nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

9. The Once and Future King: Sovereignty Over Territory and the Annex VII Tribunal’s Award in Mauritius v United Kingdom

verfasst von : Thomas D. Grant

Erschienen in: Fifty Years of the British Indian Ocean Territory

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

The question of sovereignty over the territory of the Chagos Archipelago loomed large in the arbitration between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom in respect of the Chagos Marine Protected Area (MPA) (Award adopted 18 March 2015). Yet the majority of the UNCLOS Annex VII Tribunal, after considering the scope and object of Mauritius’ claims, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to say anything about those claims that it understood to concern the question of sovereignty over territory. What then, did the Tribunal’s decision have to say about the future of the BIOT? And did the Tribunal really remain silent about sovereignty?

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel ‘Anachronistic As Colonial Remnants May Be…’ Locating the Rights of the Chagos Islanders As a Case Study of the Operation of Human Rights Law in Colonial Territories

Nächstes Kapitel The Operation of Estoppel in International Law and the Function of the Lancaster House Undertakings in the Chagos Arbitration Award

See Richard Gifford’s contribution to this collection, How Public Law has not been able to provide the Chagossians with a Remedy’ (Chap. 4) and Chris Monaghan’s contribution to this collection, ‘An imperfect legacy: the significance of the Bancoult litigation on the development of domestic constitutional jurisprudence’ (Chap. 6).

See Ralph Wilde’s contribution to this collection, “Anachronistic as colonial remnants may be…’ (Chap. 8).

Locating the rights of the Chagos Islanders as a case study of the operation of human rights law in colonial territories’.

Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) PCA Case No 2011-03, Award (2015) 162 ILR 59 [158].

ibid.

See especially ibid [230]: ‘Accordingly, and notwithstanding the difference in presentation, the Tribunal concludes that Mauritius’ Second Submission is properly characterized as relating to the same dispute in respect of land sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago as Mauritius’ First Submission. The Tribunal therefore finds itself without jurisdiction to address Mauritius’ Second Submission.’ Cf ibid [208], quoting Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction [1998] ICJ Reports 423 [30].

See, e.g., Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v Bahrain) [2001] ICJ Reports 40; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) [2012] ICJ Reports 624.

For example, it appears to have been constitutional doctrine of Ireland that the Irish Free State held the territorial waters around the whole of Ireland, even as, to some extent, the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in the northern counties of Ireland had been conceded: Barlow &Ors v Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine & Ors [2016] IESC 62, 17 October 2016 (O’Donnell J), citing Casey (2000), pp. 40–41.

See Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile) [2014] ICJ Reports 3 [175]; Declaration of Judge Gaja, [2014] ICJ Reports at 113. About which see Graham (2015), pp. 361, 367.

Philippines v China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, Annex VII Tribunal (Mensah, Presiding; Cot, Pawlak, Soons & Wolfrum, Arbitrators), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015, para. 156.

Chagos (n 3) Dissenting Opinion [14].

Or at least as having determined the matter ‘[r]ightly’: Whomersley (2016), pp. 239, 247.

Mr Dheerendra Kumar Dabee Gosk SC, Solicitor-General and Agent of the Republic of Mauritius, in Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) PCA Case No 2011-03, Hearing on Jurisdiction and the Merits (6 May 2014) 1141, quoted in Chagos (n 1) [158].

Chagos (n 1) [547(B)].

ibid [517].

ibid (emphasis added).

ibid [519].

ibid [534].

ibid [540].

For comment on the ‘indirect’ approach to applying the Undertakings, see Talmon (2016), pp. 927–951.

See, e.g., Maine (1888), p. 58.

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Cambodia v Thailand) [2013] ICJ Reports 281, pleadings, and related jurisprudence.

In this way, the ‘having found’ clause in the chapeau of Part B of the operative part of the Chagos Award, where it ties the three reasons given in Part B to the determination in Part B, is analogous to the phrase ‘finds in consequence’ that ties the first operative clause to the second and third operative clauses in the original Temple case: Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) [1962] ICJ Reports 6, 36–7. That Cambodia has sovereignty over the Temple was a disposition; it was also the reason for the further disposition that Thailand was to withdraw.

Chagos (n 1) [304].

ibid [425] (emphasis added).

ibid [417] (emphasis added).

ibid [421] (emphasis added).

ibid [434] (emphasis added).

ibid [422] (emphasis added).

The phrase ‘as was given’ here is hard to understand except as a formalistic conceit. The Tribunal needed to insert a qualifier such as this, because it had considered at length whether it had jurisdiction to address the legal effects of the separation and had concluded that it could not, because it could not reach a decision about territorial sovereignty. However, the qualifier does not change the purport of what the Tribunal elsewhere concluded: Mauritius gave consent, and the Undertakings were the ‘essential condition’ to that consent.

ibid [453].

ibid.

ibid [452] (emphasis added).

ibid [210].

He was convicted and sentenced to Sing Sing on 17 December 1928: ‘Forger Gets Life Term: G.C. Parker, Confidence Man, Once “Sold” Brooklyn Bridge’ New York Times (18 December 1928) 33.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening) [2012] ICJ Reports 99 [92]–[97].

ibid [93].

Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion [1975] ICJ Reports 12; East Timor (Portugal v Australia) [1995] ICJ Reports 90; Case C-104/16 P Front Polisario v European Commission (CJEU Grand Chamber, 21 December 2016) [88].

See, e.g., Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) PCA Case No 2011-03, Memorial of the Republic of Mauritius (1 August 2012) vol 1 [6.8]–[6.30].

See Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts [2001] 2(2) ILC Ybk 26, Arts 40(1), 41(2). Cf Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations [2011] 2(2) ILC Ybk, Art 42 and commentary [8]: the duty not to recognize the situation as lawful applies to international organizations as well as to States, and the International Law Commission did not ‘exclude that similar obligations also exist for other persons or entities’.

Non-application of agreements to the extent that they fail to respect self-determination was the course that the CJEU took in Front Polisario (n 36). The Court of Justice declared the General Court to have been in legal error for having said that the Association and Liberalisation Agreements between the EU and Morocco applied in Western Sahara: ibid [81]–[127]. The CJEU’s reasoning was, inter alia, that ‘the purported intention of the European Union [to apply the agreements in Western Sahara]… would necessarily have entailed conceding that the European Union intended to implement those agreements in a manner incompatible with the principle[…] of self-determination…’: ibid [123].

Chagos (n 1) [542].

ibid [453].

North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Reports 3 [96] (and its progeny).

ICC Case No 1110 (Lagergrens sole arbitrator, 1963) [20], reprinted with redactions in [1994] Arbitration International 282. Cf World Duty Free Co Ltd v Republic of Kenya ICSID Case No ARB/00/7 (Guillaume president, Veeder and Rogers arbitrators, Award, 4 October 2006) [137]–[138], [157]; Plama Consortium v Bulgaria ICSID Case No ARB/03/24 (Salans president, van den Berg and Veeder arbitrators, Award, 27 August 2008) [143].

Chagos (n 1) [298].

ibid [274].

ibid [298].

Hartley (1953), p. 1: ‘The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there’.

Barlow &Ors v Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine & Ors [2016] IESC 62, 17 October 2016

Casey J (2000) Constitutional law in Ireland, 3rd edn. Round Hall Sweet and Maxwell, Dublin, pp 40–41

Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) PCA Case No 2011-03, Award (2015) 162 ILR 59

Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v United Kingdom) PCA Case No 2011-03, Memorial of the Republic of Mauritius (1 August 2012) vol 1

East Timor (Portugal v Australia) [1995] ICJ Reports 90

Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction [1998] ICJ Reports 423

Front Polisario v European Commission (CJEU Grand Chamber, 21 December 2016)

Graham K (2015) Ocean order in South America. Int J Mar Coast Law 30:361CrossRef

Hartley LP (1953) The go-between. Hamish Hamilton, London

ICC Case No 1110 (Lagergrens sole arbitrator, 1963) [20], reprinted with redactions in [1994] Arbitration International 282

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening) [2012] ICJ Reports 99

Maine HS (1888) International law: lectures. John Murray, London

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v Bahrain) [2001] ICJ Reports 40

Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile) [2014] ICJ Reports 3 [175]; Declaration of Judge Gaja, [2014] ICJ Reports at 113

Philippines v China, PCA Case No. 2013-19, Annex VII Tribunal (Mensah, Presiding; Cot, Pawlak, Soons & Wolfrum, Arbitrators), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 29 October 2015

Plama Consortium v Bulgaria ICSID Case No ARB/03/24 (Salans president, van den Berg and Veeder arbitrators, Award, 27 August 2008)

Responsibility of International Organizations [2011] 2(2) ILC Ybk

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts [2001] 2(2) ILC Ybk 26

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) (Cambodia v Thailand) [2013] ICJ Reports 281

Talmon S (2016) The Chagos marine protected area arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 65(4):927–951CrossRef

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia) [2012] ICJ Reports 624

Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion [1975] ICJ Reports 12

Whomersley C (2016) The South China Sea: the award of the tribunal in the case brought by the Philippines—a critique. Chin J Int Law 15:239

World Duty Free Co Ltd v Republic of Kenya ICSID Case No ARB/00/7 (Guillaume president, Veeder and Rogers arbitrators, Award, 4 October 2006)

Titel: The Once and Future King: Sovereignty Over Territory and the Annex VII Tribunal’s Award in Mauritius v United Kingdom
verfasst von: Thomas D. Grant
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Fifty Years of the British Indian Ocean Territory
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78540-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-78541-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78541-7_9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"