UN Court Asks UK to Surrender Chagos Islands to Mauritius
MONDAY FEBRUARY 25 2019
Kenya Daily Nation
In this file photo taken on October 22, 2008, Chagos Islanders demonstrate outside London's Houses of Parliament, after the British government won its appeal over previous rulings that allowed displaced Indian Ocean islanders to return home. PHOTO | SHAUN CURRY | AFP
In Summary
Under resolutions passed by the General Assembly on decolonisation, colonial powers were supposed to ensure nations were not broken up in the course of granting independence.
The decision means that London could be required to abandon the region it has in the past used for military purposes together with the United States.
But as the matter was referred to the Court by the UN General Assembly, it is not binding to either country but will remain only as an advisory for the UN to use in future, should it pass resolutions to compel London to relinquish the Archipelago.
By AGGREY MUTAMBO
The International Court of Justice on Monday said the United Kingdom should hand over the administration of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius in order to legally complete its decolonisation.
In an advisory opinion, 14 judges ruled 13-1 that the British government had not lawfully granted Mauritius independence and that it was legally required to end its “administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible".
The British government ruled the Indian Ocean Island from 1810 to 1968 when it granted independence to natives, as part of London’s policy at the time to relinquish control of colonies.
But this independence came with conditions, one which was for locals to agree to separate the Archipelago from the administration of Mauritius.
PEOPLE'S WILL
At the Lancaster Conference in 1965, the Archipelago was excised from the Mauritian territory to form the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The UK colonial government would later reach a series of deals with representatives of the Mauritian government, in which natives on the Archipelago were forcibly removed or barred from returning.
The court found that the actions of the British were meant to dismember the new Mauritian nation as those removed from the Island ended up as migrants elsewhere in the world, yet they had no say in the excision.
“The Court considers that this detachment was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned,” it said.
“It takes the view that the obligations arising under international law and reflected in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the process of decolonisation of Mauritius require the United Kingdom, as the administering power, to respect the territorial integrity of that country, including the Chagos Archipelago.”
Under resolutions passed by the General Assembly on decolonisation, colonial powers were supposed to ensure nations were not broken up in the course of granting independence.
NOT BINDING
The decision means that London could be required to abandon the region it has in the past used for military purposes together with the United States.
But as the matter was referred to the Court by the UN General Assembly, it is not binding to either country but will remain only as an advisory for the UN to use in future, should it pass resolutions to compel London to relinquish the Archipelago.
The ICJ is a global Court formed by the UN to solve disputes between member states. However, the UN and its Specialised agencies can file cases concerning member states or certain issues on which the judges at the ICJ can grant advisory opinions.
In the Mauritius case, the UN General Assembly in 2017 sought the advisory through resolution 71/292 to determine the legality of holding on to a part of a colony.
MODALITIES
The decision means, now, that the UN General Assembly can use the decision to create modalities for Britain to complete the decolonisation as well as direct member states to respect the procedure.
The case could give direction on how matters of self-determination, one of the basic rights declared by the UN, are handled in future.
The court found British authorities largely disregarded this right in continuing to administer the Archipelago, preventing natives from returning as well as passing punitive laws on movement of the people whose nationality was linked to Mauritius.
The judges rule the UN should determine how displaced natives are recompensed and resettled.
REACTIONS
Mauritius and the exiled Chagossians reacted with delight to the "historic" opinion delivered by judges in The Hague, which will carry heavy symbolic and political weight.
"The United Kingdom's continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act," chief judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said.
"The United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring an end to its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, thereby allowing Mauritius to complete the decolonisation of its territory."
Olivier Bancoult, chairman of the Mauritius-based Chagos Refugees Group, told reporters outside court that he was "so happy".
"It is a big victory against an injustice done by the British government for many years. We people have been suffering for many years -- I am so lucky today," he said.
Mauritius Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth hailed it as a " historic moment for Mauritius and all its people".
"Our territorial integrity will now be made complete, and when that occurs, the Chagossians and their descendants will finally be able to return home," he said in a statement.
