DOCSLIB.ORG

Diplomarbeit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Diplomarbeit Diplomarbeit Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Rechtswissenschaften an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz. Der Räumliche Anwendungsbereich der EMRK am Beispiel „Diego Garcia“ Vorgelegt von Lisa Maria GUTWENGER Beurteiler: Univ.Prof.Dr. Hans-Peter Folz am Institut für Europarecht an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Graz, im Juni 2019 Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung Ich erkläre ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen nicht benutzt und die den Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Die Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen inländischen oder ausländischen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht. Die vorliegende Fassung entspricht der eingereichten elektronischen Version. Datum Unterschrift Gender Erklärung Aus Gründen der leichteren Lesbarkeit wird in dieser Diplomarbeit die Sprachform des generischen Maskulinums verwendet. Dabei kommt es zu keiner Benachteiligung des weiblichen Geschlechts, da die Verwendung der männlichen Form ausschließlich der sprachlichen Vereinfachung dienen soll und geschlechtsneutral, sohin Frauen und Männer gleichermaßen, zu verstehen ist. Danksagung und Widmung An dieser Stelle möchte ich Herrn Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Folz herzlich dafür danken, dass er sich sofort bereit erklärt hat, die Betreuung meiner Diplomarbeit zu übernehmen. Meinen Eltern Sabine und Hermann möchte ich meinen größten und herzlichsten Dank aussprechen. Sie haben mich mein ganzes Studium hindurch stets mit Worten des Mutes und des Zuspruches begleitet und motiviert. Sie haben mich während meines gesamten Studiums immer finanziell unterstützt. Meine Eltern waren in den schwersten und glücklichsten Momenten meiner Studienzeit und meines Lebens immer an meiner Seite. Dafür bin ich Ihnen unendlich dankbar! Des weiteren möchte ich auch meinen Großeltern Maria und Helmut, sowie Waltraud und David von Herzen für ihren finanziellen und motivierenden Beistand im Laufe meiner gesamten Studienzeit danken. Um es in J.W.v. Goethes Worten zu sagen: „Glücklich allein ist die Seele, die liebt.“1 Ich widme diese Diplomarbeit meinem Großvater David, der zum Ende meines Studiums leider zu früh von uns gegangen ist und sicherlich sehr stolz auf mich wäre und auch ist. 1 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, aus Klärchens Lied im dritten Aufzug, Egmont (Erstaufführung 1789). Inhaltsverzeichnis 1.Einleitung..........................................................................................................................................1 2.Geografischer, historischer und faktischer Überblick des Chagos-Archipels und der Hauptinsel Diego Garcia.........................................................................................................................................2 2.1.Aktuelle Eckdaten des gegenwärtigen Chagos-Archipels.........................................................2 2.2.Trennung des Chagos-Archipels von Mauritius und die Entstehung des BIOT........................2 2.3.Pachtvertrag zwischen dem Vereinigten Königreich und der USA auf dem Gebiet des BIOT.4 2.4.Vertreibung der „Ilois“ aus dem Gebiet des Chagos-Archipels.................................................4 2.5.Prozessualer Überblick des Falles der Chagos-Insulaner vor den britischen Höchstgerichten.6 3.Räumlicher Anwendungsbereich der EMRK....................................................................................8 3.1.Begriffsbestimmung der ratione loci nach Art 1 EMRK...........................................................8 3.2.Prinzip der Territorialhoheit – am Beispiel „Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others“..10 3.3.Jurisdiktion bei extraterritorialem Handeln eines Vertragsstaates– am Beispiel „Al-Skeini and Others v. The United Kingdom“:...................................................................................................13 3.4.Jurisdiktion im Zusammenhang mit der Abtransportierung der Chagos-Insulaner mit dem Schiff „MV Nordvaer“...................................................................................................................17 3.5.Art 1 EMRK im Sinne von ratione personae...........................................................................19 4.Das Vereinigten Königreichs und der räumliche Anwendungsbereich der EMRK im Zusammenhang mit Art 56 EMRK.....................................................................................................21 4.1.Begriffsbestimmung und Bedeutung des Art 56 EMRK.........................................................21 4.2.Einschränkende Anwendung der EMRK nach Art 56 Abs 3 EMRK......................................22 4.3.Erklärungen des Vereinigten Königreiches gemäß Art 56 EMRK..........................................23 4.4.Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Art 1 und Art 56 EMRK........................................................23 5.Das Chagos-Archipel als „Marine Protected Area (MPA)“............................................................26 6.Exkurs: EGMR in der Sache „Chagos Islanders v. The United Kingdom“.....................................27 7.Exkurs: Gutachten vom 25.2.2019 des IGH auf Antrag der Generalversammlung der UN über „Rechtsfolgen der Trennung des Chagos-Archipels von Mauritius im Jahr 1965“...........................31 8.Schlussfolgerung.............................................................................................................................34 I) Literaturverzeichnis........................................................................................................................36 II) Quellenverzeichnis........................................................................................................................38 Abkürzungsverzeichnis Abs Absatz Art Artikel BGBl Bundesgesetzblatt BIOT British Indian Ocean Territory bzw beziehungsweise ECHR European Convention on Human Rights EMRK Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention EGMR Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte FCO Foreign & Commonwealth Office ff fortfolgend gem gemäß Hrsg Herausgeber ICJ International Court of Justice IGH Internationaler Gerichtshof iSd im Sinne des/der iVm in Verbindung mit lit litera MPA Marine Protected Area MV Motor Vessel NMLR Newsletter Menschenrechte PCA Permanent Court of Arbitration Res Resolution RZ Randziffer SGSSI South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNGA General Assembly of the United Nations/ Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen US/USA United States of America v versus Vgl vergleiche WDK Wiener Übereinkommen über diplomatische Beziehungen 1. Einleitung Die vorliegende Arbeit befasst sich mit dem räumlichen Anwendungsbereich der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) betreffend dem britischen Überseegebiet des Chagos- Archipels und der Hauptinsel Diego Garcia, dem sogenannten „British Indian Ocean Territory“ (BIOT). Zu Beginn soll ein kurzer geografischer und historischer Überblick die gegenwärtige Situation rund um das Chagos-Archipel aufzeigen. Einleitend wird zudem die Entwicklung und die Entstehung des BIOT und die damit verbundene Vertreibung der Chagos-Insulaner aus dem Chagos-Archipel beschrieben. Es folgt dabei eine kurze Aufschlüsselung der innerstaatliche Prozessführung vor den britischen Gerichtshöfen auf Seiten der Chagos-Insulaner zum besseren Verständnis des Sachverhaltes und der Geschehnisse rund um das Chagos-Archipel. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Arbeit steht die verfahrensrechtliche Frage, inwieweit die EMRK auf dem geografischen Gebiet des Chagos-Archipel Anwendung finden kann. Die Arbeit soll einen Versuch darstellen, den räumlichen Anwendungsbereich der EMRK dahingehend aufzugliedern, dass der Fall des Gebietes des Chagos-Archipels unter die einzelnen Aspekte, Definitionen und Argumente des räumlichen Anwendungsbereiches subsumiert werden kann. Dabei wird nicht nur auf den Gesetzestext und den Wortlaut der EMRK eingegangen, sondern soll auch auf bestehende Lehrmeinungen und die ständige Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte (EGMR) an Hand konkreter Fall- und Entscheidungsbeispiele des EGMR Bezug genommen werden. Daran anknüpfend befasst sich die vorliegende Arbeit in zwei Exkursen einerseits mit dem Gutachten des IGH hinsichtlich der Frage der rechtmäßigen Trennung des Chagos-Archipels von Mauritius im Jahr 1965 und anderseits mit der Entscheidung des EGMR in der Sache „Chagos Islanders v. The United Kingdom“. Anhand fachlicher Lehrmeinungen des räumlichen Anwendungsbereichs der EMRK einerseits und der Auslegung des EGMR in seiner ständigen Rechtsprechung andererseits soll die Arbeit zusammenfassend Schlussfolgerungen bieten, inwieweit die EMRK auf das britische Überseegebiet des Chagos-Archipels Anwendung finden kann. 1 2. Geografischer, historischer und faktischer Überblick des Chagos- Archipels und der Hauptinsel Diego Garcia 2.1. Aktuelle Eckdaten des gegenwärtigen Chagos-Archipels Das Chagos-Archipel ist eine Inselgruppe bestehend aus mehr als 50 Inseln, wobei die Hauptinsel Diego Garcia die größte Insel darstellt. Diego Garcia ist zudem die einzig bewohnte Insel des Archipels. Zur Zeit wird sie vorläufig durch US-amerikanisches und britisches Militärpersonal bewohnt.2 Das Archipel ist im zentral gelegenen Teil des Indischen Ozeans situiert und wird gegenwärtig seit 1965 vom Vereinigten Königreich Großbritannien und Nordirland (kurz Vereinigtes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2018/20 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2018 Public sitting held on Monday 3 September 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2018 Audience publique tenue le lundi 3 septembre 2018, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, sur les Effets juridiques de la séparation de l’archipel des Chagos de Maurice en 1965 (Demande d’avis consultatif soumise par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Republic of Mauritius is represented by: H.E. Sir Anerood Jugnauth, G.C.S.K., K.C.M.G., Q.C., Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, Minister for Rodrigues of the Republic of Mauritius, as Head of Delegation (from 3 to 5 September 2018); Mr. Nayen Koomar Ballah, G.O.S.K., Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service, Mr. Dheerendra Kumar Dabee, G.O.S.K., S.C., Solicitor General, H.E. Mr. Jagdish Dharamchand Koonjul, G.O.S.K., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Mauritius to the United Nations in New York, Ms Shiu Ching Young Kim Fat, Minister Counsellor, Prime Minister’s Office, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 [Amended 4 March 2019 by Request]
