| • | “The ICJ thus determined that the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago is an unlawful act of a continuing character, entailing its international responsibility, and must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible. The Special Chamber considers that these determinations, together with those previously mentioned, have unmistakable implications for the United Kingdom’s claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. In the Special Chamber’s view, such claim is contrary to the determinations made by the ICJ that the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago was unlawful and that the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes an unlawful act of a continuing character.” (para. 173)
|
•
| “In the Special Chamber’s view, determinations made by the ICJ in an advisory opinion cannot be disregarded simply because the advisory opinion is not binding. This is true of the ICJ’s determinations in the Chagos advisory opinion, inter alia, that the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago, and that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible. The Special Chamber considers that those determinations do have legal effect.” (para. 205)
|
•
| “In resolution 73/295, the General Assembly affirmed, “in accordance with the advisory opinion of the Court”, that: “[t]he Chagos Archipelago forms an integral part of the territory of Mauritius”. The Special Chamber considers that this affirmation is the General Assembly’s view of the advisory opinion.
In the resolution, the General Assembly demanded that
|
|
| the United Kingdom … withdraw its colonial administration from the Chagos Archipelago unconditionally within a period of no more than six months from the adoption of the present resolution, thereby enabling Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory as rapidly as possible.
|
| The Special Chamber notes that this demand was made as one of the “modalities” for ensuring the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius pursuant to the advisory opinion. In the Special Chamber’s view, the fact that the time-limit set by the General Assembly has passed without the United Kingdom complying with the demand further strengthens the Special Chamber’s finding as to the United Kingdom’s claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago noted in paragraph 173 above.” (paras. 228 and 229)
|
•
| “the continued claim of the United Kingdom to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago cannot be considered anything more than “a mere assertion” (para. 243)
|
•
| “The determinations made by the ICJ with respect to the issues of the decolonization of Mauritius in the Chagos advisory opinion have legal effect and clear implications for the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago. The United Kingdom’s continued claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is contrary to those determinations. While the process of decolonization has yet to be completed, Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago can be inferred from the ICJ’s determinations.” (para. 246)
|
•
| “In the Special Chamber’s view, it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom, whose administration over the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act of a continuing character and thus must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible, and yet who has failed to do so, can have any legal interests in permanently disposing of maritime zones around the Chagos Archipelago by delimitation.” (para. 247)
|
•
| “The Special Chamber considers that the above findings as a whole provide it with sufficient basis to conclude that Mauritius can be regarded as the coastal State in respect of the Chagos Archipelago for the purpose of the delimitation of a maritime boundary even before the process of the decolonization of Mauritius is completed”. (para. 250)
|
