Skip to main content

Decolonising the Chagos Islands?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 312 Accesses

Part of the book series: Nigerian Yearbook of International Law ((NYBIL,volume 2018/2019))

Abstract

The story of the Chagos archipelago is a familiar one in the history of international law and relations between peoples. It is indicative of international law’s complicity in European oppression and dispossession of colonised peoples and places. Yet while much of the machinations of colonial rule were spannered—at least nominally in the form of sovereignty-as-independence—by the national liberation movements of the twentieth century, the Chagos travesty persists into our twenty-first century colonial present. Britain’s refusal to let go of the small group of faraway islands serves as a contradictory symbol of both its self-deluding pretensions of empire on one hand, and its self-abasing servitude to United States imperialism on the other. It reminds us that colonialism is still very much with us, and that self-determination remains contingent. International law’s ode to sovereign equality and territorial integrity is as much about concealing its own colonial foundations as it is about delivering on a promise of liberation. This essay reflects on these themes in light of the 2019 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago, engaging with critical questions of international law as well as with the insights of Third World thinkers including Kwame Nkrumah, Amílcar Cabral and Eduardo Galeano.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion (25 February 2019) para. 182.

  2. 2.

    Nkrumah (1965), p. x.

  3. 3.

    Galeano (1973), p. 2.

  4. 4.

    Nkrumah (1965), p. ix.

  5. 5.

    Vine (2009), p. 90.

  6. 6.

    U.K. Trial Bundle (litigation documents) 4–132, Sheridans Solicitors, London, cited in Vine (2009), ibid.

  7. 7.

    Anthony Aust, ‘Immigration Legislation for BIOT’, Memorandum, 16 January 1970, quoted in Vine (2009), p. 92.

  8. 8.

    Foreign Office confidential memo ZD4/56, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, 24 August 1966, cited in R (on the application of Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 1038 (Admin), Judgment, 11 May 2006, para. 27.

  9. 9.

    Agreement Concerning the Availability for Defence Purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, 30 December 1966.

  10. 10.

    Vine (2009), p. 87.

  11. 11.

    Vine (2009), p. 1.

  12. 12.

    R (on the application of Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth [2008] UKHL 61, Judgment, 22 October 2008. See further Allen (2014), Chapter 1.

  13. 13.

    Chagos Islanders v. UK, European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 35622/04, Fourth Section Decision, 11 December 2012. See further Allen (2014), Chapter 2.

  14. 14.

    ‘HMG Floats Proposal for Marin Reserve Covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Reserve)’, Confidential Cable from US Embassy in London, REF: 08LONDON2667, 5 May 2009, published by Wikileaks and The Guardian, 2 December 2010. Colin Roberts, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Director for Overseas Territories is quoted in the cable: ‘“We do not regret the removal of the population,” since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose’. The US State Department author of the cable concludes that: ‘Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT.’

  15. 15.

    Permanent Court of Arbitration, Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, In the Matter of the Chagos Marine Protected Area: Mauritius v. the United Kingdom, Award of 18 March 2015. While finding in favour of Mauritius on this point of the incompatibility of the Marine Protected Area with British obligations under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Arbitral Tribunal at the same ruled that Mauritius’s claim to sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago was not something for the Tribunal to consider under UNCLOS.

  16. 16.

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Update on the British Indian Ocean Territory: Written statement - HCWS260’, 16 November 2016. The statement was delivered in parliament by Alan Duncan, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  17. 17.

    African Union, ‘Resolution on Chagos Archipelago’, Assembly/AU/Res.1 (XXVIII), 30 January 2017.

  18. 18.

    General Assembly Resolution 71/292, UN Doc. A/RES/71/292, 22 June 2017.

  19. 19.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Statement by Thailand, Verbatim Record, 6 September 2018, para. 10.

  20. 20.

    ‘Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, UN Doc. A/5800/Rev.1, 1964–1965, p. 352, para. 154.

  21. 21.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago, para. 105, quoting note from Private Secretary to Prime Minister Harold Wilson, 22 September 1965.

  22. 22.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson (25 February 2019) para. 93, citing Mauritius Legislative Assembly, Reply to PQ No. B/1141 (25 November 1980) p. 4223.

  23. 23.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago, para. 172.

