Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitral Tribunal Award for the Balance Between Natural Environmental Protection and Traditional Maritime Freedoms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fifty Years of the British Indian Ocean Territory

Part of the book series: The World of Small States ((WSS,volume 4))

Abstract

This paper will examine the implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area (MPA) Arbitral Tribunal Award in terms of its contribution to international environmental law in general, before considering its specific implications for the future designation of marine protected areas (MPAs). The outline of this paper is as follows: First, the Chagos MPA Award will be assessed in terms of its implications for the designation of the dispute between Mauritius and the UK as ‘environmental’ for the purpose of triggering the compulsory and binding dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 UNCLOS; and second, the Tribunal’s interpretation and application of relevant UNCLOS provisions prescribing consultations between interested States over any MPA designation will be considered specifically in light of other proposed MPA designations, for example, around the Pitcairn islands in the South Pacific.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Full title: IN THE MATTER OF THE CHAGOS MARINE PROTECTED AREA ARBITRATION, Mauritius/UK, 15 March, 2015. Hereinafter, Chagos MPA Award. This Award was delivered by a five person Arbitral Tribunal established under Annex VII of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) It is generally accessible from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) website at: <http://www.pca-cpa.org/> and specifically, at: <http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/MU-UK%2020150318%20Award.pdf> accessed 16 November 2017.

  2. 2.

    The Chagos MPA was designated by a UK Order in Council on 1 April 2010 by the then Foreign Secretary of the UK Government, David Miliband.

  3. 3.

    In March 2015, the United Kingdom declared the Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve in the South Pacific Ocean. The Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve spans 834,334 km2 (322,138 square miles). Together with the Chagos Marine Reserve in the Indian Ocean, designated in 2010, the United Kingdom has created the world’s two biggest fully protected marine areas, totalling 1,474,334 km2 (569,243 square miles). Information accessed from Pew Charitable Trusts (2015).

  4. 4.

    For a succinct introduction to the issues arising from the apparent clash between environmental protection and human interests, see: Sand (2012a), p. 36.

  5. 5.

    Sand (2012b), p. 201.

  6. 6.

    Bohnsak et al. (2004), p. 185.

  7. 7.

    Lester et al. (2009), p. 33.

  8. 8.

    Sand (2012b), p. 201, citing Spalding et al. (2010), p. 25.

  9. 9.

    Marine Reserves Coalition website, accessible at: http://www.marinereservescoalition.org/files/2012/07/MRC-science-rationale-for-marine-reserves-FINAL.pdf accessed 16 November 2017.

  10. 10.

    Bradshaw et al. (2001), p. 129.

  11. 11.

    Fogharty and Murawski (1 February 2005).

  12. 12.

    Aburto-Oropeza et al. (2011), accessed on 16 November 2017.

  13. 13.

    Koldewey et al. (2010), p. 1906.

  14. 14.

    ibid.

  15. 15.

    Sheppard et al. (2012), p. 232.

  16. 16.

    Edgar et al. (2014), p. 216.

  17. 17.

    ibid.

  18. 18.

    ibid.

  19. 19.

    ibid.

  20. 20.

    Herrera et al. (2016), p. 3767, Accessible at: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/3767.full.pdf accessed on 16 November 2017.

  21. 21.

    ibid.

  22. 22.

    Davies et al. (2017), 9569. Accessible at: <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08758-5.pdf> accessed 16 November 2017.

  23. 23.

    ibid.

  24. 24.

    ibid, pp. 4–5.

  25. 25.

    ibid.

  26. 26.

    Gruby et al. (2016), p. 153.

  27. 27.

    RP Dunne et al. (2014), pp. 79–114.

  28. 28.

    De Santo (2013), p. 137.

  29. 29.

    ibid, p. 137.

  30. 30.

    ibid, pp. 143–144. The Millennium Goals.

  31. 31.

    ibid, p. 137.

  32. 32.

    United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity, Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11.

  33. 33.

    The United Kingdom claims the South Orkney Islands as part of British Antarctic Territory since 1962, which in turn is one of its 14 British Overseas Territories, of which it is by far the largest by area. The South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf MPA (as it is formally designated) is managed by the Commission for the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living resources (CCAMLR) under the Antarctic treaty system. Further information on this exclusively ‘high seas’ MPA is available at: <https://www.protectedplanet.net/south-orkney-islands-southern-shelf-marine-protected-area-marine-protected-area-ccamlr> accessed 16 November 2017.

  34. 34.

    Sand (2012b), p. 201.

  35. 35.

    ibid, p. 202, citing Snoxell (2009), p. 127 and Vine (2011).

  36. 36.

    The passage and outcomes of this UK-based litigation are charted by Chris Monaghan in Chap. 6 of this edited volume, entitled: ‘An imperfect legacy: the significance of the Bancoult litigation on the development of domestic constitutional jurisprudence’ and by Richard in Chap. 4 of this edited volume, entitled ‘How Public Law has not been able to provide the Chagossians with a Remedy’.

  37. 37.

    See: Article 297(3)(a) of UNCLOS.

  38. 38.

    Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius/United Kingdom) Final Award, 18 March 2015, on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at <www.pca-cpa.org> accessed 16 November 2017.

  39. 39.

    Allen (2017), p. 2.

  40. 40.

    ibid, p. 4.

  41. 41.

    ibid, p.4.

  42. 42.

    ibid, p. 4, citing Churchill and Lowe (1999), p. 455.

  43. 43.

    ibid, p. 4.

  44. 44.

    ibid, pp. 4–5, citing the Chagos MPA Award, at [317].

  45. 45.

    Chagos MPA Award, [307]–[314] and [317].

  46. 46.

    ibid, [316].

  47. 47.

    See Chagos MPA Award, [316]. As Allen (2017) also notes, UNCLOS Article 58(2) contains a renvoi referring to other pertinent rules of international law applicable in relation to the EEZ that are not incompatible with Part V of the Convention.

  48. 48.

    ibid.

  49. 49.

    Allen (2017), p. 2.

  50. 50.

    See: In the matter of South China Sea (Philippines/China) Arbitral Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (29 October, 2015) and Final Award on 16 July, 2016. PCA Case No 2013-19. ARE ITALICS NEEDED? Both available at: <https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2086> accessed 16 November 2017.

  51. 51.

    Talmon (2016b), pp. 309–364.

  52. 52.

    Philippines/China Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (2015) at [358].

  53. 53.

    ibid, [408].

  54. 54.

    Allen (2014), pp. 121–122.

  55. 55.

    ibid.

  56. 56.

    Anthony E Cassimatis, ‘The Chagos UNCLOS Arbitration: Maritime, Fishing and Human Rights Issues and General International Law’, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, Australia. Seminar presentation slides (unpublished), 14. Accessible at: www.law.uq.edu.au/documents/cpicl/MASLU-CPICL-ILA-Seminar.pdf accessed 16 November 2016.

  57. 57.

    Chagos MPA Award, [460].

  58. 58.

    ibid. [462].

  59. 59.

    ibid, [468].

  60. 60.

    ibid, [517].

  61. 61.

    ibid, [521].

  62. 62.

    ibid, [519].

  63. 63.

    ibid, [518].

  64. 64.

    ibid, [519].

  65. 65.

    SCS Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award (2016), [742].

  66. 66.

    Chagos MPA Award, [534].

  67. 67.

    ibid, [534].

  68. 68.

    ibid, [535].

  69. 69.

    ibid, [536].

  70. 70.

    ibid, [537].

  71. 71.

    ibid, [538].

  72. 72.

    ibid.

  73. 73.

    SCS Arbitral Tribunal, Final Award (2016), [945].

  74. 74.

    Chagos MPA Award, [539].

  75. 75.

    ibid.

  76. 76.

    ibid, [540].

  77. 77.

    ibid, [541].

  78. 78.

    ibid, [543].

  79. 79.

    ibid, [543].

  80. 80.

    ibid, [544].

  81. 81.

    For a more in-depth discussion of the relevant international case law, as applied to the (is)land reclamation disputes in the South China Sea, see: Ong (2015), p. 578.

  82. 82.

    Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia/Japan) ICJ Rep. (2013), [234].

  83. 83.

    ibid, [236].

  84. 84.

    ibid, [238].

  85. 85.

    ibid, [239].

  86. 86.

    ibid, [240].

  87. 87.

    ibid, [242].

