Written question asked by Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative) on Tuesday, 22 October 2019, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Thursday, 24 October 2019. It was answered by Christopher Pincher (Conservative) on Wednesday, 30 October 2019 on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what assessment his Department has made of the legal implications of the UN resolution on the future of the Chagos Islands.

Answer: The UN General Assembly (GA) resolution relates to an Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Neither the ICJ Advisory Opinion nor the UN GA resolution are legally binding. Mauritius has never held sovereignty over BIOT and we do not recognise its claim. We have, however, made a long-standing commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes. The British Government remains concerned that the referral to the ICJ contravened the principle that the Court should not consider bilateral disputes without the consent of both States concerned. It is notable in this context that in the UN GA, nearly 80 member states did not vote in favour of the resolution. The Government has considered the content of the Opinion carefully, however we do not share the Court’s approach. Any action in the UN GA that seeks to cut across a bilateral dispute by specifying how or when a non-binding Advisory Opinion might be implemented should be of concern to all Member States.

Secondary information