There was no immediate reaction from Britain or the United States.
BLOW
The ICJ opinion comes as a stunning blow to London in a case that goes to the heart of historic issues of decolonisation and current questions about Britain's place in the world as it prepares to leave the European Union.
Mauritius' lawyer Philippe Sands said there was "no wiggle room" in the judges' view and that Britain would resist pressure to comply.
"I suspect the United Kingdom will say to itself, what resistance can we put up to moving forward -- and particularly in the context of Brexit, as the United Kingdom finds itself a little bit isolated in the world," he told reporters outside court.
When judges heard the case in September, Mauritius argued that it was illegal for Britain to have broken up its territory while it was still the colonial power.
THE EVICTIONS
The UN General Assembly in 2017 adopted a resolution presented by Mauritius and backed by African countries asking the ICJ to offer legal advice on the island chain's fate and the legality of the deportations.
Colonial power Britain split off the islands from Mauritius -- which lies around 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles) away -- three years before Port Louis gained independence in 1968. It also paid Mauritius three million pounds.
Between 1968 and 1973 around 2,000 Chagos islanders were evicted, to Britain, Mauritius and the Seychelles, to make way for a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands.
The evictions were described in a British diplomatic cable at the time as the removal of "some few Tarzans and Man Fridays".
Diego Garcia is now under lease to the United States and played a key strategic role in the Cold War before being used as a staging ground for US bombing campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s.
APOLOGY
Britain, while apologising for the "shameful" way it evicted thousands of islanders, insisted Mauritius was wrong to have brought the case to the ICJ.
The United States meanwhile said the court had a "duty" not to take a position on the row.
The Chagos Islanders have already taken their battle through the courts in Britain, where their supporters included the current Labour opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
The legal opinion is only the 28th since the ICJ was set up in 1946 in the wake of World War II to provide a tribunal to resolve disputes between UN member states.
Previously such opinions include one on Israel's West Bank barrier in 2004, which judges said was illegal, and declaring legal Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2010.
Kenya Daily Nation
In this file photo taken on October 22, 2008, Chagos Islanders demonstrate outside London's Houses of Parliament, after the British government won its appeal over previous rulings that allowed displaced Indian Ocean islanders to return home. PHOTO | SHAUN CURRY | AFP
In Summary
Under resolutions passed by the General Assembly on decolonisation, colonial powers were supposed to ensure nations were not broken up in the course of granting independence.
The decision means that London could be required to abandon the region it has in the past used for military purposes together with the United States.
But as the matter was referred to the Court by the UN General Assembly, it is not binding to either country but will remain only as an advisory for the UN to use in future, should it pass resolutions to compel London to relinquish the Archipelago.
By AGGREY MUTAMBO
The International Court of Justice on Monday said the United Kingdom should hand over the administration of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius in order to legally complete its decolonisation.
In an advisory opinion, 14 judges ruled 13-1 that the British government had not lawfully granted Mauritius independence and that it was legally required to end its “administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible".
The British government ruled the Indian Ocean Island from 1810 to 1968 when it granted independence to natives, as part of London’s policy at the time to relinquish control of colonies.
But this independence came with conditions, one which was for locals to agree to separate the Archipelago from the administration of Mauritius.
PEOPLE'S WILL
At the Lancaster Conference in 1965, the Archipelago was excised from the Mauritian territory to form the British Indian Ocean Territory.
The UK colonial government would later reach a series of deals with representatives of the Mauritian government, in which natives on the Archipelago were forcibly removed or barred from returning.
The court found that the actions of the British were meant to dismember the new Mauritian nation as those removed from the Island ended up as migrants elsewhere in the world, yet they had no say in the excision.
“The Court considers that this detachment was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned,” it said.
“It takes the view that the obligations arising under international law and reflected in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the process of decolonisation of Mauritius require the United Kingdom, as the administering power, to respect the territorial integrity of that country, including the Chagos Archipelago.”
Under resolutions passed by the General Assembly on decolonisation, colonial powers were supposed to ensure nations were not broken up in the course of granting independence.
NOT BINDING
The decision means that London could be required to abandon the region it has in the past used for military purposes together with the United States.
But as the matter was referred to the Court by the UN General Assembly, it is not binding to either country but will remain only as an advisory for the UN to use in future, should it pass resolutions to compel London to relinquish the Archipelago.
The ICJ is a global Court formed by the UN to solve disputes between member states. However, the UN and its Specialised agencies can file cases concerning member states or certain issues on which the judges at the ICJ can grant advisory opinions.
In the Mauritius case, the UN General Assembly in 2017 sought the advisory through resolution 71/292 to determine the legality of holding on to a part of a colony.
MODALITIES
The decision means, now, that the UN General Assembly can use the decision to create modalities for Britain to complete the decolonisation as well as direct member states to respect the procedure.
The case could give direction on how matters of self-determination, one of the basic rights declared by the UN, are handled in future.
The court found British authorities largely disregarded this right in continuing to administer the Archipelago, preventing natives from returning as well as passing punitive laws on movement of the people whose nationality was linked to Mauritius.
The judges rule the UN should determine how displaced natives are recompensed and resettled.
REACTIONS
Mauritius and the exiled Chagossians reacted with delight to the "historic" opinion delivered by judges in The Hague, which will carry heavy symbolic and political weight.
"The United Kingdom's continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act," chief judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said.
"The United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring an end to its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, thereby allowing Mauritius to complete the decolonisation of its territory."
Olivier Bancoult, chairman of the Mauritius-based Chagos Refugees Group, told reporters outside court that he was "so happy".
"It is a big victory against an injustice done by the British government for many years. We people have been suffering for many years -- I am so lucky today," he said.
Mauritius Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth hailed it as a " historic moment for Mauritius and all its people".
"Our territorial integrity will now be made complete, and when that occurs, the Chagossians and their descendants will finally be able to return home," he said in a statement.
There was no immediate reaction from Britain or the United States.
BLOW
The ICJ opinion comes as a stunning blow to London in a case that goes to the heart of historic issues of decolonisation and current questions about Britain's place in the world as it prepares to leave the European Union.
Mauritius' lawyer Philippe Sands said there was "no wiggle room" in the judges' view and that Britain would resist pressure to comply.
"I suspect the United Kingdom will say to itself, what resistance can we put up to moving forward -- and particularly in the context of Brexit, as the United Kingdom finds itself a little bit isolated in the world," he told reporters outside court.
When judges heard the case in September, Mauritius argued that it was illegal for Britain to have broken up its territory while it was still the colonial power.
THE EVICTIONS
The UN General Assembly in 2017 adopted a resolution presented by Mauritius and backed by African countries asking the ICJ to offer legal advice on the island chain's fate and the legality of the deportations.
Colonial power Britain split off the islands from Mauritius -- which lies around 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles) away -- three years before Port Louis gained independence in 1968. It also paid Mauritius three million pounds.
Between 1968 and 1973 around 2,000 Chagos islanders were evicted, to Britain, Mauritius and the Seychelles, to make way for a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands.
The evictions were described in a British diplomatic cable at the time as the removal of "some few Tarzans and Man Fridays".
Diego Garcia is now under lease to the United States and played a key strategic role in the Cold War before being used as a staging ground for US bombing campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s.
APOLOGY
Britain, while apologising for the "shameful" way it evicted thousands of islanders, insisted Mauritius was wrong to have brought the case to the ICJ.
The United States meanwhile said the court had a "duty" not to take a position on the row.
The Chagos Islanders have already taken their battle through the courts in Britain, where their supporters included the current Labour opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
The legal opinion is only the 28th since the ICJ was set up in 1946 in the wake of World War II to provide a tribunal to resolve disputes between UN member states.
Previously such opinions include one on Israel's West Bank barrier in 2004, which judges said was illegal, and declaring legal Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment