193
United States was granted the right to develop the limited naval communications
facility “as a support facility of the United States Navy and to maintain and operate
it”.
8
Today a United States military base is situated on Diego Garcia.
9
In particular,
the initial term of the BIOT Agreement was to be 50 years: thereafter, it would automatically continue in force for another 20 years, unless terminated by either the
United Kingdom or the United States upon notice to that effect.
10
As will be seen
below, upon the expiry of the initial 50-year term, in 2016, the BIOT Agreement
was extended until 2036.
Since at least the 1980s Mauritius has repeatedly claimed sovereignty over the
Chagos Archipelago and alleged the unlawfulness of the separation thereof.
11
It
claims that the United Kingdom administration of the Archipelago is incompatible
with the United Nations General Assembly resolutions on decolonisation, namely
with the principle of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination of
Mauritius, as enshrined in those resolutions.
12
In turn, the United Kingdom has
always rejected Mauritius’ claims although on several occasions—dating back to
1965, to wit the moment of the detachment—it has conceded that the Chagos
Archipelago would be returned to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence
purposes.
The sovereignty dispute over the Chagos Archipelago is intertwined with another
one: the removal of the Chagos Islanders therefrom.
13
Between 1968 and 1973 the
United Kingdom cleared the Archipelago of all its inhabitants.
14
In 1978 the United
Kingdom paid Mauritius £650,000 for the resettlement of the Chagos Islanders on
Mauritius. In 1982, it paid a further £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of the
registered Chagos Islanders: as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that payment was in full and final settlement of any claims. Nevertheless, since the late
1990s the Chagos Islanders have complained about their removal before British
courts.
15
Even though in 2000 the High Court found that the 1971 Ordinance
8 1976 Diego Garcia Agreement, para. 1(a).
9 Doubts about the lawfulness of the activities carried out in the military base on Diego Garcia with
respect to protection of the environment and human rights are expressed by Sand (2009a, b), and
Robertson (2012), pp. 20–25. For a different viewpoint as regards the compatibility of the military
base with conservation of the environment see Sheppard et al. (2009).
10 BIOT Agreement, para. 11.
11 For an overview of the sovereignty dispute see Lunn (2013), especially paras 1 and 2.5.
12 See, in particular, UN General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960; 2066 (XX),
16 December 1965; 2357 (XXII), 19 December 1967.
13 Indeed, the link between the sovereignty dispute over the Chagos Archipelago and the clearance
of all its inhabitants is even closer for those regarding the Chagos Islanders as a people having
themselves the right to self-determination, rather than an indigenous people of Mauritius. See for
instance Tong (2014), especially pp. 45–47, and, for some remarks, Biad and Edynak (2016),
p. 79.
14 For a description of the depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago and the Chagos Islanders’
efforts to return there see Allen (2008), pp. 684–690, and (2014), pp. 10–74; Sand (2014), pp. 132–
138; Alexandre and Koutouki (2014), pp. 6–26; Di Lieto (2017), pp. 302–304.
15 On the resettlement issue see again Lunn (2013), especially paras 1 and 2.1–2.4 as well as
Appendix 1.
The Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea…
United States was granted the right to develop the limited naval communications
facility “as a support facility of the United States Navy and to maintain and operate
it”.
8
Today a United States military base is situated on Diego Garcia.
9
In particular,
the initial term of the BIOT Agreement was to be 50 years: thereafter, it would automatically continue in force for another 20 years, unless terminated by either the
United Kingdom or the United States upon notice to that effect.
10
As will be seen
below, upon the expiry of the initial 50-year term, in 2016, the BIOT Agreement
was extended until 2036.
Since at least the 1980s Mauritius has repeatedly claimed sovereignty over the
Chagos Archipelago and alleged the unlawfulness of the separation thereof.
11
It
claims that the United Kingdom administration of the Archipelago is incompatible
with the United Nations General Assembly resolutions on decolonisation, namely
with the principle of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination of
Mauritius, as enshrined in those resolutions.
12
In turn, the United Kingdom has
always rejected Mauritius’ claims although on several occasions—dating back to
1965, to wit the moment of the detachment—it has conceded that the Chagos
Archipelago would be returned to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence
purposes.
The sovereignty dispute over the Chagos Archipelago is intertwined with another
one: the removal of the Chagos Islanders therefrom.
13
Between 1968 and 1973 the
United Kingdom cleared the Archipelago of all its inhabitants.
14
In 1978 the United
Kingdom paid Mauritius £650,000 for the resettlement of the Chagos Islanders on
Mauritius. In 1982, it paid a further £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of the
registered Chagos Islanders: as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that payment was in full and final settlement of any claims. Nevertheless, since the late
1990s the Chagos Islanders have complained about their removal before British
courts.
15
Even though in 2000 the High Court found that the 1971 Ordinance
8 1976 Diego Garcia Agreement, para. 1(a).
9 Doubts about the lawfulness of the activities carried out in the military base on Diego Garcia with
respect to protection of the environment and human rights are expressed by Sand (2009a, b), and
Robertson (2012), pp. 20–25. For a different viewpoint as regards the compatibility of the military
base with conservation of the environment see Sheppard et al. (2009).
10 BIOT Agreement, para. 11.
11 For an overview of the sovereignty dispute see Lunn (2013), especially paras 1 and 2.5.
12 See, in particular, UN General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960; 2066 (XX),
16 December 1965; 2357 (XXII), 19 December 1967.
13 Indeed, the link between the sovereignty dispute over the Chagos Archipelago and the clearance
of all its inhabitants is even closer for those regarding the Chagos Islanders as a people having
themselves the right to self-determination, rather than an indigenous people of Mauritius. See for
instance Tong (2014), especially pp. 45–47, and, for some remarks, Biad and Edynak (2016),
p. 79.
14 For a description of the depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago and the Chagos Islanders’
efforts to return there see Allen (2008), pp. 684–690, and (2014), pp. 10–74; Sand (2014), pp. 132–
138; Alexandre and Koutouki (2014), pp. 6–26; Di Lieto (2017), pp. 302–304.
15 On the resettlement issue see again Lunn (2013), especially paras 1 and 2.1–2.4 as well as
Appendix 1.
The Interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea…