| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
177592
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the implications for the U.S. military base in Diego Garcia, located in the Chagos Archipelago, in the event that sovereignty of the atoll is ceded from the U.K. to Mauritius. Diego Garcia has become a critically important military base, facilitating U.S. power projection into the Indian Ocean, Middle East and Africa. The legality and future of British sovereignty over the atoll was challenged in 2019 in both the International Court of Justice and United Nations General Assembly. This article finds that Mauritian sovereignty of Diego Garcia would have considerable adverse consequences for U.S. military activity, potentially prohibiting many of the core functions the facility currently performs, as under U.K. sovereignty. Further, this article examines the strategic utility in Diego Garcia for the U.S. and U.K. governments, which demonstrates why these two nations are willing to endure considerable reputational costs and international backlash for retention of the atoll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
158324
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
155754
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article presents a critical investigation of the historiography of the Chagos archipelago and in particular the expelled islanders, known as Ilois, and more recently as Chagossians. A brief survey of the discovery and settlement of the atolls is provided, along with a more detailed summary of key events in the history of workers on the archipelago from the late-eighteenth to mid-twentieth century. Finally, the paper discusses the challenges of framing a workers’ history characterized by exploitation and marginalization alongside the romanticized collective representation of life in the archipelago which has been adopted as a ‘narrative of exile’ by the Chagossians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|