  88. 88.

    UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, The UK OSPAR Marine Protected Area Network.

  89. 89.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories (HC 2013-14, 332), 43.

  90. 90.

    Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, (2012) 8.

  91. 91.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Marine Protected Areas Revisited, (HC 2016-17, 597), [5].

  92. 92.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Marine Protected Areas Revisited Inquiry, Status: Concluded, Information & Reports etc.

  93. 93.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Sustainability in the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Inquiry (HC 2013-14, 332), 43.

  94. 94.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Marine Protected Areas Inquiry (HC 2014-15, 221).

  95. 95.

    ibid.

  96. 96.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Marine Protected Areas Revisited Inquiry, Final Report, [55].

  97. 97.

    ibid.

  98. 98.

    ibid, [56].

  99. 99.

    Environmental Audit Committee, Marine Protected Areas Revisited, (HC 2016-17, 597), [58].

  100. 100.

    ibid, [59], citing the written evidence of the Pew Trusts submitted to the Inquiry.

  101. 101.

    ibid.

  102. 102.

    ibid, [59].

  103. 103.

    ibid, [59], citing the written evidence of the Zoological Society of London.

  104. 104.

    Ibid, [60]–[61].

  105. 105.

    UK Government Budget Announcement, March 2015, HC 1093, [2.259].

  106. 106.

    Pew Trusts, A Vision to Create a British Ocean Legacy: Large, fully protected marine reserves in the United Kingdom’s overseas territories – A Pew Trusts fact sheet (July, 2016) Accessible at: <http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/07/a_vision_to_create_a_british_ocean_legacy.pdf> accessed 16 November 2017.

  107. 107.

    To help eliminate a major global threat to healthy, sustainable fisheries, the Pew Charitable Trusts approached Ocean Mind (as the Satellite Applications Catapult) to capture and analyse satellite imagery to detect, track and prosecute illegal fishers through “Project Eyes on the Seas”.

    “Project Eyes on the Seas” was born from a cutting-edge technology platform that combines satellite monitoring and imagery data with other information, such as fishing vessel databases and oceanographic data, to help authorities detect suspicious fishing activity. Project Eyes on the Seas resulted in a system designed for The Pew Charitable Trusts as a cost-effective global fisheries monitoring and enforcement tool for governments around the world, including the most resource-poor enforcement agencies, to monitor and detect illegal fishing and related activities.

    The UK government has successfully used this system to monitor fisheries and marine reserves around Ascension Island and the Pitcairn Islands, and the project is committed to continue this work with other governments across the world. More information is available at: <http://www.oceanmind.global/work-initiatives/initiatives/the-pew-charitable-trusts/> accessed 16 November 2017.

  108. 108.

    See: Pew Charitable Trusts, Is Offshore Commercial Fishing a Prospect in the Pitcairn Islands? Report for Pew Charitable Trusts, prepared by D Zeller (May, 2013) Accessible at.

  109. 109.

    Parlett (2017), pp. 284–299.

  110. 110.

    ibid, 12.

  111. 111.

    Cf. Talmon (2016a), p. 927.

  112. 112.

    Jeffery (2013), p. 300, citing Ingold (1993), pp. 31–42.

  113. 113.

    Jeffery (2013), p. 300 (emphasis added).

  114. 114.

    ibid, p. 305.

  115. 115.

    Jentoft et al. (2007), p. 611.

  116. 116.

    Davies et al. (2017), p. 5.

  117. 117.

    Jentoft et al. (2007), p. 619.

References

  • Aburto-Oropeza O, Erisman B, Galland GR, Mascareñas-Osorio I, Sala E, Ezcurra EE (2011) Large recovery of fish biomass in a no-take marine reserve. PLoS ONE 6(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023601

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen S (2017) Article 297 of the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea and the scope of mandatory jurisdiction. Ocean Dev Int Law 48(3–4):313–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnsak JA, Ault JS, Causey B (2004) Why have no-take marine protected areas. Am Fish Soc Symp 42:185

