IN THE MATTER OF THE CHAGOS MARINE PROTECTED AREA ARBITRATION - before

227 Pages·2015·8.03 MB·English

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 of the
Marine Environment ............................................................................................... 108
(g) Jurisdiction regarding Mauritius’ Claims relating to the Abuse of Rights .............. 110
2. The Tribunal’s Decision ..................................................................................................... 111
(a) The Scope and Character of the MPA ..................................................................... 111
(b) The Scope and Character of Mauritius’ Rights ....................................................... 113
(c) Article 297(1)(c) and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction .................................................... 119
i. The relationship between Article 288(1) and Article 297(1)(c) ................... 119
ii. Article 297(1)(c) and the MPA .................................................................... 128
D. THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION OVER MAURITIUS’ THIRD SUBMISSION ........................................ 130
1. The Parties’ Arguments ...................................................................................................... 131
2. The Tribunal’s Decision ..................................................................................................... 132
E. WHETHER THE PARTIES “EXCHANGED VIEWS” PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 283 ................................. 139
1. The Parties’ Arguments ...................................................................................................... 140
(a) The Interpretation of Article 283 ............................................................................ 140
(b) The Application of Article 283 to Mauritius’ Fourth Submission .......................... 143
(c) The Utility of Further Exchanges ............................................................................ 145
2. The Tribunal’s Decision ..................................................................................................... 147
CHAPTER VI - MERITS .................................................................................................................................. 153
A. MAURITIUS’ RIGHTS IN THE TERRITORIAL SEA, EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, AND
CONTINENTAL SHELF ..................................................................................................................... 153
1. The Parties’ Arguments ...................................................................................................... 153
iv
(a) The Nature of the United Kingdom’s Undertakings and the Existence of a
Binding Agreement ................................................................................................. 154
(b) The Scope of Mauritius’ Fishing Rights ................................................................. 159
(c) Mauritius’ Traditional Fishing Rights in the Territorial Sea surrounding the
Chagos Archipelago ................................................................................................ 162
2. The Tribunal’s Decision ..................................................................................................... 163
(a) The Nature of Mauritius’ Rights Pursuant to the 1965 Undertakings ..................... 163
i. The Parties’ Intent in 1965 .......................................................................... 164
ii. The Place of the Undertakings in International Law ................................... 167
iii. The Repetition of the Lancaster House Undertakings since 1965 ............... 169
iv. Estoppel, Representation, and Reliance ...................................................... 172
(b) The Scope of the Lancaster House Undertaking with Respect to Fishing
Rights ...................................................................................................................... 179
(c) Mauritius’ Claim to Traditional Fishing Rights in the Territorial Sea .................... 182
B. THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 2(3), 56(2), 194 AND 300 OF THE
CONVENTION .................................................................................................................................. 182
1. Parties’ Arguments ............................................................................................................. 183
(a) The Interpretation and Application of Article 2(3) ................................................. 183
(b) The Interpretation and Application of Article 56(2) ............................................... 186
(c) The Interpretation and Application of Article 194 .................................................. 190
(d) The Interpretation and Application of Article 300 .................................................. 193
2. The Tribunal’s Decision ..................................................................................................... 196
(a) The Interpretation of Article 2(3) ............................................................................ 196
(b) The Interpretation of Article 56(2) .......................................................................... 202
(c) The Application of Articles 2(3) and 56(2) ............................................................. 203
(d) The Interpretation and Application of Article 194 .................................................. 210
(e) The Role for Article 300 ......................................................................................... 212
C. FINAL OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................... 212
CHAPTER VII - COSTS ................................................................................................................................... 213
CHAPTER VIII - DISPOSITIF ........................................................................................................................ 215

v
TABLE OF MAPS

Map 1: The Location of the Chagos Archipelago ................................................................................ 15
Map 2: The Chagos Archipelago .......................................................................................................... 17

vi
GLOSSARY OF DEFINED TERMS / LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1965 Agreement The agreement between the United Kingdom and the Mauritius
Council of Ministers in 1965 to the detachment of the Chagos
Archipelago

1995 Fish Stocks The Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the
Agreement United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December
1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks of 4 August 1995

BIOT The British Indian Ocean Territory

CHOGM The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

CLCS The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

Conference The Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea

Convention The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

EPPZ Environmental Protection and Preservation Zone

FCMZ Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone

FCO The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom

ICJ The International Court of Justice

ILC The International Law Commission

ILC Guiding Principles The International Law Commission’s Guiding Principles
Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of
Creating Legal Obligation

IOTC The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IOTC Agreement The Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna
Commission

ITLOS The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Lancaster House Meeting The meeting held at Lancaster House on the afternoon of 23
September 1965

Lancaster House Points (i) through (viii) of paragraph 22 of the final record of the
Undertakings Lancaster House Meeting of 23 September 1965

Mauritius The Republic of Mauritius

vii
MLP The Mauritius Labour Party

MPA Marine Protected Area

PCA The Permanent Court of Arbitration

Public Consultation The public consultation process carried out by the United Kingdom
regarding the potential creation of the MPA

UNCLOS The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

United Kingdom The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

viii