INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965 (REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION) Written Statement of the Republic of Mauritius VOLUME I 1 March 2018 Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1 I. The involvement of the U.N. General Assembly .............7 II. The questions posed by the U.N. General Assembly .....11 III. Summary of Mauritius’ Written Statement ....................14 CHAPTER 2 GEOGRAPHY AND COLONIAL HISTORY .....................................23 I. Introduction ....................................................................23 II. Geography ......................................................................23 III. Early and colonial history ..............................................29 IV. The Chagos Archipelago has always been an integral part of the territory of Mauritius .......................34 A. Constitutional, legislative and administrative arrangements ..............................34 B. Economic, cultural and social links ....................39 C. Recognition of the Chagos Archipelago as an integral part of the territory of Mauritius ............................................................43 V. Conclusion ......................................................................53 CHAPTER 3 THE PROCESS OF DECOLONISATION AND THE DETACHMENT OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS ...............................................................................55 I. Introduction ....................................................................55 II. The struggle for independence .......................................57 III. The secret plan to detach the Chagos Archipelago ........63 IV. The 1965 Constitutional Conference ..............................79 i A. Uncertainty about whether Mauritius would be granted independence .........................80 B. The U.K. had already decided to detach the Chagos Archipelago .....................................82 C. Mauritian Ministers opposed the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago .............84 D. The Colonial Secretary sought to obtain Mauritian Ministers’ “agreement” to detachment to shield the U.K. from domestic and international criticism ..................84 V. Private meetings on “defence matters” ..........................87 VI. Premier Ramgoolam’s meeting with Prime Minister Wilson ..............................................................91 VII. The Lancaster House Undertakings ...............................98 VIII. The formal detachment of the Chagos Archipelago ..................................................................104 IX. Subsequent actions, including the forcible removal of the inhabitants ............................................108 A. The forcible removal of the Chagossians .........110 B. The return of Aldabra, Farquhar and Desroches to Seychelles ...................................114 X. Conclusion ....................................................................116 CHAPTER 4 NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS TO THE DETACHMENT OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO .......................119 I. Introduction ..................................................................119 II. The reaction of Mauritius .............................................119 A. Mauritius’ reaction to the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago ...............................121 ii B. Mauritius’ reaction to the announcement of a “Marine Protected Area” in and around the Chagos Archipelago .......................131 III. International reaction to the detachment of the Chagos Archipelago .....................................................135 A. Reaction at the United Nations .........................136 B. Reaction of the international community .........151 IV. Reaction to the forcible removal of the Chagossians ...156 V. Conclusion ....................................................................166 CHAPTER 5 THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GIVE THE ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND THERE ARE NO REASONS FOR THE COURT TO DECLINE TO GIVE IT ...............................................................................167 I. The Court Has jurisdiction to give the Advisory Opinion requested by the General Assembly in Resolution 71/292 ........................................................167 A. The General Assembly is an organ duly authorised to request an Advisory Opinion from the Court ..................................................168 B. The General Assembly has asked the Court to give an Advisory Opinion on legal questions ..................................................170 II. There are no compelling reasons for the Court to decline to give the Advisory Opinion that has been requested ..............................................................173 CHAPTER 6 THE DECOLONISATION OF MAURITIUS WAS NOT LAWFULLY COMPLETED WHEN MAURITIUS WAS GRANTED INDEPENDENCE IN 1968 ..........................................187 I. Introduction ..................................................................187 II. The legal principles governing decolonisation .............189 iii A. The Mandate system and the League of Nations .............................................................189 B. The Charter of the United Nations ...................191 C. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples .............................................................198 D. The practice of the Security Council ................208 III. Self-determination as the modus operandi of decolonisation ...............................................................212 IV. The fundamental elements of self-determination in the process of decolonisation ...................................216 V. The decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed in 1968 ........................................................228 A. The unit of self-determination was the entire territory of Mauritius ..............................228 B. The United Nations recognised the entire territory of Mauritius as the unit of self- determination ....................................................230 C. The decision of the administering power to dismember Mauritius prior to independence had no effect on the self-determination unit .....233 D. The right of self-determination had to be exercised according to the freely-expressed will of the people of the territory concerned ....235 E. The detachment of the Chagos Archipelago was carried out in secret without any attempt to ascertain the views of the people of Mauritius ..........................................238 F. The “agreement” of the Council of Ministers of Mauritius was not capable of meeting the requirements of self-determination ..................242 iv VI. Conclusion ....................................................................248 CHAPTER 7 THE CONSEQUENCES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ARISING FROM THE ADMINISTERING POWER’S CONTINUED ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO .........................................................................251 I. Introduction ..................................................................251 II. The Administering Power’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago is a continuing internationally wrongful act that must cease .............................................................................253 III. The unlawful colonial administration of part of Mauritius’ territory must be brought to an immediate end ..............................................................255 A. Immediate cessation is required .......................255 B. Full decolonisation of Mauritius can and should be achieved immediately ......................259 IV. The legal consequences while decolonisation is being completed ...........................................................270 V. The legal consequences that apply to third States and international organisations .....................................280 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 285 LIST OF ANNEXES .......................................................................................... 289 v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 On 22 June 2017, the United Nations General Assembly, by a vote of 94 to 15, adopted Resolution 71/292, which requested the Court to render the present Advisory Opinion pursuant to Article 65 of its Statute. On 14 July 2017, the Court fixed 30 January 2018 as the time-limit within which written statements may be submitted to the Court by the United Nations and its Member States, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 2 of its Statute. On 17 January 2018, the Court adopted an Order by which it extended the time-limit for the filing of written statements to 1 March 2018. This Written Statement is submitted by Mauritius pursuant to the Order of the Court. *** 1.2 The request from the General Assembly asks the Court to render an Advisory Opinion on the completion of the decolonisation of Mauritius, which attained its independence on 12 March 1968. The Chagos Archipelago was purportedly detached from the colonial territory of Mauritius three years earlier, by an Order in Council dated 8 November 1965. By that time, the United Nations had played a central role in the process of decolonisation for the two decades since its inception. 1.3 On 14 December 1960, the General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 89 votes to none, the Declaration on the Granting of