194
prohibiting any unauthorised person from entering or remaining in the BIOT was
unlawful, in 2004 the United Kingdom issued two new Orders to that effect which
the House of Lords eventually found lawful in 2008. The Chagos Islanders brought
their case also before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), alleging,
firstly, the incompatibility of their removal with Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (protection of
property), and, secondly, the incompatibility of the relevant domestic proceedings
with Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) ECHR. In
2012 the ECtHR ruled that the application was inadmissible because the Chagos
Islanders lacked victim status as they had accepted compensation from the United
Kingdom in 1982.
16
Today, the natives of the Chagos Archipelago and their descendants, also referred to as ‘Ilois’ or ‘Chagossians’, live mainly in Mauritius, the
Seychelles and the United Kingdom.
2 The Award in the Chagos Marine Protected Area
Arbitration
It is against the briefly described backdrop that, on 18 March 2015, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
17
issued the Award in the Chagos Marine Protected
Area Arbitration.
18
The arbitral proceedings commenced on 20 December 2010,
when Mauritius submitted a claim against the United Kingdom concerning the
establishment of an area to protect the environment in the waters surrounding the
Chagos Archipelago.
19
In particular, on 1 April 2010 the United Kingdom declared a Marine Protected
Area in the BIOT,
20
extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines
16 ECtHR, decision of 11 December 2012, Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No.
35622/04.
17 Adopted on 10 December 1982 at Montego Bay and entered into force on 16 November 1994,
1833 UNTS 3. For an overview of the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under
Part XV UNCLOS see Virzo (2008), pp. 69–81.
18 PCA, In the Matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. the United
Kingdom), Award, 18 March 2015. Hereinafter, Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration.
19 Notification under Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 of UNCLOS, and the statement of the
claim and grounds on which it is based, 20 December 2010, https://pcacases.com/web/
sendAttach/1791.
20 According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a Marine Protected
Area “is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal
or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about). As it will
be seen below (infra, para. 4), though, Mauritius and the United Kingdom disagreed about the
characterisation of the Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago.
M. Gervasi
prohibiting any unauthorised person from entering or remaining in the BIOT was
unlawful, in 2004 the United Kingdom issued two new Orders to that effect which
the House of Lords eventually found lawful in 2008. The Chagos Islanders brought
their case also before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), alleging,
firstly, the incompatibility of their removal with Articles 3 (prohibition of torture) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 thereto (protection of
property), and, secondly, the incompatibility of the relevant domestic proceedings
with Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) ECHR. In
2012 the ECtHR ruled that the application was inadmissible because the Chagos
Islanders lacked victim status as they had accepted compensation from the United
Kingdom in 1982.
16
Today, the natives of the Chagos Archipelago and their descendants, also referred to as ‘Ilois’ or ‘Chagossians’, live mainly in Mauritius, the
Seychelles and the United Kingdom.
2 The Award in the Chagos Marine Protected Area
Arbitration
It is against the briefly described backdrop that, on 18 March 2015, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
17
issued the Award in the Chagos Marine Protected
Area Arbitration.
18
The arbitral proceedings commenced on 20 December 2010,
when Mauritius submitted a claim against the United Kingdom concerning the
establishment of an area to protect the environment in the waters surrounding the
Chagos Archipelago.
19
In particular, on 1 April 2010 the United Kingdom declared a Marine Protected
Area in the BIOT,
20
extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the baselines
16 ECtHR, decision of 11 December 2012, Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No.
35622/04.
17 Adopted on 10 December 1982 at Montego Bay and entered into force on 16 November 1994,
1833 UNTS 3. For an overview of the compulsory procedures entailing binding decisions under
Part XV UNCLOS see Virzo (2008), pp. 69–81.
18 PCA, In the Matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. the United
Kingdom), Award, 18 March 2015. Hereinafter, Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration.
19 Notification under Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 of UNCLOS, and the statement of the
claim and grounds on which it is based, 20 December 2010, https://pcacases.com/web/
sendAttach/1791.
20 According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a Marine Protected
Area “is a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal
or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about). As it will
be seen below (infra, para. 4), though, Mauritius and the United Kingdom disagreed about the
characterisation of the Marine Protected Area in the Chagos Archipelago.
M. Gervasi