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw C, Veale LO, Hill AS, Brand AR (2001) The effect of scallop dredging on Irish Sea benthos: experiments using a closed area. Hydrobiologia 465(1):129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill R, Lowe V (1999) The law of the sea, 3rd edn. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies TE, Maxwell SM, Kaschner K, Garilao C, Ban NC (2017) Large marine protected areas represent biodiversity now and under climate change. Nat Sci Rep 7:9569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Santo EM (2013) Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: how the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. J Environ Manag 124:137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne RP, Polunin NV, Sand PH, Johnson ML (2014) The creation of the Chagos marine protected area: a fisheries perspective. Adv Mar Biol 69:79–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar GJ et al (2014) Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506:216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Audit Committee, Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories (HC 2013–14, 332)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogharty MJ, Murawski SA (2005) Do Marine protected areas really work? Georges Bank experiment provides dues to longstanding questions about closing areas to fishing. Oceanus. www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=3782. Accessed 16 Nov 2017

  • Gruby RL, Gray NJ, Campbell LM, Acton L (2016) Toward a social science research Agenda for large marine protected areas. Conserv Lett 9(3):153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera GE, Moeller HV, Neubert MG (2016) High-seas fish wars generate marine reserves. Proc (US) Natl Acad Sci (PNAS) 113(4):3767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold T (1993) Globes and spheres: the topology of environmentalism. In: Milton K (ed) Environmentalism: the view from anthropology. Routledge, London, pp 31–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery L (2013) “We are the true guardians of the environment”: human-environment relations and debates about the future of the Chagos Archipelago. J R Anthropol Inst 19(2):300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft S, Van Son TC, Bjørkan M (2007) Marine protected areas: a governance system analysis. Hum Ecol 35:611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koldewey HJ, Curnick D, Harding S, Harrison LR, Gollock M (2010) Potential benefits to fisheries and biodiversity of the Chagos archipelago/British Indian Ocean Territory as a no-take marine reserve. Mar Pollut Bull 60(11):1906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg I, Gaines SD, Airamé S, Warner RR (2009) Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marine Reserves Coalition Website. http://www.marinereservescoalition.org/files/2012/07/MRC-science-rationale-for-marine-reserves-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2017

  • Ong DM (2015) A bridge too far? Assessing the prospects for international environmental law to resolve the South China Sea disputes. Int J Minor Group Rights 22:578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parlett K (2017) Beyond the four corners of the convention: expanding the scope of jurisdiction of law of the sea tribunals. Ocean Dev Int Law 48(3–4):284–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Charitable Trusts (2015) Global Ocean Legacy website. http://www.pewtrusts.org. Accessed 16 Nov 2017

  • Sand PH (2012a) Fortress conservation trumps human rights? The “marine protected area” in the Chagos archipelago. J Environ Dev 21(1):36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sand PH (2012b) “Marine protected areas” off UK overseas territories: comparing the South Orkneys Shelf and the Chagos Archipelago. Geogr J 178(3):201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard CRC et al (2012) Reefs and islands of the Chagos Archipelago, Indian Ocean: why it is the world’s largest no-take marine protected area. Aquat Conserv 22(2):232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoxell DR (2009) Anglo/American complicity in the removal of the inhabitants of the Chagos islands. J Imp Commonw Hist 37:127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalding M, Wood L, Fitzgerald C, Gjerde K (2010) The 10% target: where do we stand? In: Toropova C, Meliane I, Laffoley D, Matthews E, Spalding M (eds) Global ocean protection: present status and future possibilities. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, p 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2016a) The Chagos Marine protected area arbitration: expansion of the jurisdiction of UNCLOS Part XV Courts and tribunals. Int Comp Law Q 65:927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talmon S (2016b) The South China Sea arbitration: observations on the award on jurisdiction and admissibility. China J Int Law 15:309–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Vine DS (2011) Island of shame: the secret history of the U.S. military base in Diego Garcia, Rev Paperback edn. Princeton University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

    David M. Ong

Authors
  1. David M. Ong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Ong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Stephen Allen

  2. School of Law, Institute of Humanities, University of Worcester, Worcester, United Kingdom

    Chris Monaghan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ong, D.M. (2018). Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitral Tribunal Award for the Balance Between Natural Environmental Protection and Traditional Maritime Freedoms. In: Allen, S., Monaghan, C. (eds) Fifty Years of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The World of Small States, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78541-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78541-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78540-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78541-7

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation