DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Feasibility study for the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory Volume I 31st January 2015 Currency Equivalents Currency Unit = Sterling Pound (£) Exchange Rates (1 October 2014) £ 1 = US$ 1.6203 £ 1 = € 1.2866 Source: Bank of England Fiscal Year 1st April – 31st March Abbreviations and Acronyms APCC Asian and Pacific Coconut Community BIOT British Indian Ocean Territory BIOTA BIOT Administration BMFC British/Mauritius Fisheries Commission BSFC British/Seychelles Fisheries Commission CB Capacity Building CCT Chagos Conservation Trust CDA Coconut Development Authority (Sri Lanka) CPI Consumer Price Index DFID Department for International Development EC European Commission ECCB East Caribbean Central Bank EDF European Development Fund EEZ Economic Exclusion Zone EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIB European Investment Bank EPPZ Environment Protection and Preservation Zone EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FCMZ Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone FCNO Filtered Coconut Oil FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office FIRR Financial Internal Rate of Return FPO Fisheries Protection Officer FPV Fisheries Protection Vessel GDP Gross Domestic Product GRT Gross Register Tonnage GST Goods and Services Tax HR Human Resources IATA International Air Transport Association ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IPCC International Panel on Climate Change IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated KPI Key Performance Indicator MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MDG Millennium Development Goal M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MIS Management Information System MPA Marine Protected Area MRAG Marine Resources Assessment Group Limited MSC Marine Stewardship Certificate MWR Morale, Welfare and Recreation NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NM Nautical Mile NSFDG US Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia NTA/NTZ No Take Area/No Take Zone O&M Operations and Maintenance OT Overseas Territory OTD Overseas Territories Department OTEP Overseas Territories Environment Programme PIDG Private Infrastructure Development Group PIO Pitcairn Island Office PM Pacific Marlin RIB Rigid-hulled Inflatable Boat RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors RM Royal Marines ROPO Royal Overseas Police Officer SFPO Senior Fisheries Protection Officer SIDS Small Island Developing States SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats TCI Turks and Caicos Islands TdC Tristan da Cunha TEFU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TOR Terms of Reference UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNEP United Nations Environment Programme USAF United States Air Force VAT Value Added Tax WHO World Health Organisation WTO World Tourism Organisation WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction and Background 9 2 Study Approach and Methodology 12 3 Key Activities and Resettlement Options 14 4 Legal and Political Analysis 20 5 Environmental Analysis 36 6 Infrastructure Analysis 59 7 Economic and Financial Analysis 70 8 Comparison of Resettlement Options 84 Terms of Reference 98 Bibliography 101 Executive Summary Introduction In March 2014, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Administration commissioned KPMG to carry out a feasibility study for the resettlement of BIOT. The feasibility study was undertaken over a ten- month period between April 2014 and January 2015. It was conducted by a multi-disciplinary team, tasked with preparing a ‘neutral’ analysis of different options for the resettlement of BIOT. For each option, the feasibility study considers the following: ■ The likely cost to the UK Government of establishing and maintaining a settlement over periods of five, ten and twenty years; ■ Whether such a settlement could be self-sustaining and, if so, within what time period and under what conditions; and ■ The associated risks, environmental implications and full costs of mitigation, in the event that resettlement takes place. This report collates the work of the study, and provides a detailed description of the overall approach and methodology followed, as well as the findings. The findings depend on many assumptions, as outlined in the report. Study approach and methodology The study analyses the different resettlement options using a range of different variables including: legal, political, environmental, social and economic factors, and estimations of the total cost of the resettlement options. The views from a range of stakeholders were sought, including the Chagossian community, through a series of open consultations. The work was carried out through three main phases: ■ Consultation and data gathering, consulting with the Chagossians and gathering relevant data on the numerous factors affecting resettlement; ■ Analysis to determine the prospects for an economically self-sustaining community on BIOT, weighing the likely economic opportunities against the expected financial costs and environmental risks; and ■ Reporting, setting out an analysis of the resettlement options, with consideration of the environmental risks and costing of each option. This phase included a draft report made available on 27 November 2014 and this report made available on 31 January 2015. Key activities and resettlement options The study team undertook field research in BIOT, visiting Diego Garcia and 13 of the outer islands, including two which are considered in detail as part of the resettlement option analysis, Ile du Coin and Boddam. The purpose of the visit was to gather relevant data on selected islands within BIOT, to develop a framework for assessing the viability of each island for resettlement. We quickly narrowed down the resettlement locations to Diego Garcia, which is included in all three resettlement options, and the two outer islands, which were the only outer islands to have been inhabited on a significant scale in recent history. Environmental analysis confirmed the greater suitability of Diego Garcia than the two outer islands from a resettlement perspective. Existing infrastructure on Diego Garcia is a major practical and economic advantage provided that access can be agreed. 1 Consultations with the Chagossian community took place in Mauritius, the Seychelles, Manchester, Crawley, and London. The aim of these activities was to inform the Chagossian community of the study and consultation process, and to gather their views on this process and resettlement in general. An environmental questionnaire was developed to seek views from stakeholders on the various environmental issues linked to resettlement. These included members of the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) and other individuals with technical/environmental knowledge, particularly on BIOT or resettlement. The questionnaire focused broadly on: the carrying capacity of individual islands; the potential impact of resettlement on the environment; the impact of the environment on resettlement; and environmental monitoring requirements. In light of these activities, and the team’s wider background research, the team have focused their analysis on three resettlement options: ■ Option 1: Large-scale resettlement (population 1,500) with economic activities such as public sector employment, employment on the US Naval Support Facility, tourism and fisheries. This sort of development would require infrastructure on Diego Garcia and the outer islands. ■ Option 2: Medium-scale resettlement (population 500) with livelihood options that could be supported in a number of ways such as public sector employment, engagement on the US Naval Support Facility, artisanal fishing and monitoring the MPA. ■ Option 3: Pilot, small-scale resettlement, (population 150, serving as a middle ground between permanent resettlement and the status quo) with incremental growth over time, and limited infrastructure on Diego Garcia. These options are neither exhaustive (other options are possible), nor mutually exclusive, in that a resettlement process which started off at a pilot scale could move on to medium or larger scale resettlement depending on the level of success and the demand from the community to move in larger numbers. The costs might be reduced below Option 3 by adopting lower standards of infrastructure and service provision than assumed in this study, or by having an even smaller initial population. The provisional candidate island options considered in the feasibility assessment of island options are Diego Garcia and, as examples of outer islands, Ile du Coin (Peros Banhos atoll) and Boddam (Salomon atoll), a view supported by responses to the environmental questionnaire. In the event of resettlement, these 3 islands are selected as ones that would be most practical. However, subsequent resettlement on some other BIOT islands is not precluded. Legal and political analysis (Section 4) The review has found that there are no fundamental legal obstacles that would prevent a resettlement of BIOT to go ahead. The legal and constitutional framework will, however, require significant amendment in order to facilitate a resettlement and this will require a comprehensive consultation process with the Chagossians and other interested parties. The following areas would be considered a priority in advance of and during the initial stages of any resettlement: Constitutional ■ A decision as to whether any new constitution, interim or permanent, for BIOT would be based solely upon Her Majesty’s prerogative powers or on a United
Recommended publications
  • Narratives of Oppression Michael Tigar American University Washington College of Law

    Narratives of Oppression Michael Tigar American University Washington College of Law

    Human Rights Brief Volume 17 | Issue 1 Article 6 2009 Narratives of Oppression Michael Tigar American University Washington College of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Tigar, Michael. "Narratives of Oppression." Human Rights Brief 17, no. 1 (2009): 34-38. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tigar: Narratives of Oppression Narratives of Oppression by Michael Tigar The following piece is based on Professor Michael Tigar’s keynote address delivered at the “Strategic Litigation in International and Domestic Fora” event on October 12, 2009, at the American University Washington College of Law (WCL). Professor Tigar is a Professor Emeritus at WCL and a Professor of the Practice of Law at Duke Law School. Ten years ago, he founded the UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic, which has represented, among others, the indigenous people from the Chagos Archipelago in their lawsuit in United States federal court. The Chagossians were forcibly uprooted from their homeland in the Indian Ocean in the 1960s and 1970s by the United States and the United Kingdom to make way for the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia. lthough I hope there are some general lessons to be drawn from my remarks, I am going to focus today Tigar.
  • Women, Slavery, and British Imperial Interventions in Mauritius, 1810–1845

    Women, Slavery, and British Imperial Interventions in Mauritius, 1810–1845

    Women, Slavery, and British Imperial Interventions in Mauritius, 1810–1845 Tyler Yank Department of History and Classical Studies Faculty of Arts McGill University, Montréal October 2019 A thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy © Tyler Yank 2019 ` Table of Contents ! Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Résumé ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 10 History & Historiography ............................................................................................................. 15 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................................
  • British Overseas Territories Law

    British Overseas Territories Law

    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
  • MRG Is an International Non-Governmental Organisation

    MRG Is an International Non-Governmental Organisation

    UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) MID-TERM REPORT United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Views of Minority Rights Group (MRG) on the Recommendations of the Working Group of the UPR Twenty-First Session (20 September 2012) MRG is an international non-governmental organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation and understanding between communities. MRG works with over 150 organisations in nearly 50 countries. MRG has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and is a civil society organisation registered with the Organization of American States. Lucy Claridge: [email protected] 54 Commercial Street London E1 6LT United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7422 4200 Fax: +44 (0)20 7422 4201 Web: www.minorityrights.org 1 October 2013 1 1. Introduction 1.1 These Comments have been written for the Ministry of Justice to assist it in its preparation of the UK’s Mid-Term Report to the UPR (the “Mid-Term Report”) on the recommendations of the Working Group of the UPR adopted by the Human Rights Council on 20 September 2012 (the “Recommendations”). 1.2 These Comments have been prepared by Minority Rights Group International (MRG). MRG is an international non-governmental organization working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation and understanding between communities. MRG works with over 150 organisations in nearly 50 countries. MRG has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and is a civil society organisation registered with the Organization of American States.
  • UK Overseas Territories

    UK Overseas Territories

    INFORMATION PAPER United Kingdom Overseas Territories - Toponymic Information United Kingdom Overseas Territories (UKOTs), also known as British Overseas Territories (BOTs), have constitutional and historical links with the United Kingdom, but do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. The Queen is the Head of State of all the UKOTs, and she is represented by a Governor or Commissioner (apart from the UK Sovereign Base Areas that are administered by MOD). Each Territory has its own Constitution, its own Government and its own local laws. The 14 territories are: Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory (BAT); British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; UK Sovereign Base Areas. PCGN recommend the term ‘British Overseas Territory Capital’ for the administrative centres of UKOTs. Production of mapping over the UKOTs does not take place systematically in the UK. Maps produced by the relevant territory, preferably by official bodies such as the local government or tourism authority, should be used for current geographical names. National government websites could also be used as an additional reference. Additionally, FCDO and MOD briefing maps may be used as a source for names in UKOTs. See the FCDO White Paper for more information about the UKOTs. ANGUILLA The territory, situated in the Caribbean, consists of the main island of Anguilla plus some smaller, mostly uninhabited islands. It is separated from the island of Saint Martin (split between Saint-Martin (France) and Sint Maarten (Netherlands)), 17km to the south, by the Anguilla Channel.
  • Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory

    Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory

    Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory Draft Report 13th November 2014 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 4 1.1 The British Indian Ocean Territory 4 1.2 Aims and overview of this study 5 1.3 Structure of this draft report 6 2 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 7 2.1 Guiding principles 7 2.2 Analytical framework 8 2.3 Key phases of activity 11 3 KEY ACTIVITIES AND RESETTLEMENT OPTIONS 13 3.1 Field visit to the British Indian Ocean Territory 13 3.2 Consultations and survey results 15 3.3 Overview of resettlement options 18 4 LEGAL AND POLITICAL ANALYSIS 20 4.1 Introduction and overview 20 4.2 Constitutional and governance framework 22 4.3 Treaty arrangements between the US and the UK 31 4.4 Environmental protection laws and conventions 32 4.5 Conclusions and implications for resettlement 35 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 38 5.1 Introduction and overview 38 5.2 Assessment of key environmental issues 38 5.3 Evaluation of potential resettlement locations 48 5.4 Summary environmental comparison of resettlement options 55 6 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS 58 6.1 Introduction and overview 58 6.2 Assessment of key infrastructure issues 59 6.3 Summary of implications for resettlement 66 7 ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 68 7.1 Introduction and overview 68 7.2 Data sources 68 7.3 Indicative cost estimates 68 8 COMPARISON OF RESETTLEMENT OPTIONS 74 8.1 Choice of resettlement location 74 8.2 Environmental considerations 76 8.3 Comparative costs of resettlement options 79 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BIOT British Indian Ocean
  • In the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court T 1/2011 In

