File #2276: "2018_Book_FiftyYearsOfTheBritishIndianOc.pdf"
Testo
1|Contents|6
1|About the Contributors|8
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|11
2|1.1 Introduction|11
2|1.2 The Aim of This Collection|13
2|1.3 The Contributors|14
2|References|17
1|Chapter 2: Justifying Bancoult (No 2): Why Justice Hercules Must Sometimes Disappoint Us|18
2|2.1 Introduction|18
2|2.2 Bancoult (No 2) and Its Critics|21
3|2.2.1 Was the Prerogative Power of Colonial Governance Limited by a Fundamental Right?|22
3|2.2.2 Did the Formulation ‘Peace, Order and Good Government’ Connote a Limited or Plenary Prerogative Power?|24
3|2.2.3 Did Judges Have the Power to Review the Reasons Given by the Government for Removing the Chagossians Islanders?|26
2|2.3 Positivism and Pragmatism in Bancoult (No 2)|27
3|2.3.1 What’s Wrong with Positivist Textual Analysis?|29
3|2.3.2 A Pragmatist Way Out?|32
2|2.4 Enter Justice Hercules|36
3|2.4.1 Interpreting Bancoult (No 2)|37
3|2.4.2 Two Competing Schemes of Principle: ‘Moral No-Difference’ and ‘Moral Difference’|40
4|2.4.2.1 Moral No-Difference|40
4|2.4.2.2 Moral Difference|41
2|2.5 Isn’t It Justice Hercules’s Job to Do Justice?|46
2|2.6 Conclusion|48
2|References|48
1|Chapter 3: Environmental Protection v the Right of Abode: A Case-Study in the Misuse of Power|51
2|3.1 Introduction|51
2|3.2 The Legal Flaws in the 2009 Consultation|53
2|3.3 The Position Today|58
2|References|62
1|Chapter 4: How Public Law Has Not Been Able to Provide the Chagossians with a Remedy|63
2|4.1 Introduction|63
2|4.2 Background|64
2|4.3 First Attempts at a Remedy: The Vencatassen Case|66
3|4.3.1 Settlement Terms Are Mis-Described|66
3|4.3.2 Chagossians Are Misinformed|66
2|4.4 The Judicial Review in Bancoult (No. 1) and Its Evolution|68
3|4.4.1 Procedural Reform|68
3|4.4.2 Do Your Homework First|68
3|4.4.3 How Did the High Court Declare the Exile Unlawful?|69
2|4.5 The Group Litigation: Chagos Islanders v Attorney General and HM BIOT Commissioner [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB)|70
3|4.5.1 Misfeasance, What Misfeasance?|71
3|4.5.2 Magna Carta: The Fountain of All Liberty?|74
3|4.5.3 Deceit: Does It Matter?|75
3|4.5.4 You Can’t Take That Away from Me, Can You?|75
2|4.6 Bancoult (No.2) 2004–2008|76
2|4.7 Were the Law Lords Misled?|76
2|4.8 The Supreme Court 2015|77
3|4.8.1 The Views of the Minority (Lord Kerr and Lady Hale)|79
3|4.8.2 The Majority Judgment (Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke)|81
3|4.8.3 Lord Mance Examines the New Contemporaneous Evidence|83
3|4.8.4 Conclusions to Be Drawn from the Supreme Court’s Split Decision|87
2|4.9 Resettlement Revisited|88
2|4.10 Should the New Resettlement Feasibility Study Have Even Been Considered by the Supreme Court?|88
2|4.11 What Became of the Marine Protected Area?|89
2|4.12 Concluding Remarks|90
2|References|91
1|Chapter 5: The Subject as a Civic Ghost: Law, Dominion, and Empire in the Chagos Litigation|93
2|5.1 Introduction: Constitutions and Rightlessness|93
2|5.2 Creating Civic Ghosts: Rights, Authority, and Managerialism in the Chagos Litigation|96
2|5.3 Avoiding Obligation: Fragmentation and the Legitimation of Subjecthood|101
2|5.4 Understanding the State: Empire, Dominion, and Administrative Grace|108
2|5.5 Conclusion|116
2|References|117
1|Chapter 6: An Imperfect Legacy: The Significance of the Bancoult Litigation on the Development of Domestic Constitutional Jurisprudence|119
2|6.1 Introduction|119
3|6.1.1 The Disputed Status of the Islanders|121
3|6.1.2 A Question of Accountability|122
2|6.2 A Historical Sketch of the Litigation and the Principal Decisions|126
3|6.2.1 The Issue of Compensation|130
3|6.2.2 The Legal Challenges to the Orders in Council|131
4|6.2.2.1 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth office (No.1) [2000] EWHC 413 (Admin)|131
4|6.2.2.2 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61|132
4|6.2.2.3 In R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.3) [2014] EWCA Civ 708|135
4|6.2.2.4 R (on the Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2016] UKSC 35|136
5|Lady Hale and Lord Kerr Dissent|137
2|6.3 The Constitutional Importance of the Bancoult Litigation|140
3|6.3.1 An Inherent Want of Accountability|143
3|6.3.2 Ineffective Parliamentary Oversight and Recommendations for Reform|144
2|6.4 Conclusion|150
2|References|151
1|Chapter 7: The Chagossians’ Struggle and the Last Bastions of Imperial Constitutionalism|154
2|7.1 Introduction|154
2|7.2 The Divide Between UK Domestic and Imperial Constitutionalism|156
2|7.3 The Falkland Islands Dilemma|158
2|7.4 Imperial Constitutionalism: To Colonise and Divide|162
2|7.5 The Bancoult Litigation: Reviving Imperial Constitutionalism?|166
2|7.6 The Bancoult Litigation (and Its Aftermath): Side-Lining Imperial Constitutionalism?|172
2|7.7 Conclusion|178
2|References|179
1|Chapter 8: ‘Anachronistic As Colonial Remnants May Be…’ Locating the Rights of the Chagos Islanders As a Case Study of the Operation of Human Rights Law in Colonial Territories|182
2|8.1 Introduction|182
2|8.2 Legal Provisions on Applicability Generally|185
2|8.3 Scope of Application|187
2|8.4 Colonial Territories: Territorial or Extraterritorial? Applicability in the Two Situations|188
2|8.5 Colonial Clauses|190
3|8.5.1 1926 Anti-Slavery Convention|190
3|8.5.2 1950 European Convention on Human Rights|191
3|8.5.3 1956 Supplementary Anti-Slavery Convention|191
2|8.6 The Disappearance of the Colonial Clause and the Emergence of Extraterritorial ‘Jurisdiction’|193
2|8.7 Colonial Clause As Appendix?|194
2|8.8 Colonial Clause As Exclusively Determinative: Hong Kong, Macao and South Georgia|195
2|8.9 Existence of Colonial Clause Places Alternative ‘Jurisdiction’ Basis for Extraterritorial Applicability into Question|197
2|8.10 Contradictory Situations Created by the Exclusive Determinism Model for Colonial Clause Declarations|200
2|8.11 ‘Colonial Relic’ Challenged: Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom|201
2|8.12 ‘Anachronistic As Colonial Remnants May Be…’|209
3|8.12.1 Objectionable Colonial Relic|209
3|8.12.2 Colonialism Legitimated|210
3|8.12.3 Colonialism Delegitimated|210
3|8.12.4 Human Rights and the End of Empire|211
3|8.12.5 Trusteeship-Over-People and the Application of Human Rights to Colonial Territories|211
3|8.12.6 Self-Determination and the Application of Human Rights to Colonial Territories|213
3|8.12.7 Human Rights Imperialism?|213
3|8.12.8 The Different Meaning of Human Rights Law Extraterritorially, in Part Because of Self-Determination|215
3|8.12.9 The Different Picture if Self-Determination Is Not Realized|217
3|8.12.10 ‘Anachronistic as Colonial Remnants May Be…’|217
2|8.13 Conclusion|219
2|References|219
1|Chapter 9: The Once and Future King: Sovereignty Over Territory and the Annex VII Tribunal’s Award in Mauritius v United Kingdom|222
2|9.1 Introduction|222
2|9.2 Sovereignty Over the BIOT and the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal|223
2|9.3 Mauritius’ Submission Number 4|225
2|9.4 How the Tribunal Determined That the United Kingdom Was in Breach and What It Implies About Sovereignty|226
2|9.5 The Sting in the Tail|227
3|9.5.1 Structure of the Award|228
3|9.5.2 Sovereignty Over the Territory as Necessary in the Tribunal’s reasoning|229
3|9.5.3 Undertakings, Separation, and the Agreement as Applied|232
2|9.6 The Future as an Uncertain Country|235
2|References|236
1|Chapter 10: The Operation of Estoppel in International Law and the Function of the Lancaster House Undertakings in the Chagos Arbitration Award|238
2|10.1 Introduction|238
2|10.2 Historical Background|240
2|10.3 The Character of the 1965 Agreement|242
3|10.3.1 The Status of the 1965 Agreement in UK Law|242
3|10.3.2 Elevating the 1965 Agreement to the International Plane|245
3|10.3.3 The 1965 Agreement: Treaty or Memorandum of Undertaking?|247
2|10.4 The Lancaster House Undertakings and Estoppel|250
3|10.4.1 Satisfying Estoppel’s Requirements in the Chagos Award|250
3|10.4.2 Estoppel as an Independent Source of Legal Obligation|256
3|10.4.3 The Ramifications of Estoppel’s Source of Obligation|260
2|10.5 The Lancaster House Undertakings and the Law of the Sea Convention|263
3|10.5.1 The Undertakings and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction|263
3|10.5.2 The Undertakings and the Tribunal’s Interpretation of the LOSC|264
2|10.6 Conclusion|267
2|References|268
1|Chapter 11: Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitral Tribunal Award for the Balance Between Natural Environmental Protection and Traditional Maritime Freedoms|270
2|11.1 Introduction|270
2|11.2 Background: The Scientific Value and Social Implications of Marine Protected Areas|271
2|11.3 Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area (MPA) Arbitral Award (Mauritius/UK): Jurisdictional, Procedural and Substantive Issues|276
3|11.3.1 Jurisdiction Issues for the Chagos MPA Arbitral Tribunal: When Is a Dispute ‘Environmental’ in Nature?|277
3|11.3.2 Legal Status of UK Undertakings to Mauritius Delegation in Lancaster Agreement|281
3|11.3.3 Interaction Between the Substantive and Procedural Obligations in the Chagos MPA Award: ‘Due Regard’ and ‘Other Rules of International Law’|283
3|11.3.4 Interpretation and Application of Article 194 of UNCLOS|287
2|11.4 Implications of the Chagos MPA Award for the Future of UK MPAs|291
2|11.5 Conclusions|294
2|References|297
1|Chapter 12: Learning from Chagos, Lessons for Pitcairn?|299
2|12.1 Introduction|299
2|12.2 The Global Context|301
2|12.3 Strategies for Bio-Diversity Conservation|306
2|12.4 Marine Protected Areas|309
2|12.5 From BIOT to Pitcairn|313
2|12.6 The Role of National and International Non-Government Organisations|315
2|12.7 Fishing and MPAs|318
2|12.8 Conclusion|320
2|References|322
1|Chapter 13: International Law and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: What Next for the Chagossians|324
2|13.1 Introduction|324
2|13.2 The Definition of Indigenous Peoples|325
2|13.3 Recognising the Rights of Indigenous Peoples|330
3|13.3.1 Specialist Bodies at the United Nations|331
4|13.3.1.1 Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples|331
4|13.3.1.2 Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues|332
4|13.3.1.3 Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples|332
3|13.3.2 Special Protection to Indigenous Peoples Under Existing Human Rights Instruments|333
4|13.3.2.1 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination|333
4|13.3.2.2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|334
2|13.4 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples|335
3|13.4.1 Key Provisions of UNDRIP|336
4|13.4.1.1 Equality and Non-discrimination|336
4|13.4.1.2 The Requirements of Participation and Consultation|337
4|13.4.1.3 The Right to Land|338
3|13.4.2 UK Position on UNDRIP|339
2|13.5 The Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples|340
3|13.5.1 Connection to Land|342
3|13.5.2 Communal Ownership|343
2|13.6 Ways Forward for the Chagossians|345
3|13.6.1 The Forced Removal of the Chagossians|347
3|13.6.2 An Effective Remedy and the Requirement to Adopt Special Measures|350
3|13.6.3 Adequate Compensation|352
2|13.7 Challenges and Opportunities Ahead|353
3|13.7.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent|355
2|13.8 Conclusion|358
2|References|358
1|Chapter 14: The Politics of Chagos: Part Played by Parliament and the Courts Towards Resolving the Chagos Tragedy|363
2|14.1 Introduction|363
2|14.2 Historical Background|363
2|14.3 Administration of BIOT Since 1965|365
2|14.4 Five Policy Failures|366
2|14.5 Restoration of Right of Abode, 2000|366
2|14.6 The 2002 Flawed Feasibility Study|367
2|14.7 The 2004 Orders Banning Return|367
2|14.8 Defence, Security and Cost Arguments|368
2|14.9 US Position|369
2|14.10 Promulgation of the MPA and WikiLeaks, 2010|369
2|14.11 The 2015 KPMG Study and Rejection of Resettlement, November 2016|371
2|14.12 Establishment of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) 2008|372
2|14.13 APPG Achievements?|373
2|14.14 Supreme Court Judgment, June 2016|374
2|14.15 Looking for a Compromise|374
2|14.16 Arbitral Tribunal Award to Mauritius 2015 and UK/Mauritius Talks|376
2|14.17 Mauritian Decision to Take the Sovereignty Issue to the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion|377
2|14.18 Litigation and Politics Go Hand in Hand|379
2|14.19 Appreciations|380
2|Annex A: Statement by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on 16 November 2016|381
2|Annex B: Statement on 26 April 2017 by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on Prospects for Resettlement and Ways of Strengthening the Bonds Between the Chagossians and Their Homeland|382
2|References|384
1|About the Contributors|8
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|11
2|1.1 Introduction|11
2|1.2 The Aim of This Collection|13
2|1.3 The Contributors|14
2|References|17
1|Chapter 2: Justifying Bancoult (No 2): Why Justice Hercules Must Sometimes Disappoint Us|18
2|2.1 Introduction|18
2|2.2 Bancoult (No 2) and Its Critics|21
3|2.2.1 Was the Prerogative Power of Colonial Governance Limited by a Fundamental Right?|22
3|2.2.2 Did the Formulation ‘Peace, Order and Good Government’ Connote a Limited or Plenary Prerogative Power?|24
3|2.2.3 Did Judges Have the Power to Review the Reasons Given by the Government for Removing the Chagossians Islanders?|26
2|2.3 Positivism and Pragmatism in Bancoult (No 2)|27
3|2.3.1 What’s Wrong with Positivist Textual Analysis?|29
3|2.3.2 A Pragmatist Way Out?|32
2|2.4 Enter Justice Hercules|36
3|2.4.1 Interpreting Bancoult (No 2)|37
3|2.4.2 Two Competing Schemes of Principle: ‘Moral No-Difference’ and ‘Moral Difference’|40
4|2.4.2.1 Moral No-Difference|40
4|2.4.2.2 Moral Difference|41
2|2.5 Isn’t It Justice Hercules’s Job to Do Justice?|46
2|2.6 Conclusion|48
2|References|48
1|Chapter 3: Environmental Protection v the Right of Abode: A Case-Study in the Misuse of Power|51
2|3.1 Introduction|51
2|3.2 The Legal Flaws in the 2009 Consultation|53
2|3.3 The Position Today|58
2|References|62
1|Chapter 4: How Public Law Has Not Been Able to Provide the Chagossians with a Remedy|63
2|4.1 Introduction|63
2|4.2 Background|64
2|4.3 First Attempts at a Remedy: The Vencatassen Case|66
3|4.3.1 Settlement Terms Are Mis-Described|66
3|4.3.2 Chagossians Are Misinformed|66
2|4.4 The Judicial Review in Bancoult (No. 1) and Its Evolution|68
3|4.4.1 Procedural Reform|68
3|4.4.2 Do Your Homework First|68
3|4.4.3 How Did the High Court Declare the Exile Unlawful?|69
2|4.5 The Group Litigation: Chagos Islanders v Attorney General and HM BIOT Commissioner [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB)|70
3|4.5.1 Misfeasance, What Misfeasance?|71
3|4.5.2 Magna Carta: The Fountain of All Liberty?|74
3|4.5.3 Deceit: Does It Matter?|75
3|4.5.4 You Can’t Take That Away from Me, Can You?|75
2|4.6 Bancoult (No.2) 2004–2008|76
2|4.7 Were the Law Lords Misled?|76
2|4.8 The Supreme Court 2015|77
3|4.8.1 The Views of the Minority (Lord Kerr and Lady Hale)|79
3|4.8.2 The Majority Judgment (Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke)|81
3|4.8.3 Lord Mance Examines the New Contemporaneous Evidence|83
3|4.8.4 Conclusions to Be Drawn from the Supreme Court’s Split Decision|87
2|4.9 Resettlement Revisited|88
2|4.10 Should the New Resettlement Feasibility Study Have Even Been Considered by the Supreme Court?|88
2|4.11 What Became of the Marine Protected Area?|89
2|4.12 Concluding Remarks|90
2|References|91
1|Chapter 5: The Subject as a Civic Ghost: Law, Dominion, and Empire in the Chagos Litigation|93
2|5.1 Introduction: Constitutions and Rightlessness|93
2|5.2 Creating Civic Ghosts: Rights, Authority, and Managerialism in the Chagos Litigation|96
2|5.3 Avoiding Obligation: Fragmentation and the Legitimation of Subjecthood|101
2|5.4 Understanding the State: Empire, Dominion, and Administrative Grace|108
2|5.5 Conclusion|116
2|References|117
1|Chapter 6: An Imperfect Legacy: The Significance of the Bancoult Litigation on the Development of Domestic Constitutional Jurisprudence|119
2|6.1 Introduction|119
3|6.1.1 The Disputed Status of the Islanders|121
3|6.1.2 A Question of Accountability|122
2|6.2 A Historical Sketch of the Litigation and the Principal Decisions|126
3|6.2.1 The Issue of Compensation|130
3|6.2.2 The Legal Challenges to the Orders in Council|131
4|6.2.2.1 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth office (No.1) [2000] EWHC 413 (Admin)|131
4|6.2.2.2 R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61|132
4|6.2.2.3 In R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.3) [2014] EWCA Civ 708|135
4|6.2.2.4 R (on the Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2016] UKSC 35|136
5|Lady Hale and Lord Kerr Dissent|137
2|6.3 The Constitutional Importance of the Bancoult Litigation|140
3|6.3.1 An Inherent Want of Accountability|143
3|6.3.2 Ineffective Parliamentary Oversight and Recommendations for Reform|144
2|6.4 Conclusion|150
2|References|151
1|Chapter 7: The Chagossians’ Struggle and the Last Bastions of Imperial Constitutionalism|154
2|7.1 Introduction|154
2|7.2 The Divide Between UK Domestic and Imperial Constitutionalism|156
2|7.3 The Falkland Islands Dilemma|158
2|7.4 Imperial Constitutionalism: To Colonise and Divide|162
2|7.5 The Bancoult Litigation: Reviving Imperial Constitutionalism?|166
2|7.6 The Bancoult Litigation (and Its Aftermath): Side-Lining Imperial Constitutionalism?|172
2|7.7 Conclusion|178
2|References|179
1|Chapter 8: ‘Anachronistic As Colonial Remnants May Be…’ Locating the Rights of the Chagos Islanders As a Case Study of the Operation of Human Rights Law in Colonial Territories|182
2|8.1 Introduction|182
2|8.2 Legal Provisions on Applicability Generally|185
2|8.3 Scope of Application|187
2|8.4 Colonial Territories: Territorial or Extraterritorial? Applicability in the Two Situations|188
2|8.5 Colonial Clauses|190
3|8.5.1 1926 Anti-Slavery Convention|190
3|8.5.2 1950 European Convention on Human Rights|191
3|8.5.3 1956 Supplementary Anti-Slavery Convention|191
2|8.6 The Disappearance of the Colonial Clause and the Emergence of Extraterritorial ‘Jurisdiction’|193
2|8.7 Colonial Clause As Appendix?|194
2|8.8 Colonial Clause As Exclusively Determinative: Hong Kong, Macao and South Georgia|195
2|8.9 Existence of Colonial Clause Places Alternative ‘Jurisdiction’ Basis for Extraterritorial Applicability into Question|197
2|8.10 Contradictory Situations Created by the Exclusive Determinism Model for Colonial Clause Declarations|200
2|8.11 ‘Colonial Relic’ Challenged: Chagos Islanders v United Kingdom|201
2|8.12 ‘Anachronistic As Colonial Remnants May Be…’|209
3|8.12.1 Objectionable Colonial Relic|209
3|8.12.2 Colonialism Legitimated|210
3|8.12.3 Colonialism Delegitimated|210
3|8.12.4 Human Rights and the End of Empire|211
3|8.12.5 Trusteeship-Over-People and the Application of Human Rights to Colonial Territories|211
3|8.12.6 Self-Determination and the Application of Human Rights to Colonial Territories|213
3|8.12.7 Human Rights Imperialism?|213
3|8.12.8 The Different Meaning of Human Rights Law Extraterritorially, in Part Because of Self-Determination|215
3|8.12.9 The Different Picture if Self-Determination Is Not Realized|217
3|8.12.10 ‘Anachronistic as Colonial Remnants May Be…’|217
2|8.13 Conclusion|219
2|References|219
1|Chapter 9: The Once and Future King: Sovereignty Over Territory and the Annex VII Tribunal’s Award in Mauritius v United Kingdom|222
2|9.1 Introduction|222
2|9.2 Sovereignty Over the BIOT and the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal|223
2|9.3 Mauritius’ Submission Number 4|225
2|9.4 How the Tribunal Determined That the United Kingdom Was in Breach and What It Implies About Sovereignty|226
2|9.5 The Sting in the Tail|227
3|9.5.1 Structure of the Award|228
3|9.5.2 Sovereignty Over the Territory as Necessary in the Tribunal’s reasoning|229
3|9.5.3 Undertakings, Separation, and the Agreement as Applied|232
2|9.6 The Future as an Uncertain Country|235
2|References|236
1|Chapter 10: The Operation of Estoppel in International Law and the Function of the Lancaster House Undertakings in the Chagos Arbitration Award|238
2|10.1 Introduction|238
2|10.2 Historical Background|240
2|10.3 The Character of the 1965 Agreement|242
3|10.3.1 The Status of the 1965 Agreement in UK Law|242
3|10.3.2 Elevating the 1965 Agreement to the International Plane|245
3|10.3.3 The 1965 Agreement: Treaty or Memorandum of Undertaking?|247
2|10.4 The Lancaster House Undertakings and Estoppel|250
3|10.4.1 Satisfying Estoppel’s Requirements in the Chagos Award|250
3|10.4.2 Estoppel as an Independent Source of Legal Obligation|256
3|10.4.3 The Ramifications of Estoppel’s Source of Obligation|260
2|10.5 The Lancaster House Undertakings and the Law of the Sea Convention|263
3|10.5.1 The Undertakings and the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction|263
3|10.5.2 The Undertakings and the Tribunal’s Interpretation of the LOSC|264
2|10.6 Conclusion|267
2|References|268
1|Chapter 11: Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitral Tribunal Award for the Balance Between Natural Environmental Protection and Traditional Maritime Freedoms|270
2|11.1 Introduction|270
2|11.2 Background: The Scientific Value and Social Implications of Marine Protected Areas|271
2|11.3 Implications of the Chagos Marine Protected Area (MPA) Arbitral Award (Mauritius/UK): Jurisdictional, Procedural and Substantive Issues|276
3|11.3.1 Jurisdiction Issues for the Chagos MPA Arbitral Tribunal: When Is a Dispute ‘Environmental’ in Nature?|277
3|11.3.2 Legal Status of UK Undertakings to Mauritius Delegation in Lancaster Agreement|281
3|11.3.3 Interaction Between the Substantive and Procedural Obligations in the Chagos MPA Award: ‘Due Regard’ and ‘Other Rules of International Law’|283
3|11.3.4 Interpretation and Application of Article 194 of UNCLOS|287
2|11.4 Implications of the Chagos MPA Award for the Future of UK MPAs|291
2|11.5 Conclusions|294
2|References|297
1|Chapter 12: Learning from Chagos, Lessons for Pitcairn?|299
2|12.1 Introduction|299
2|12.2 The Global Context|301
2|12.3 Strategies for Bio-Diversity Conservation|306
2|12.4 Marine Protected Areas|309
2|12.5 From BIOT to Pitcairn|313
2|12.6 The Role of National and International Non-Government Organisations|315
2|12.7 Fishing and MPAs|318
2|12.8 Conclusion|320
2|References|322
1|Chapter 13: International Law and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: What Next for the Chagossians|324
2|13.1 Introduction|324
2|13.2 The Definition of Indigenous Peoples|325
2|13.3 Recognising the Rights of Indigenous Peoples|330
3|13.3.1 Specialist Bodies at the United Nations|331
4|13.3.1.1 Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples|331
4|13.3.1.2 Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues|332
4|13.3.1.3 Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples|332
3|13.3.2 Special Protection to Indigenous Peoples Under Existing Human Rights Instruments|333
4|13.3.2.1 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination|333
4|13.3.2.2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights|334
2|13.4 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples|335
3|13.4.1 Key Provisions of UNDRIP|336
4|13.4.1.1 Equality and Non-discrimination|336
4|13.4.1.2 The Requirements of Participation and Consultation|337
4|13.4.1.3 The Right to Land|338
3|13.4.2 UK Position on UNDRIP|339
2|13.5 The Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples|340
3|13.5.1 Connection to Land|342
3|13.5.2 Communal Ownership|343
2|13.6 Ways Forward for the Chagossians|345
3|13.6.1 The Forced Removal of the Chagossians|347
3|13.6.2 An Effective Remedy and the Requirement to Adopt Special Measures|350
3|13.6.3 Adequate Compensation|352
2|13.7 Challenges and Opportunities Ahead|353
3|13.7.1 Free, Prior and Informed Consent|355
2|13.8 Conclusion|358
2|References|358
1|Chapter 14: The Politics of Chagos: Part Played by Parliament and the Courts Towards Resolving the Chagos Tragedy|363
2|14.1 Introduction|363
2|14.2 Historical Background|363
2|14.3 Administration of BIOT Since 1965|365
2|14.4 Five Policy Failures|366
2|14.5 Restoration of Right of Abode, 2000|366
2|14.6 The 2002 Flawed Feasibility Study|367
2|14.7 The 2004 Orders Banning Return|367
2|14.8 Defence, Security and Cost Arguments|368
2|14.9 US Position|369
2|14.10 Promulgation of the MPA and WikiLeaks, 2010|369
2|14.11 The 2015 KPMG Study and Rejection of Resettlement, November 2016|371
2|14.12 Establishment of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) 2008|372
2|14.13 APPG Achievements?|373
2|14.14 Supreme Court Judgment, June 2016|374
2|14.15 Looking for a Compromise|374
2|14.16 Arbitral Tribunal Award to Mauritius 2015 and UK/Mauritius Talks|376
2|14.17 Mauritian Decision to Take the Sovereignty Issue to the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion|377
2|14.18 Litigation and Politics Go Hand in Hand|379
2|14.19 Appreciations|380
2|Annex A: Statement by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on 16 November 2016|381
2|Annex B: Statement on 26 April 2017 by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on Prospects for Resettlement and Ways of Strengthening the Bonds Between the Chagossians and Their Homeland|382
2|References|384