    25 FÉVRIER 2019 AVIS CONSULTATIF EFFETS JURIDIQUES DE LA SÉPARATION DE L’ARCHIPEL DES CHAGOS DE MAURICE EN 1965 ___________ LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965 25 FEBRUARY 2019 ADVISORY OPINION TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-24 I. EVENTS LEADING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE REQUEST FOR THE ADVISORY OPINION 25-53 II. JURISDICTION AND DISCRETION 54-91 A. Jurisdiction 55-62 B. Discretion 63-68 1. Whether advisory proceedings are suitable for determination of complex and disputed factual issues 69-74 2. Whether the Court’s response would assist the General Assembly in the performance of its functions 75-78 3. Whether it would be appropriate for the Court to re-examine a question allegedly settled by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under UNCLOS Annex VII in the Arbitration regarding the Chagos Marine Protected Area 79-82 4. Whether the questions asked relate to a pending dispute between two States, which have not consented to its settlement by the Court 83-91 III. THE FACTUAL CONTEXT OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS 92-131 A. The discussions between the United Kingdom and the United States with respect to the Chagos Archipelago 94-97 B. The discussions between the Government of the United Kingdom and the representatives of the colony of Mauritius with respect to the Chagos Archipelago 98-112 C. The situation of the Chagossians 113-131 IV. THE QUESTIONS PUT TO THE COURT BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 132-182 A. Whether the process of decolonization of Mauritius was lawfully completed having regard to international law (Question (a)) 139-174 1.
    [Show full text]
  • MEDIA SUMMARY the Queen (On The
    Court of Appeal Press Release: FINAL R on app of Hoareau & Anr v The Sec. of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs MEDIA SUMMARY The Queen (on the application of Solange Hoareau and Louis Olivier Bancoult) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs NOTE: This summary is designed to assist in reporting the Court’s judgment. It makes reference to the judgment, a copy of which is available at www.judicary.uk, but it is not a substitute for the judgment which provides a full record of the Court’s reasons. 1 The Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Green and Lord Justice Dingemans) has today (Thursday 30 July 2020) given judgment dismissing the appeal brought by Solange Hoareau and Louis Olivier Bancoult against the judgment of the Divisional Court (Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Carr) dated 8 February 2019. 2 Ms Hoareau and Mr Bancoult had brought a claim against the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Ms Hoareau and Mr Bancoult were seeking to quash the decision of the Government of the United Kingdom dated 16 November 2016 (announced by Baroness Anelay) not to resettle the Chagossian people in the British Indian Ocean Territory, which is also referred to as the Chagos Islands, but to provide a package of financial support of £40 million over a period of ten years. (The text of the Government’s decision is set out at paragraph 70 of the judgment). 3 The circumstances in which the Chagossians were removed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s from the Chagos Islands are addressed from paragraphs 4 to 17 of the judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Guide &Mun Ix
    &MUN IX THE 1968 CHAGOSSIAN EXILE BACKGROUND GUIDE & Letters From The Directors Dear Delegates, My name is Ramona Shelton and I am so thrilled to be your director for Reclaiming an Island: The 1968 Chagossian Exile. The themes of sovereignty, and human rights as well as the international response to violations of these concepts have been interests of mine throughout my college career, and I am excited to hear what each of you brings to the table at &MUN IX! I am a sophomore from Staunton, VA, double majoring in International Relations and Economics at William and Mary. I joined the International Relations Club as a freshman after competing in model United Nations in high school. I have staffed and directed committees for all three conferences that William and Mary hosts, have competed with our collegiate model United Nations team, and am currently serving on the Secretariat for our middle school conference, as the director of conference development. Outside of model UN, I am a member of William and Mary’s club rowing team, and also enjoy hiking, skiing, reading, and cooking for my friends in my free time. As a delegate in this committee, you will be expected to take on the role of your character, however &MUN condemns any displays of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, religious discrimination, or any other form of bigotry, and this behavior will not be tolerated in committee. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at [email protected]. Thank you all for participating in &MUN XIX, I cannot wait for a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, Ramona Shelton & Letters From The Directors Dear Delegates, Welcome to &MUN IX! My name is Alexandra Byrne and I am so excited to be serving as your crisis director for Reclaiming an Island: The 1968 Chagossian Exile.
    [Show full text]
  • International Court of Justice
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Twitter Account: @CIJ_ICJ YouTube Channel: CIJ ICJ LinkedIn page: International Court of Justice (ICJ) Summary Not an official document Summary 2019/2 25 February 2019 Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 Summary of the Advisory Opinion On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice gave its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. I. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS (PARAS. 1-24) The Court first recalls that the questions on which the advisory opinion of the Court has been requested are set forth in resolution 71/292 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 22 June 2017. It further recalls that these questions read as follows: (a) “Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and having regard to international law, including obligations reflected in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967?”; (b) “What are the consequences under international law, including obligations reflected in the above-mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued administration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Chagos Archipelago, including with respect to the inability of Mauritius to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin?”.
    [Show full text]
  • MRG) Is an International NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC
    Minority Rights Group International Minority Rights Group International (MRG) is an international NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC. MRG works to secure the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide. 1) Introduction This report will highlight concerns over the implementation of human rights by the government of the United Kingdom with respect to its overseas territories. It will highlight the example of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and the systematic way in which the government has failed to provide a remedy to the islanders for violations of their rights committed by the UK, as identified by the UK courts most recently in May 2006, upheld by the Court of Appeal in May 2007 and included in recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee. 2) Overview of the situation of BIOT1 a. History of the removal of the population Up until the 1960s, the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean were inhabited by an indigenous people, the Ilois (also known as Chagossians), who were born there, as were their parents and many of their ancestors. In the early 1960s the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America resolved to establish a major military base on the largest of the Chagos Islands, Diego Garcia. To facilitate the creation of the base, in 1965 the Chagos archipelago (including Diego Garcia) was divided from Mauritius (then a British colony) and constituted as a separate colony called the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by way of Order in Council (SI 1965 No 1920). From 1965 onwards Britain began removing the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands (who are British citizens) by inter alia, refusing to let them return from visits to Mauritius and closing down the plantations which provided employment for the Islanders.
    [Show full text]
  • Mauritius V United Kingdom
    ARBITRATION UNDER ANNEX VII OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA MAURITIUS v. UNITED KINGDOM COUNTER-MEMORIAL SUBMITTTED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM 15 JULY 2013 CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………… 1 A: Summary of proceedings…………………………………………………… 1 B: General observations………………………………………………………..... 3 C: Organisation of the Counter-Memorial……………………………………..... 5 PART ONE: THE FACTS…………………………………………………….. 7 CHAPTER II: GEOGRAPHICAL, CONSTITUTIONAL AND DIPLOMATIC BACKGROUND……………………………………………... 8 A: Geography of the British Indian Ocean Territory and of the Republic of Mauritius………………………………………………………………………… 8 (i) The British Indian Ocean Territory………………………………..… 8 (ii) The Republic of Mauritius……………………………………………. 11 B: The constitutional history of the Chagos Archipelago/ British Indian Ocean Territory………………………………………………………………………..... 11 (i) Cession to the United Kingdom……………………………………… 12 (ii) British administration as a Lesser Dependency (1814-1965)………… 12 (iii) The British Indian Ocean Territory: establishment and constitutional evolution……………………………………………………………... 16 C: The constitutional history of Mauritius……………………………………..... 18 D: The 5 November 1965 agreement by the Mauritius Council of Ministers to 22 the establishment of the BIOT………………………………………………… E: Debate in the UN General Assembly in 1965/1967 and subsequently………. 31 (i) UNGA resolutions 2066(XX), 2232(XXI) and 2357(XXII)………… 31 (ii) Mauritian statements in the UNGA after Independence and UK replies…………………………………………………………………. 34 F: Subsequent relations between Mauritius and the United Kingdom concerning the BIOT………………………………………………………………………… 38 (i) Fishing in the BIOT and the ‘fishing rights’ understanding…….......... 38 (ii) The mineral rights understanding…………………………………….. 45 Figure 2.1: Geographical Setting of BIOT and Mauritius…………………... 48 Figure 2.2: 200 Nautical Mile Zones of BIOT and Mauritius……………….. 49 Figure 2.3: British Indian Ocean Territory: Chagos Archipelago………….. 50 Figure 2.4: Fishing Licences Issued by BIOT from 1991 to 30 March 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Brill.Com10/02/2021[ 39 ] 06:15:34AM Via Free Access D
    afrika focus — Volume 29, Nr. 2, 2016 — pp. 39-57 Assessing the responsibilities of the United Kingdom and Mauritius towards the Chagossians under international law Darsheenee Raumnauth (1), Roopanand Mahadew(2)1 (1) African Union Commission, Ethiopia (2) Department of Law, University of Mauritius, Mauritius This article reviews the obligations under international law of the United Kingdom and Mauritius towards the Chagossians. With the detachment of Chagos from Mauritius as an essential condi- tion for the independence of Mauritius from the British colonial master, the Chagossians have, over the past four decades, endured enormous human rights violations . This article assesses the responsibility of the two states vis-à-vis the Chagossians. A comprehensive factual account is first presented to clarify understanding of the history of Chagos. The legal framework is then analysed to assess the responsibility of each state, before a number of recommendations are made. Key words: Chagos, Mauritius, United Kingdom, British Indian Ocean territories Introduction A Factual account Known as the largest and only inhabited coral island of the Chagos Archipelago (Gifford, 2004: 2), Diego Garcia, the horseshoe-shaped atoll is equally renowned as a site for one of a number of secretive U.S military bases in the Indian Ocean. However, while this latter aspect is frequently prominent, it is typically overlooked in mainstream discussions in relation to militarisation, world peace and security (Boolell, 2010: 29). For example, this issue seems to have been almost wholly ignored during consultations on nuclear disarmament in Africa (Pelindaba Treaty, 1966) even though Mauritius and Diego Garcia irrefutably form an integral part of the African Continent (Collen, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • STEALING a NATION a Special Report by John Pilger STEALING a NATION Introduction
    STEALING A NATION A special report by John Pilger STEALING A NATION Introduction A Special Report by John Pilger eginning in the late 1960s the British government removed the population of B around 2,000 people from the Chagos islands in the Indian Ocean. This policy was pursued as quietly as possible to ensure minimal international attention. Subsequently, successive British This film is a shocking, almost incredible governments over nearly four decades have story. A government calling itself civilised maintained this policy by not disclosing the fact that “ the islanders were permanent inhabitants. tricked and expelled its most vulnerable citi- zens so that it could give their homeland to a foreign power . Ministers and their officials then mounted a campaign of deception all the way up to the Prime Minister. John Pilger ” In this part of the world, except if we go “back to the days of slavery and to the days of indentured labour, I can't remember anything of the sort happening. Cassam Uteem, former President of Mauritius. The depopulation was done at the behest of the United States Stealing a Nation – ITV October 2004. ” government to make way for a military base on the largest island in the Chagos group – Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is now a large US military base used as a launch pad for intervention in the Middle East, most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. John Pilger beside a boat used in the All the while, the Chagossians, most of whom have been living expulsion of the Chagos Islanders. in exile in poverty, have been campaigning for proper © ITV plc compensation and for the right to return to their homeland.