    In the Pitcairn Islands Supreme Court T 1/2011 In

    IN THE PITCAIRN ISLANDS SUPREME COURT T 1/2011 IN THE MATTER under the Constitution of Pitcairn and the Bill of Rights 1688 AND IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to the vires of parts of the Pitcairn Constitution being ultra vires the Bill of Rights 1688 AND IN THE MATTER OF a constitutional challenge and the refusal of the Magistrates Court to refer a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court and the failure of the Supreme Court to consider an appeal from the Magistrates Court AND CP 1/2013 IN THE MATTER OF a judicial review of the Attorney General and Governor BETWEEN MICHAEL WARREN Applicant/Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 07 to 11 and 14 to 17 April 2014; 01 August 2014; 23 September 2014 Appearances: Kieran Raftery and Simon Mount for the Crown Tony Ellis and Simon Park (on 23 September 2014) for Applicant/Appellant Judgment: 28 November 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT OF HAINES J ______________________________________________________________________ This judgment was delivered by me on 28 November 2014 at 10 am pursuant to the directions of Haines J Deputy Registrar Table of Contents Para Nr Introduction [1] Course of the hearing [11] The application for a stay on the grounds of abuse of process – the self- determination claim The submission [19] The right to self-determination – sources [22] Ius cogens [24] Internal self-determination – treaty obligations of the UK – the Charter of the United Nations [32] Internal self-determination – treaty obligations of the UK –
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 2 February 2021

    General Assembly Distr.: General 2 February 2021

    United Nations A/AC.109/2021/12 General Assembly Distr.: General 2 February 2021 Original: English Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Pitcairn Working paper prepared by the Secretariat Contents Page The Territory at a glance ......................................................... 3 I. Constitutional, legal and political issues ............................................ 4 A. Electoral qualifications ...................................................... 4 B. Judicial system and human rights ............................................. 5 II. Budget ....................................................................... 5 III. Economic and social conditions ................................................... 6 A. Transport ................................................................. 8 B. Communications and power supply ............................................ 8 C. Land tenure ............................................................... 9 D. Employment .............................................................. 9 E. Education ................................................................. 9 F. Health care ................................................................ 10 G. Criminal justice ............................................................ 10 IV. Environment .................................................................. 11 V. Relations with international organizations and partners...............................
  • BIOT Field Report

    BIOT Field Report

    ©2015 Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Science Without Borders®. All research was completed under: British Indian Ocean Territory, The immigration Ordinance 2006, Permit for Visit. Dated 10th April, 2015, issued by Tom Moody, Administrator. This report was developed as one component of the Global Reef Expedition: BIOT research project. Citation: Global Reef Expedition: British Indian Ocean Territory. Field Report 19. Bruckner, A.W. (2015). Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation, Annapolis, MD. pp 36. The Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation (KSLOF) was incorporated in California as a 501(c)(3), public benefit, Private Operating Foundation in September 2000. The Living Oceans Foundation is dedicated to providing science-based solutions to protect and restore ocean health. For more information, visit http://www.lof.org and https://www.facebook.com/livingoceansfoundation Twitter: https://twitter.com/LivingOceansFdn Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation 130 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD, 21403, USA [email protected] Executive Director Philip G. Renaud Chief Scientist Andrew W. Bruckner, Ph.D. Images by Andrew Bruckner, unless noted. Maps completed by Alex Dempsey, Jeremy Kerr and Steve Saul Fish observations compiled by Georgia Coward and Badi Samaniego Front cover: Eagle Island. Photo by Ken Marks. Back cover: A shallow reef off Salomon Atoll. The reef is carpeted in leather corals and a bleached anemone, Heteractis magnifica, is visible in the fore ground. A school of giant trevally, Caranx ignobilis, pass over the reef. Photo by Phil Renaud. Executive Summary Between 7 March 2015 and 3 May 2015, the Khaled bin Sultan Living Oceans Foundation conducted two coral reef research missions as components of our Global Reef Expedition (GRE) program.
  • Climate Change Impacts on Corals: BIOT and the Pitcairn Islands 1

