, par. 81). Or, du point de vue du droit, le Royaume-Uni n’a pas accordé
l’indépendance au Guyana. Lorsque celui-ci est, en 1966, devenu indépendant,
le droit à l’autodétermination était déjà devenu une règle de droit
international coutumier, et ce, depuis l’adoption, par l’Assemblée générale
des Nations Unies, de la résolution 1514 (XV) du 14 décembre 1960 (ci-après
la « résolution 1514 »). En conséquence, l’indépendance à laquelle ont accédé
les anciennes colonies ne leur a pas été offerte, octroyée ou concédée par les
puissances coloniales, mais résultait de l’exécution par celles-ci de l’obligation
que leur faisait le paragraphe 5 de la résolution 1514 de transférer tous
pouvoirs aux peuples des pays colonisés conformément à la volonté librement
exprimée par ces derniers. Le statut de norme coutumière de droit
international du droit à l’autodétermination a été confirmé par la Cour dans
l’avis consultatif qu’elle a donné en 2019 sur les Effets juridiques de la séparation
de l’archipel des Chagos de Maurice en 1965. Compte tenu de cette
importante évolution, c’est faire une lecture erronée du droit que d’affirmer
que, après l’adoption de la résolution 1514, les puissances coloniales ont
octroyé l’indépendance à leurs anciennes colonies, puisqu’il ne leur revenait
pas de procéder à un tel octroi.
3. Cette conclusion — l’indépendance n’a pas été accordée aux territoires
et peuples colonisés par les puissances coloniales — s’impose nonobstant le
titre donné à la résolution 1514, « Déclaration sur l’octroi de l’indépendance
aux pays et aux peuples coloniaux ». L’intitulé, s’il peut être pertinent aux
fins de l’interprétation de la résolution, ne saurait toutefois dicter une interprétation
qui n’est nullement corroborée par le libellé. Les termes « octroi
297 arbitral award of 3 october 1899 (sep. op. robinson)
is the term “grant of independence” used. The law of resolution 1514 is that
the right to self-determination is a human right that inheres in a people, and
all that is required for its enjoyment is that it must reflect the freely expressed
will of the people. Resolution 1514 wrested the attainment of independence
from the grasp of the colonizers and placed it firmly in the hands of colonized
peoples themselves.
(Signed) Patrick L. Robinson.
___________
sentence arbitrale du 3 octobre 1899 (op. ind. robinson) 297
de l’indépendance » ne sont utilisés nulle part dans le texte de la résolution.
Selon la norme établie par la résolution 1514, le droit à l’autodétermination
est un droit fondamental qui revient naturellement à un peuple, lequel
doit pouvoir en jouir dès lors que telle est sa volonté librement exprimée.
La résolution 1514 a soustrait l’accession à l’indépendance du ressort
des puissances coloniales pour la placer directement entre les mains des
peuples colonisés.
(Signé) Patrick L. Robinson.
___________

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Separate opinion of Judge Robinson

Order
2
Links