  24. 24.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago, paras. 139–182.

  25. 25.

    Milanovic (2019).

  26. 26.

    Milanovic (2019), ibid.

  27. 27.

    Kanad Bagchi, ‘Imperialism, International Law and the Chagos Islands: Reflections on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago’, Völkerrechtsblog, 1 March 2019.

  28. 28.

    Chimni (2018), pp. 1–46.

  29. 29.

    Klabbers (2019).

  30. 30.

    For explication, see Chimni (2018), pp. 36–43. In a passage on opinio juris in this analysis, Chimni draws on (and critiques) Judge Cançado Trindade, who (characteristically) makes clear in his Separate Opinion that he wanted to go further than the Court on this aspect of the Chagos case.

  31. 31.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Written Comments of the African Union on other Written Statements, 15 May 2018. See also Jon Heller (2018), pp. 191–243.

  32. 32.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson (25 February 2019), para. 104; Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, para. 219.

  33. 33.

    Jeffery (2007), pp. 951–968.

  34. 34.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago, para. 181.

  35. 35.

    ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade (25 February 2019) paras. 43–49.

  36. 36.

    Eslava et al. (2017).

  37. 37.

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory: Written statement – HCWS1528’, 30 April 2019.

  38. 38.

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Statement and explanation of vote on the resolution on the British Indian Ocean Territories by Ambassador Karen Pierce, UK Permanent Representative to the UN’, 22 May 2019.

  39. 39.

    UN General Assembly Resolution 73/295, UN Doc. A/RES/73/295, 22 May 2019, para. 3.

  40. 40.

    UN General Assembly Resolution 3151 (XXVIII), 14 December 1973, para. (G)5.

  41. 41.

    Kennedy (2019).

  42. 42.

    Tuck and Wayne Yang (2012), pp. 1–40.

  43. 43.

    Cabral (1969), p. 70.

  44. 44.

    Vine (2009), pp. 8–10.

  45. 45.

    Vine (2009), p. 10.

  46. 46.

    Ranjan Chakravarty (2019).

  47. 47.

    Amílcar Cabral, ‘The Weapon of Theory’, Address delivered to the first Tricontinental Conference of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, Havana, January 1966. Emphasis added.

  48. 48.

    Galeano (1973), p. 77.

References

  • Allen S (2014) The Chagos Islanders and international law. Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabral A (1969) Extracts from Party directive 1965. In: Cabral A (ed) Revolution in Guinea: an African People’s Struggle (Stage 1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarty PR (2019) Decolonising the Chagos Archipelago. The Hindu, 4 June 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Chimni BS (2018) Customary international law: a third world perspective. Am J Int Law 112(1):1–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eslava L, Fakhri M, Nesiah V (eds) (2017) Bandung, global history, and international law - critical pasts and pending futures. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Galeano E (1973) The open veins of Latin America: five centuries of the pillage of a continent. Monthly Review Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery L (2007) How a plantation became paradise: changing representations of the homeland among displaced Chagos Islanders. J R Anthropol Inst 13(4):951–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller KJ (2018) Specially-affected states and the formation of custom. Am J Int Law 112(2):191–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy R (2019) UK labelled ‘rogue state’ after missing UN deadline to hand Chagos Islands back to Mauritius. EuroNews, 22 November 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Klabbers J (2019) Shrinking self-determination: the Chagos opinion of the International Court of Justice. ESIL Reflection 8:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanovic M (2019) ICJ Delivers Chagos Opinion, UK Loses Badly. EJIL: Talk!, 25 February 2019

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkrumah K (1965) Neo-colonialism: the last stage of imperialism. Thomas Nelson & Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuck E, Wayne Yang K (2012) Decolonization is not a Metaphor. Decolonization Indigeneity Educ Soc 1(1):1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Vine D (2009) Island of shame: the secret history of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia. Princeton University Press, p 90

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Reynolds .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Reynolds, J. (2021). Decolonising the Chagos Islands?. In: Eboe-Osuji, C., Emeseh, E., Akinkugbe, O.D. (eds) Nigerian Yearbook of International Law 2018/2019. Nigerian Yearbook of International Law , vol 2018/2019. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69594-1_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69594-1_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69593-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69594-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics