search the site
The Strategic Consequence of the Diego Garcia Dispute
The Strategic Consequence of the Diego Garcia Dispute

By The Lowy Interpreter 2019-03-28
[By Dr. Bec Strating]
At the end of last month, the African archipelago nation of Mauritius secured an important legal victory in its territorial and maritime disputes against its former coloniser, the United Kingdom.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) produce an advisory opinion that rejected the UK’s claims to sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, a small group of atolls in the Indian Ocean. It found instead that the UK had unlawfully separated the islands from the former colony of Mauritius, and that the UK should cede control “as rapidly as possible”.
The advisory opinion emerged after Mauritius successfully petitioned the United Nations General Assembly to ask the ICJ to produce an advisory opinion on the determination of the islanders (the “Chagossians”) in 2017.
Both the petition and the advisory opinion were widely viewed as a blow against the last vestiges of British colonialism in Africa. The UK’s denial of Chagossian self-determination has damaged its international reputation at a time when it is struggling to fulfil its own independence by leaving the European Union, as well as defend the “rules-based” international system.

A “pressured” agreement and geo-strategic importance
Mauritius had been engaged in a long-term struggle to reclaim Chagos Islands from the UK. The islands fell under British control in the 19th century and were administered under the colony of Mauritius. In contrast to the legal principle of uti possidetis – in which European colonial borders determined the boundaries of new, independent sovereign states – the UK planned to separate Chagos from Mauritius in the 1960s. While an “agreement” with Mauritius was struck in 1965 that the Chagos Islands would remain part of “British Indian Overseas Territory” (BIOT), the Mauritians claimed they had no choice and had been pressured into the agreement.
While Chagos Islands was a non-self-governing territory, it never made it on the 1960 UN Declaration on Decolonisation list, which would have entitled it to a process of self-determination under international law.
From 1967–1973, the UK forcibly moved around 1500 Chagossians to Mauritius and Seychelles, and/or prevented them from returning. This dispossession was contrary to international law. Articles 9 and 13(2) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, for example, respectively state “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” and “everyone has the right to leave any country including his own and to return to his country” (emphasis added). In 2002 and 2006, reports by the UN Human Rights Committee determined that the exile of the Chagossians was unlawful.
Britain argued that compensation in 1982 had resolved the issue and that a process of decolonisation had been completed. Closer to Australia’s neighbourhood, this is reminiscent of arguments employed by Indonesia in East Timor and West Papua, in which coercive, sham processes were (and in West Papua’s case, continue to be) employed to counter self-determination arguments.
There are strategic and material reasons why the UK is keen to hold onto Chagos Islands. They have geo-strategic importance, as the UK leased out the biggest island – Diego Garcia – to the US for a Cold War-era military base.
The UK also sought to claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos Islands.
A challenge to the marine claims
In 2011, the UK government attempts to create an MPA were subject to an arbitral tribunal case initiated by Mauritius and constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The dispute primarily concerned the legality of UK’s MPA under the convention in the context of ongoing disputes over sovereignty, and as such constitutes a “mixed dispute” involving concurrent unresolved land sovereignty issues and maritime entitlement issues.
The MPA extended over a distance of 200 nautical miles, covering an area of more than half a million square kilometres. Mauritius argued that the UK was not entitled to declare an MPA or other maritime zones because it was not a “coastal state” for the purposes of law of the sea – that is, not legally sovereign over the Chagos Islands. It also argued that the MPA infringed the fishing entitlements of Mauritius, and that its purpose was to block the Chagossians from returning to the islands in violation of international law.
According to the UK, the proceedings were “artificial and baseless” and it asserted that it held sovereignty over the islands (as well as maritime entitlements) permitted to coastal states under the convention. Ultimately, the arbitral tribunal concluded that the declaration of the MPA was not in accordance with the provisions of UNCLOS.

A demonstration in Trafalgar Square, London, over the Chagos Islands, July 2018 (Photo: David Holt/Flickr)
Why do these disputes matter?
As UK officials argue, the ICJ opinion on self-determination is only advisory. Nevertheless, the opinion from the court does serve to increase the international pressure on the UK to hand back sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius, even if, according to the UK Foreign Office, that threatens the role of the Chagos Islands in the UK and US defence in the Indo-Pacific. Unsurprisingly, the US supported the position of the UK.
Importantly, the ruling comes at a time when the Royal British Navy has begun conducting freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea. These operations are designed to challenge the illegality of China’s assertive island building and excessive maritime claims. Yet, the UK’s ongoing defence of its illegal possession undermines its credibility as it simultaneously seeks to defend the “rules-based international system” in maritime domains.
In a time of great power contestation, the lack of consistent application in the international rule of law by non-great powers, such as the UK, ultimately weakens the capacities of the UNCLOS-led legal regime to establish maritime order.
Dr Bec Strating is a lecturer in politics at La Trobe University, focusing primarily on Timor-Leste and Indonesia.
SSCP CAS-002 9L0-066 350-050 642-999 220-801 74-678 642-732 400-051 ICGB c2010-652 70-413 101-400 220-902 350-080 210-260 70-246 1Z0-144 3002 AWS-SYSOPS 70-347 PEGACPBA71V1 220-901 70-534 LX0-104 070-461 HP0-S42 1Z0-061 000-105 70-486 70-177 N10-006 500-260 640-692 70-980 CISM VCP550 70-532 200-101 000-080 PR000041 2V0-621 70-411 352-001 70-480 70-461 ICBB 000-089 70-410 350-029 1Z0-060 2V0-620 210-065 70-463 70-483 CRISC MB6-703 1z0-808 220-802 ITILFND 1Z0-804 LX0-103 MB2-704 210-060 101 200-310 640-911 200-120 EX300 300-209 1Z0-803 350-001 400-201 9L0-012 70-488 JN0-102 640-916 70-270 100-101 MB5-705 JK0-022 350-060 300-320 1z0-434 350-018 400-101 350-030 000-106 ADM-201 300-135 300-208 EX200 PMP NSE4 1Z0-051 c2010-657 C_TFIN52_66 300-115 70-417 9A0-385 70-243 300-075 70-487 NS0-157 MB2-707 70-533 CAP OG0-093 M70-101 300-070 102-400 JN0-360 SY0-401 000-017 300-206 CCA-500 70-412 2V0-621D 70-178 810-403 70-462 OG0-091 1V0-601 200-355 000-104 700-501 70-346 CISSP 300-101 1Y0-201 200-125 , 200-125 , 100-105 , 100-105 , CISM NS0-157 350-018 , NS0-157 ICBB , N10-006 test , 350-050 70-534 70-178 220-802 102-400 000-106 70-411 , 400-101 100-101 , NS0-157 1Z0-803 200-125 , 210-060 400-201 350-050 C_TFIN52_66 , JN0-102 , 200-355 JN0-360 70-411 350-018 , 70-412 350-030 640-916 000-105 100-105 , 70-270 , 70-462 300-070 , 300-070 642-999 101-400 PR000041 200-101 , 350-030 300-070 , 70-270 , 400-051 200-120 70-178 9L0-012 70-487 LX0-103 100-105 ,