| ID | 158324 |
| Title Proper | Notes on the international court of justice (Part 7)—the upcoming separation of the Chagos Archipelago advisory opinion |
| Other Title Information | between the court’s participation in the UN’s work on decolonization and the consent principle in international dispute settlement |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Yee, Sienho |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | The request for advisory opinion on the separation of the Chagos Archipelago puts in play (1) the cause of decolonization and the Court’s participation in the UN’s work in this regard and (2) the consent principle in international dispute settlement. Part II reviews in broad outline the law on this matter, which requires that the giving of an advisory opinion by the Court can only be done in a way compatible with its judicial character and with full respect for the consent principle. Part III argues that the giving of an opinion that would concern the main issues in a bilateral dispute without the requisite consent of the parties or that would have the effect of circumventing the consent principle would be incompatible with the Court’s judicial character and would constitute a compelling reason calling for the Court’s refusal to give the requested advisory opinion on such issues. Part IV elaborates that the fact that fully answering the questions put to the Court would necessitate addressing the main or essential issues, including the lawfulness of the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and ultimately the validity of the detachment agreement, in the bilateral dispute between the Mauritius and the United Kingdom without the latter’s consent, and would be incompatible with the Court’s judicial character, is a compelling reason calling for the Court’s refusal to give the requested opinion on such issues. Part V maintains that in the light of decolonization being a Charter-mandated, important and traditional aspect of the UN’s work, if the Court feels compelled to give an advisory opinion, it may do so on what law may be applicable to, but not on how that law applies to, the main or essential issues involved in the bilateral dispute between the two States, especially the lawfulness of the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and ultimately the validity of the detachment agreement. This approach may afford the best benefits to both sides. Part VI briefly concludes the paper. |
| `In' analytical Note | Chinese Journal of International Law Vol. 16, No.4; Dec 2017: p. 623–642 |
| Journal Source | Chinese Journal of International LawVol: 16 No 4 |
| Key Words | United Kingdom ; International court ; Mauritius ; Chagos Archipelago ; International Dispute Settlement |