    [Show full text]
  • Masterarbeit / Master's Thesis
    MASTERARBEIT / MASTER’S THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit / Title of the Master‘s Thesis „Colonialism in the 21st Century: A Global History of the Chagos Islands “ verfasst von / submitted by Oliver Samuel White angestrebter akademischer Grad / in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master (MA) Wien, 2018 / Vienna 2018 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt / A 067 805 degree programme code as it appears on the student record sheet: Studienrichtung lt. Studienblatt / Individuelles Masterstudium: degree programme as it appears on Global Studies – a European Perspective the student record sheet: Betreut von / Supervisor: ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Friedrich Edelmayer, MAS MASTERARBEIT / MASTER THESIS Titel der Masterarbeit /Title of the Master Thesis Colonialism in the 21st Century: A Global History of the Chagos Islands Verfasser /Author Oliver Samuel White angestrebter akademischer Grad / academic degree aspired Master (MA) Wien, 2018 / Vienna, 2018 Studienkennzahl / degree programme code: A 067 805 Studienrichtung / degree programme: Individuelles Masterstudium: Global Studies – a European Perspective Betreuer/Supervisor: ao. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Friedrich Edelmayer, MAS Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................. i Tables and Figures ............................................................. iv Foreword and Acknowledgements ..................................... v Abstract .............................................................................. vi Zusammenfassung
    [Show full text]
  • 156 65 Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade
    156 SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE table of contents Paragraphs I. PROLEGOMENA 1 II. The Long- Standing United Nations Acknowledgment of, and Commitment to, the Fundamental Right to Self- Determination of Peoples 6 1. UN General Assembly resolutions during the 1950s 9 2. UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 — Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People 13 3. Successive UN General Assembly resolutions (1961-1966) in support of the Declaration on the Granting of Indepen- dence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 18 4. UN General Assembly resolution 2066 (XX) of 1965 on the “Question of Mauritius” 21 5. UN General Assembly resolutions (1966-1967) in support of the right of peoples to self- determination 23 6. UN General Assembly resolution 2621 (XXV) of 1970 on the programme of action for the full implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colo- nial Countries and Peoples 25 7. UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970 — Declaration on Principles of International Law concern- ing Friendly Relations and Co- operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations 27 III. Eradication of Colonialism: Projection in Time of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and of Successive UN General Assembly Resolutions 29 IV. The International Law of Decolonization as a Manifes- tation of the Humanization of Contemporary Interna- tional Law 38 65 8 Avis 1164.indb 126 25/02/20 11:14 156 OPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. LE JUGE CANÇADO TRINDADE [Traduction] table des matières Paragraphes I.
    [Show full text]
  • El Caso De La Isla De Diego García: Territorio Sin Derecho Internacional, Personas Sin Derechos
    EL CASO DE LA ISLA DE DIEGO GARCÍA: TERRITORIO SIN DERECHO INTERNACIONAL, PERSONAS SIN DERECHOS THE CASE OF THE ISLAND OF DIEGO GARCIA: TERRITORY WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW, PEOPLE WITHOUT RIGHTS Antoni Pigrau Solé ∗∗∗ Sumario: I. ANTECEDENTES : LA DESCOLONIZACIÓN ESCAMOTEADA . II. LA AUTÉNTICA RAZÓN : LA BASE MILITAR ESTADOUNIDENSE DE DIEGO GARCÍA . III. EL LITIGIO EN ESTADOS UNIDOS : UNA VÍA MUERTA . IV. LAS ACCIONES JUDICIALES EN EL REINO UNIDO: LA POLÍTICA PREVALECE SOBRE EL DERECHO . V. DE LA INSISTENCIA DEL COMITÉ DE DERECHOS HUMANOS DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS . VI. … A LA INHIBICIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL EUROPEO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS . VII. LA ZONA MARINA PROTEGIDA O LA UTILIZACIÓN DEL DISCURSO CONSERVACIONISTA PARA PRESERVAR LOS INTERESES MILITARES . VIII. LA VICTORIA PARCIAL DE MAURICIO EN EL ARBITRAJE SOBRE EL ÁREA MARINA PROTEGIDA . IX. CONSIDERACIONES FINALES . RESUMEN : Este artículo aborda el caso de la Isla de Diego García y, de manera más general, el del archipiélago de las islas Chagos. Situadas bajo la administración británica en tanto que parte del territorio autónomo de Isla Mauricio, el archipiélago fue separado ilegalmente del resto de la colonia y sus habitantes expulsados, a partir del acuerdo de 1966 por el que el Reino Unido cedía la Isla de Diego García para la construcción de una enorme base militar de Estados Unidos en pleno Océano Índico. La lucha de los chagosianos para obtener una compensación justa y el derecho a regresar a su hogar se ha proyectado ante los tribunales del Reino Unido, de Estados Unidos e incluso ante el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, sin éxito. La creación por el Reino Unido de un área marítima protegida en la zona, en 2010, pretendía asegurar que los antiguos habitantes de las islas jamás regresarían a ellas.
    [Show full text]