Current legal developments: Mauritius/United Kingdom

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 667-678

  Papanicolopulu, Irini ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAPITAL MARKET; COASTAL ZONE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; MARINE ENVIRONMENT;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 80155184788     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180811X602271     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. For a history of these cases see S. Allen, 'International Law and the Resettlement of the (Outer) Chagos Islands' (2008) 8(4) Human Rights Law Review 683-702.
2. S. Allen, 'Looking Beyond the Bancoult Cases: International Law and the Prospect of Resettling the Chagos Islands' (2007) 7(3) Human Rights Law Review 441-482.
3. European Court of Human Rights, Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 35622/04. See also 'Statement of Facts and Questions to the Parties', of 20 February 2009 at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp? item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlig ht=chagos&sessionid= 69000414&skin=hudoc-cc-en.
4. The information provided in this article concerning the background to the dispute is based mainly on this document. The website of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office refers to 55 islands (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and- livingabroad/ travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/british- indian-ocean-territory? profile=all).
5. See R. (Bancoult) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008]UKHL 61.
6. See Olivier Bancoult, et al. v. Robert S. McNamara, et al. 445 F3d 427 (DC Cir 2006).
7. Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 1991 (No. 1 of 1991), as modified by the Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2007 (No. 5 of 2007).
8. Proclamation No. 1 of 17 September 2003 establishing the Environment (Protection and Preservation) Zone for the British Indian Ocean Territory (2004) 54 Law of the Sea Bulletin 99-126.
9. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 'Consultation on whether to establish a marine protected area in the British Indian Ocean Territory', available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/ en/pdf/21153320/mpa-consultation-101109. The report of the consultation is available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/ pdf/3052790/2010/marine-life-apr-2010 ("Consultation Report").
10. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 'New protection for marine life' press release, at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id= 22014096.
11. It has not been possible to find any act of the British Government or the Commissioner of the BIOT relating to the legal regime applicable within this zone, or to the relationship between the MPA and the previous EPPZ.
12. UK (BIOT) National Report to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission Scientific Committee, 13th session, at http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2010/sc/IOTC- 2010-SC-Inf03.pdf.
13. E.g., the response by the Chagos Environment Network (CEN) (http://protectchagos.org/ wp-content/uploads/CEN-Submission-Final-FINAL.pdf ), the response by IUCN (http:// www.iucn.org/about/union/members/?4727/ Consultation-on-the-Future-of-the-Chagos- ArchipelagoBritish-Indian-Ocean- Territory), and the response by Greenpeace UK (http:// www.greenpeace.org.uk/ blog/oceans/help-protect-chagos-20100202).
14. The text is attached to the Application by Mauritius and has been published by various newspapers, e.g., The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/us-embassy-cables- documents/207149.
15. Available online at: http://file.smartbins.net/download/ 77ffa8f69492c922bedf67733d0a7fdd1.
16. LOSC Art. 297(1)(a) and (c).
17. The text of the declaration is available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/ convention- agreements/convention-declarations.htm#UK Declaration made after accession.
18. See A. Boyle, 'Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction' (1997) 46 ICLQ 37-54.
19. This claim by Mauritius is supported by the African Union, see Assembly/AU/Res.1(XVI) of 2011.
20. This is discussed in the report prepared by a group of experts for IUCN: T. Greiber, M. Janki, M. Orellana, A. Savaresi, D. Shelton, Conservation with Justice A Rights-based Approach, IUCN, Gland, 2009, available at http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-071.pdf.
21. See, for example, the comments submitted by the Marine Education Trust at http://www. marineeducationtrust.org/sites/default/files/ MET%20Position%20on%20Chagos%20 Consultation-0.pdf and by WDCS at http://www2.wdcs.org/blog/index.php?/archives/315- Concerns-about-the-Chagos- Archipelago-MPA-Proposal.html
22. For a discussion among different points of view on the issue, see the debate in Journal of Environmental Law.
23. P.H. Sand, 'Diego Garcia: British- American Legal Black Hole in the Indian Ocean?' (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law 113-137
24. C. Sheppard, J. Tamelander, J. Turner, 'The Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory): Legal Black Hole or Environmental Bright Spot?-A Reply to Sand' (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law 291-293
25. P.H. Sand, 'Diego Garcia Legal Black Hole-A Response to Sheppard et al.' (2009) 21 Journal of Environmental Law 295-298.
26. For different points of view see: E.M. De Santo, P.J.S. Jones, A.M.M. Miller, 'Fortress conservation at sea: a commentary on the Chagos marine protected area' (2011) 25 Marine Policy 258-260
27. H.J. Koldewey, D. Curnick, S. Harding, L.R. Harrison and M. Gollock, 'Potential benefits to fisheries and biodiversity of the Chagos Archipelago/British Indian Ocean Territory as a no-take marine reserve' (2010) 60(11) Marine Pollution Bulletin 1906-1915
28. P.H. Sand, 'The Chagos Archipelago-Footprint of Empire, or World Heritage?' (2010) 40 Environmental Policy and Law 232-242.
29. E.g., in the Guyana/Suriname case, also decided by LOSC arbitral tribunal, Guyana v. Suriname, Arbitral Award of 17 September 2007, 47 ILM 166 (2008).
30. The LOSC provisions were at the basis of the submissions in the Southern Bluefin Tuna cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) (provisional measures), Case No. 3 and No. 4, Order of 27 August 1999
31. MOX Plant case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Case No. 10, Order of 3 December 2001
32. The Case concerning the Conservation and Sustainable Exploitation of Swordfish Stocks in the South-Eastern Pacific Ocean (Chile v. European Union), Case No. 7
33. The Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area, Case No. 17, Advisory Opinion of February 2011.
34. The recently launched "Regular process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects", includes the latter aspects
35. Report on the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole to recommend a course of action to the General Assembly on the regular process for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, UN Doc. A/64/347 of 11 September 2009.