IN THE MATTER OF THE CHAGOS MARINE PROTECTED AREA ARBITRATION - before - AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ANNEX VII OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA - between - THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS - and - THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ________________________________________________________ AWARD ________________________________________________________ The Arbitral Tribunal: Professor Ivan Shearer AM, President Judge Sir Christopher Greenwood CMG, QC Judge Albert Hoffmann Judge James Kateka Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum Registry: Permanent Court of Arbitration 18 March 2015 this page intentionally blank AGENTS, COUNSEL AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AGENT OF MAURITIUS AGENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Mr Dheerendra Kumar Dabee GOSK, SC Ms Alice Lacourt Solicitor-General of Mauritius Legal Counsellor Foreign and Commonwealth Office Replacing Mr Christopher Whomersley CMG Deputy Legal Adviser Foreign and Commonwealth Office DEPUTY AGENT OF MAURITIUS DEPUTY AGENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Ms Aruna Devi Narain Ms Nicola Smith Parliamentary Counsel Assistant Legal Adviser Foreign and Commonwealth Office Replacing Ms Margaret Purdasy Assistant Legal Adviser Foreign and Commonwealth Office COUNSEL FOR MAURITIUS COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM Professor James Crawford AC, SC, FBA* The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC, MP*** University of Cambridge Her Majesty’s Attorney General Professor Philippe Sands QC Professor Alan Boyle Matrix Chambers University of Edinburgh and Essex Court Chambers Ms Alison Macdonald Matrix Chambers Ms Penelope Nevill 20 Essex Street Chambers Mr Paul Reichler Foley Hoag LLP Ms Amy Sander Essex Court Chambers Mr Andrew Loewenstein Foley Hoag LLP Sir Michael Wood KCMG 20 Essex Street Chambers Mr Samuel Wordsworth QC Essex Court Chambers JUNIOR COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM Mr Eran Sthoeger REPRESENTATIVES OF MAURITIUS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM Mr Suresh Chandre Seeballuck GOSK** Ms Jo Bowyer Foreign and Commonwealth Office i HE Dr Jaya Nyamrajsing Meetarbhan GOSK** Ms Mina Patel Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Republic of Mauritius to the United Nations Ms Neelam Rattan Ms Shiu Ching Young Kim Fat Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration and International Trade Ms Rebecca Raynsford Attorney General’s Office ADVISERS TO MAURITIUS Mr Douglas Wilson Ms Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG Attorney General’s Office Doughty Street Chambers Dr Douglas Guilfoyle University College London JUNIOR COUNSEL FOR MAURITIUS Mr Yuri Parkhomenko Foley Hoag, LLP Mr Remi Reichhold Legal Assistant Matrix Chambers Mr Fernando L. Bordin ASSISTANTS TO MAURITIUS Mr Rodrigo Tranamil Foley Hoag, LLP Ms Nancy Lopez Foley Hoag, LLP * Professor James Crawford ceased to act as Counsel for Mauritius on 9 November 2014 ** Mr Suresh Chandre Seeballuck and Dr Jaya Nyamrajsing Meetarbhan are no longer in the public service since January 2015 *** Dominic Grieve QC, MP held the office of Attorney General until 15th July 2014 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 A. THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................................................... 1 B. THE DISPUTE ...................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER II - PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 5 A. THE INITIATION OF THIS ARBITRATION .............................................................................................. 5 B. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL ............................................................................. 5 C. THE CHALLENGE TO THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE GREENWOOD AND ITS DISMISSAL ....................... 5 D. THE ADOPTION OF THE TERMS OF APPOINTMENT AND RULES OF PROCEDURE .................................. 6 E. THE UNITED KINGDOM’S APPLICATION FOR THE BIFURCATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE PARTIES’ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................................... 7 F. REDACTIONS TO DOCUMENTS IN ANNEX 185 TO MAURITIUS’ REPLY ................................................. 7 G. THE HEARING ON JURISDICTION AND THE MERITS ........................................................................... 10 CHAPTER III - FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 13 A. GEOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 13 B. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 13 C. THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATION OF MAURITIUS AND THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO ........................... 14 D. THE INDEPENDENCE OF MAURITIUS ................................................................................................. 19 E. THE DETACHMENT OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO ......................................................................... 21 F. THE REMOVAL OF THE CHAGOSSIAN POPULATION .......................................................................... 33 G. SUBSEQUENT RELATIONS BETWEEN MAURITIUS AND THE UNITED KINGDOM CONCERNING THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO ............................................................................................................. 37 H. SUBSEQUENT RELATIONS BETWEEN MAURITIUS AND THE UNITED KINGDOM CONCERNING FISHING RIGHTS ............................................................................................................................... 42 I. THE MARINE PROTECTED AREA ....................................................................................................... 46 1. Initial Steps regarding the MPA and the United Kingdom’s Consultations with Mauritius .............................................................................................................................. 46 2. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and its Aftermath .............................. 52 3. The Declaration of the MPA ................................................................................................ 60 4. Consultations between the United Kingdom and Mauritius following the Declaration of the MPA ........................................................................................................................... 65 CHAPTER IV - RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER V - THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... 71 A. THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION OVER MAURITIUS’ FIRST SUBMISSION ........................................... 71 1. The Parties’ Arguments ........................................................................................................ 72 (a) The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction over Mauritius’ First Submission .................................. 72 i. Articles 286 and 288 and the Scope of Compulsory Jurisdiction under the Convention ............................................................................................... 72 ii. The Relevance of Article 293 to the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal .................. 77 iii. The Relevance of Article 298(1)(a)(i) ............................................................ 79 iii (b) The Implications of Finding Jurisdiction over Mauritius’ First Submission ............. 83 2. The Tribunal’s Decision ....................................................................................................... 85 (a) The Nature of the Dispute in Mauritius’ First Submission ....................................... 86 (b) The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to Decide Issues of Disputed Land Sovereignty in Connection with Determining Rights and Duties in the Adjacent Sea ...................... 88 B. THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION WITH REGARD TO MAURITIUS’ SECOND SUBMISSION .................... 90 1. The Parties’ Arguments ........................................................................................................ 91 2. The Tribunal’s Decision ....................................................................................................... 92 C. THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION WITH REGARD TO MAURITIUS’ FOURTH SUBMISSION .................... 93 1. The Parties’ Arguments ........................................................................................................ 93 (a) The Application of Article 297(1)(c) of the Convention........................................... 94 (b) The Application of Article 297(3)(a) of the Convention........................................... 97 (c) Jurisdiction with respect to Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks ............. 100 (d) Jurisdiction over Mauritius’ Claims relating to Access to Fish Stocks in the Territorial Sea and Mauritian Rights in the Exclusive Economic Zone .................. 105 (e) Jurisdiction regarding Mauritius’ Claims relating to the Continental Shelf and Sedentary Species ................................................................................................... 107 (f) Jurisdiction regarding Mauritius’ Claims relating to the Protection