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.. 51 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER II: DEPENDENCIES………………………….. 52 CHAPTER III: THE BIOT MARINE PROTECTED AREA………………. 57 A: Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 57 B: Policy on the environment of the overseas territories, BIOT conservation and management policy and legislation prior to the MPA………………………. 58 (i) Policy on the environment in respect of the Overseas 58 Territories……… (ii) BIOT conservation and fisheries legislation since 1965……………….. 60 C: The emergence of an international consensus on marine reserves and protected areas…………………………………………………………………… 64 (i) Marine protected areas in international law and practice………………. 65 (ii) The establishment of an MPA is an exercise of sovereign rights and jurisdiction within the 200 nautical mile zone…………………………. 69 D: Establishment an implementation of the BIOT MPA………………………... 70 (i) The approach by Pew Environmental Group and the Chagos 70 Conservation Trust……………………………………………………... (ii) Decision to consider the possibility of a large scale MPA and informal consultations……………………………………………………………. 73 (iii) Consultations with Mauritius…………………………………………... 75 (iv) Independent scientific advice on the proposal…………………………. 80 (v) The public consultation………………………………………………… 82 (vi) Mauritius’ response to the public consultation…………………………. 85 (vii) Mauritius’ response to the establishment of the MPA…………………. 87 (viii) The proclamation and implementation of the MPA……………………. 88 Figure 3.1.1: Protected areas in BIOT other than the MPA………………… 91 Figure 3.1.2: Protected areas in Diego Garcia………………………………... 92 Figure 3.1.3: Limits of the BIOT Environment Preservation and Protection 93 Zone (EPPZ) and Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone (FCMZ).. Figure 3.1.4: BIOT Marine Protected Area (MPA)………………………….. 94 Figure 3.1.5: Marine Protected Area (MPA) and Other Protected Areas in 95 BIOT…………………………………………………………………………….. PART TWO: JURISDICTION………………………………………………... 96 CHAPTER IV: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER MAURITIUS’ SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM…………………………………….. 97 A: Introduction: Characterisation of the Dispute………………………………... 97 B: The Basis of the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction under Part XV UNCLOS………….. 101 (i) Articles 286-288 UNCLOS determine the scope of jurisdiction under Part XV…………………………………………………………………. 101 (ii) Jurisdiction under Part XV is not expanded by article 293(1)…………. 103 C: The Absence of Jurisdiction over Mauritius’ Sovereignty Claim……………. 109 (i) The issues that the Tribunal is called upon to determine………………. 109 (ii) Application of article 288(1)…………………………………………… 110 (a) Reference to the term “coastal state”…………………………….. 110 (b) Alleged jurisdiction over “closely linked or ancillary” matters….. 115 (c) Reliance on article 293(1) UNCLOS…………………………….. 121 D: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………. 122 CHAPTER V: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 283 HAVE NOT BEEN MET…… 124 A: Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 124 B: Article 283(1)………………………………………………………………… 125 C: The application of Article 283(1) in this case………………………………... 129 (i) Mauritius’ claims in its Memorial……………………………………… 129 (ii) Mauritius’ post-Memorial assertions concerning the requirements of article 283………………………………………………………………. 133 (iii) Overview of the United Kingdom’s position…………………………... 133 (iv) The communications relied upon by Mauritius do not come close to meeting the requirements of article 283(1)……………………………... 135 (a) Communications between 5 March 2009 and the establishment of the MPA on 1 April 2010………………………………………… 135 (b) Correspondence pre-dating Mauritius’ Note Verbale of 5 March 2009………………………………………………………………. 141 (c) Mauritius’ stance did not alter after the proclamation of the MPA 145 (d) Concluding remarks on Mauritius’ communications…………….. 147 (v) Mauritius cannot rely on the claim that communication would have been futile…………………………………………………... 148 D: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………. 151 CHAPTER VI: MAURITIUS’ CLAIM THAT THE MPA IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH UNCLOS IS NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL………………………………………. 153 A: Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 153 (i) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 2(3) 154 (ii) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 55.. 154 (iii) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 56(2)……………………………………………………………………. 155 (iv) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 62(5)……………………………………………………………………. 156 (v) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 63(1)……………………………………………………………………. 156 (vi) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 63(2)……………………………………………………………………. 157 (vii) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 64(1)……………………………………………………………………. 157 (viii) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of Article 7 of the 1995 Agreement…………………………………………………. 158 (ix) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 194(1)…………………………………………………………………... 159 (x) The dispute concerning the interpretation and application of article 300 159 B: Article 297(1)(c) does not confer jurisdiction over MPA Fisheries Disputes... 160 C: Article 297(3)(a) excludes jurisdiction over MPA Fisheries Disputes………. 163 (i) Article 297(3)(a)………………………………………………………... 163 (ii) Jurisprudence under article 297(3)(a)…………………………………... 165 D: Mauritius’ claims are covered by article 297(3)(a)…………………………... 166 (i) Mauritius’ access to MPA Fisheries……………………………………. 166 (ii) Mauritius’ claims relate to conservation and management measures within the MPA………………………………………………………… 168 (iii) Consultation with regard to establishment of the MPA……………… 169 E: Cooperation with respect to Highly Migratory Stocks……………………….. 170 F: Other claims over which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction……………………. 173 (i) Access to territorial sea fish stocks…………………………………….. 173 (ii) Abuse of rights…………………………………………………………. 174 G: Conclusions…………………………………………………………………... 177 PART THREE: MERITS……………………………………………………… 178 CHAPTER VII: THE UNITED KINGDOM SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY…………………………………... 179 A: The United Kingdom continues to have sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory………………………………………………………………….. 180 B: None of Mauritius’ arguments is such as to cast doubt on United Kingdom sovereignty………………………………………………………………………. 181 (i) Mauritius’s arguments based on the right to self-determination and its invocation of national unity and territorial integrity…………………… 182 (ii) There was in 1965 no rule of international law prohibiting the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago………………………………… 183 (a) Paragraph 6 of GA resolution 1514 (XX)………………………... 185 (b) The International Covenants……………………………………... 186 (c) The Friendly Relations Declaration……………………………… 187 (d) Other resolutions…………………………………………………. 189 (iii) Even if there were such a rule in 1965, detachment did not violate it….. 190 (a) The Chagos Archipelago was never an integral part of Mauritius.. 191 (b) The elected representatives of Mauritius did in fact agree to the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago………………………….. 191 (iv) Mauritius’ reliance upon uti possedetis juris………………………………. 193 (v) Mauritius’ reliance on the United Kingdom’s undertaking to cede the BIOT to Mauritius……………………………………………………… 197 (vi) Mauritius’ claim based on its actions in the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf………………………………………………… 198 (vii) Mauritius’ claim that “the vast majority of States have