    Climate Change Impacts on Corals: BIOT and the Pitcairn Islands 1

    Climate change impacts on corals: BIOT and the Pitcairn Islands 1 Climate change impacts on corals in the UK Overseas Territories of BIOT and the Pitcairn Islands 2 Climate change impacts on corals: BIOT and the Pitcairn Islands BIOT The British Indian Ocean Territory Changes in sea level and extreme (BIOT) consists of five atolls of low-lying weather events In BIOT, sea level is rising twice as fast as the global islands, including the largest atoll in average. Extreme sea levels appear related to El Niño the world, Great Chagos Bank, and a or La Niña events. When combined with bleaching and number of submerged atolls and banks. acidification sea level rise will reduce the effectiveness of reefs to perform as breakwaters. BIOT has experienced Diego Garcia is the only inhabited island. considerable shoreline erosion, which suggests loss of The BIOT Marine Protected Area (MPA) was designated breakwater effects from protective fringing reefs. in 2010. It covers the entire maritime zone and coastal waters, an approximate area of 640,000 km2. The Other human pressures marine environment is rich and diverse, attracting Rats have caused a crash of seabird populations, sea birds, sharks, cetaceans and sea turtles and with disrupting guano nutrient flows to the detriment of some extensive seagrass and coral reef habitats. It includes reef organisms including sponges and corals. Around the endangered Chagos brain coral (Ctenella chagius), an Diego Garcia, small scale fishing is allowed to residents endemic massive coral unique to BIOT. but illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is also known to occur, and there are concerns of pollution BIOT reefs have suffered extensive bleaching and mortality, and anchor damage within the lagoon.
  • 1: Manumission and Freedom in Early British Mauritius, 1811–1839

    1: Manumission and Freedom in Early British Mauritius, 1811–1839

    4 ‘Fit for Freedom’1: Manumission and Freedom in Early British Mauritius, 1811–1839 Satyendra Peerthum …it was often possible for the slave [and apprentice], by great perseverance and labour to purchase his own freedom and, this being accomplished the freedom of those dear to him.2 The slaves, however, were not prepared to wait for freedom to come to them as a dispensation from above….They were fully impressed with the belief that they were entitled to their freedom and that the cause they had embraced was just and in vindication of their own rights.3 Introduction The objective of this chapter is to explore the experience of slaves during the Slave Amelioration Period and of apprentices during the Apprenticeship era in Mauritius. It focuses on slaves’ and apprentices’ attempts to free themselves through manumission, their motives and the methods used to achieve this between 1829 and 1839. The aim is to show that slaves did not wait for the official abolition of slavery by the British government to attempt to change their servile status and instead used innovative attempts to improve their lives. As stated by Saunders for South Africa: Historians of slavery…may lay too great a stress on the great day of freedom…or the more important day four years later. Freedom had come to many individuals long before either of those dates … Individually and collectively they moved from effective slavery to ‘freedom’ before emancipation day dawned for the slaves.4 The slaves’ and apprentices’ attempts at manumission were interpreted in a number of ways by colonial officials and local colonists, and thus this chapter will 70 Transition from Slavery in Zanzibar and Mauritius also seek to extract all available information from sources to try to understand the world view of the slaves as this is rarely seen or stated explicitly in the sources.
  • 2549-1296 Volume 3, Number 1, January 2019 Unilateral Claim Ov

    2549-1296 Volume 3, Number 1, January 2019 Unilateral Claim Ov

    Padjadjaran Journal of International Law ISSN: 2549-2152, EISSN: 2549-1296 Volume 3, Number 1, January 2019 Unilateral Claim over Chagos Archipelago as British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by United Kingdom Based on International Law Jerina Novita Elpasari Abstract In 1965, United Kingdom (UK) made a unilateral claim over the Chagos Archipelago as British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) based on the BIOT Order of 1965 and Statutory Instrument of 1965 No. 1020. Due to this unilateral act, the Chagos Archipelago no longer parts of Mauritius. Problem arising from Britain's unilateral claim to the territory was further aggravated by the United Kingdom’s act in enforcing population transfer towards all Chagos islanders (Chagossians) out of the territory without adequate compensations and resettlement. This research aims to analyze the legality of unilateral claims over the Chagos archipelago as a BIOT and the enforced transfer of Chagossians from their original residential place by the United Kingdom. It argues that under international law, Chagos Archipelago is recognized as an area that should remain integrated within the territory of Mauritius. It further argues that the UK has violated international law by committing enforced population transfer. Keywords: BIOT, Enforced Population Transfer, Territory, The Chagos Archipelago, Unilateral Act. Klaim Sepihak Inggris terhadap Kepulauan Chagos sebagai British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Berdasarkan Hukum Internasional Abstrak Pada tahun 1965, Inggris melakukan klaim sepihak atas wilayah Kepulauan Chagos sebagai British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) berdasarkan British Indian Ocean Territory Order of 1965 dan Statutory Instrument of 1965 No. 1020. Kepulauan Chagos merupakan bagian dari Mauritius pada saat Mauritius berada dibawah penjajahan Inggris.