ARBITRATION UNDER ANNEX VII OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA MAURITIUS v. UNITED KINGDOM REJOINDER SUBMITTTED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM 17 MARCH 2014 CONTENTS CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 A: Preliminary observations ............................................................................... 1 B: Organisation of the Rejoinder ............................................................................... 5 PART ONE: THE FACTS ........................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER II: CONSTITUTIONAL AND DIPLOMATIC BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 10 A: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 10 B: The islands that now form the BIOT were never part of the territory of Mauritius ............................................................ 11 (i) Constitutional, legislative and administrative arrangements ................................................................................. 12 (ii) Economic, social and cultural links ........................................................................ 15 (iii) United Kingdom actions before the establishment of the BIOT ............................................................................. 16 (iv) Mauritius asserts ‘recognition’ by ‘the international community’ of the Chagos Archipelago as part of its territory ................................................................... 17 C: Mauritius Council of Ministers agreed to the establishment of the BIOT ................................................................... 17 (i) Mauritian Ministers supported the use of the Archipelago for defence purposes ................................................................... 18 (ii) The road to independence ...................................................................................... 20 (iii) The decision to proceed to independence was not conditional on agreement to detachment .......................................................... 21 (a) The relationship between the Constitutional Conference and the discussions on Mauritius defence matters ..................................................................... 21 (b) The meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Mauritius .......................................................................... 25 (c) The agreement to detachment on 5 November 1965 and subsequent statements in Mauritius’ Legislative Assembly ................................................................. 29 (d) Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 31 D: UN resolutions and Mauritian protests ................................................................. 32 (i) The UNGA resolutions ............................................................................................. 32 (ii) Mauritius’ UN statements ...................................................................................... 34 E : Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER III : THE BIOT MARINE PROTECTED AREA ................................................................................. 37 A: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 37 B: The establishment of the MPA: consultations with Mauritius ............................................................................. 37 (i) Events before consultations with Mauritius commenced in July 2009 ............................................................................. 38 (ii) The July 2009 talks .................................................................................................. 39 (iii) The public consultation did not cut across the third round of bilateral talks and Mauritius was consulted prior to the launch of the public consultation ........................................................................ 40 (iv) Further offers to consult by the United Kingdom ........................................................................................ 44 (v) BIOT officials considered there was sufficient consultation and scientific support for the MPA consultation ........................................................................ 46 (vi) The Foreign Secretary’s decision to establish the MPA ...................................................................................... 50 C: The purpose and scientific basis of the BIOT MPA and its implementation ................................................................... 52 (i) The BIOT MPA is consistent with international practice .................................................................................... 52 (ii) The scientific basis of the BIOT MPA ................................................................... 55 (iii) Implementation and enforcement of the MPA ............................................................................................... 60 D: Mauritius’ contentions as to fishing rights .......................................................... 62 (i) Mauritius’ claims as regards the 1965 understanding .............................................. 62 (ii) The true picture as it emerges from the documents ................................................................................. 64 E: Oil and mineral rights ........................................................................................ 67 PART TWO: THE SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM .......................................................... 71 CHAPTER IV: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER MAURITIUS’ SOVEREIGNTY CLAIM ................................................................. 72 A: Introduction: characterisation of the dispute ..................................................... 72 B: The basis of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Part XV UNCLOS ........................................................................ 76 (i) Articles 286-288 UNCLOS determine the scope of jurisdiction under Part XV ..................................................................... 76 (ii) Jurisdiction under Part XV is not expanded by article 293(1) ............................................................................. 79 C: The absence of jurisdiction over Mauritius’ sovereignty claim ............................................................................. 83 (i) The issues that the Tribunal is called upon to determine ................................................................................. 83 (ii) Application of article 288(1) .................................................................................... 84 D: Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 91 CHAPTER V: MAURITIUS’ CLAIM TO SOVEREIGNTY HAS NO MERIT ................................................................... 92 A: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 92 B: Mauritius has failed to engage with the arguments in the Counter-Memorial ................................................................... 94 C: Self-determination .................................................................................................. 95 D: Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 100 Appendix to Chapter V ............................................................................................... 101 PART THREE: JURISDICTION ............................................................................. 102 CHAPTER VI: THE TRIBUNAL IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 283(1) HAVE NOT BEEN MET ................................................................. 103 A: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 103 B: The requirements of article 283(1) ........................................................................ 105 (i) The importance and function of article 283(1) .......................................................... 105 (ii) Case law of the PCIJ and ICJ on the existence of a “dispute” and prior negotiation obligations ....................................................... 107 (iii) Alleged utility of exchange of views ..................................................................... 110 (iv) The relevant context and subject matter of the dispute ........................................................................................ 111 C: The application of article 283 in the present case ................................................ 113 (i) The United Kingdom’s internal documents relied upon by Mauritius do not show that the requirements of article 283(1) were met ............................................................ 113 (ii) Mauritius did not raise a dispute with the United Kingdom and exchange views over its entitlement as the coastal State to declare maritime zones ........................................................................ 115 (iii) Documents relied on by Mauritius do not show that it has met the requirements of article 283 in respect of its dispute over the MPA .........................................................................