UK responds to concerns raised by Pen for Rights regarding Chagos: sovereignty issue lies between the UK and Mauritius

The UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) has formally responded to the concerns raised by "Pen for Rights – Maldivians for Chagos" regarding the Chagos Archipelago.

The organization revealed that this response follows a letter sent on December 22, 2025, and a subsequent communication sent to the Attorney General's Office on June 29, 2026.

In its response, the British government stated that the FCDO views the issue of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago exclusively as a bilateral matter between the UK and Mauritius.

Furthermore, the office noted that this position has been clarified by various courts, rulings, and international institutions. The response also indicated that while the UK respects the decision made by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on December 2, 2025, the British government does not agree with the principles applied by the committee in this matter.

"Pen for Rights" stated in a published announcement that while these decisions clarify the UK's current policy on Chagos, they do not provide answers to the historical questions raised by the organization.

The organization further noted that no international court has yet ruled on the claim that Maldives held sovereign power over Chagos prior to its occupation by European colonial powers. Additionally, the Maldives has not submitted any such "decolonization" claim to the UN General Assembly.

What was considered during international proceedings?

At the request of the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion in 2019. That case examined whether the process of decolonization for Mauritius was lawfully completed when it gained independence in 1968. This question arose due to the UK's separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. The court ruled that the decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed and that the UK must end its administration of the territory as rapidly as possible. "Pen for Rights" observes that the court's focus was very specific; the court stated that the UN General Assembly's request pertained to the "decolonization of Mauritius" and was not a request to resolve a land ownership dispute between two countries.

"Pen for Rights" highlighted that the question of Maldivian ownership prior to colonial powers was never submitted to the court. No court has examined whether Chagos belonged to the Maldives before European colonization, nor has any court researched how European powers first acquired sovereignty over these islands. Furthermore, no court has determined whether any prior Maldivian ownership was legally transferred to another party or extinguished. Therefore, "Pen for Rights" asserts that while the ICJ's opinion was a decision related to Mauritius, it does not mean that the historical rights of the Maldives are invalidated.

In the 2021 case before the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), the focus was on whether the maritime boundary delimitation between Mauritius and the Maldives could proceed. The tribunal concluded that, based on the ICJ's findings, Mauritius could be considered to have sovereignty over Chagos. However, in that case, the Maldives did not claim ownership of Chagos. At the time, the Maldives highlighted the sovereignty dispute between Mauritius and the UK, arguing that maritime boundaries could not be delimited until that issue was resolved.

Consequently, the decisions made thus far support the "decolonization" claim submitted by Mauritius. "Pen for Rights" believes this was not a debate regarding the historical ownership between the Maldives and Mauritius. While the UK may rely on international decisions related to Mauritian independence, "Pen for Rights" maintains that a different legal basis would be required to claim that Maldivian historical rights have been extinguished by those decisions.

The Maldivian question begins much earlier

"Pen for Rights" stated that the case they are currently investigating begins much earlier than the colonial period examined in the Mauritian case. One of the most significant pieces of evidence, according to the organization, is the reference to the "Seven Islands of Pullobay" in the titles of Sultan Hassan IX in the 16th century. However, it is necessary to verify through historical records that "Pullobay" geographically refers to Chagos. Furthermore, the significance of including those islands in the Sultan’s titles must be researched within the political context of that era. "Pen for Rights" added that evidence could also be gathered from other Maldivian historical documents and early European charts.

According to "Pen for Rights," this research must distinguish between historical connection and land ownership. Merely knowing the name of an island does not prove ownership; however, its inclusion in royal titles is strong evidence. The most crucial factor is finding evidence of the exercise of sovereign power. Evidence that Maldivian monarchs regarded the Chagos islands as part of the Maldives, and that the government exercised authority there, would strengthen this claim.

"Pen for Rights" asserts that if historical Maldivian ownership is proven, it is vital to examine what happened to that ownership thereafter. This includes researching how European powers—Portuguese, Dutch, French, and British—recognized ownership of the area through their records. They also believe it is necessary to investigate the legal basis upon which France claimed the islands and how the British subsequently acquired them.

The transfer of power from France to the UK was an agreement between two European powers. However, it is not clear how France acquired that power from any prior sovereign authority. "Pen for Rights" states that documentation must establish whether the territory was ceded under an agreement, acquired through war under the international laws of the time, or occupied as terra nullius (unclaimed land).

The question facing the UK 

"Pen for Rights" states that the question they are posing to the UK is: what is the historical and legal basis for viewing the Chagos issue solely as a matter between the UK and Mauritius? Since the FCDO referred to various courts and decisions, the organization insists that the UK must clarify which specific decisions these are in its next response. They also demand to know whether any of those decisions considered the historical claims of the Maldives or if there is any legal barrier preventing the examination of Maldivian rights.

Another question for the UK is: if they believe the Maldives had no rights at the beginning of the European colonial era, when and through what legal process were those rights extinguished? The core question of "Pen for Rights" is: if the Chagos islands were part of the Maldives before European colonial powers arrived, when and by what legal principle did that ownership cease? The FCDO's response did not address this question.

As a result, "Pen for Rights" has now prepared a rebuttal letter to the FCDO. The letter requests the British government to clarify the legal decisions it relies upon and to explain its legal basis regarding the historical ownership of the Maldives.

A Maldivian case at the UN would be different

"Pen for Rights" points out that the Maldives has not yet entered a "decolonization" process at the UN regarding Chagos. If such a case were to be submitted to the UN General Assembly in the future, it would require its own historical evidence and legal foundations. While the Mauritian case began with the UK's separation of Chagos in 1965, the organization says the Maldivian case would start much earlier. It would focus on whether the Chagos islands were previously part of the Maldives and how that relationship changed due to European colonial powers.

It was further stated that if evidence of historical Maldivian ownership exists, the first question would be defining the "territorial unit" or boundaries where the historical research should begin. Such a claim would require robust evidence of Maldivian ownership prior to European powers. To date, no such evidence from the Maldives has been presented to the international community.

Therefore, "Pen for Rights" believes that a future case submitted to the UN would be based on different facts and is not an assertion that the ICJ's ruling on Mauritius was incorrect. The Maldivian case would request an examination of a much earlier historical period and a different relationship. While the outcome cannot be predicted, "Pen for Rights" maintains that this is an entirely different subject from the case submitted to the court in 2019.

UK’s rejection of CERD principles

The FCDO’s response regarding CERD is also noteworthy. In the letter, the UK expressed its disagreement with the decision of December 2, 2025. The British government maintains that Chagos has no permanent population and has never been a self-governing territory. Therefore, the UK argues that no question of the right to "self-determination" arises for its population.

What follows the FCDO response?

"Pen for Rights" considers the FCDO's letter a significant development because the UK has now officially responded to the organization. The UK's policy on sovereignty and its rejection of the CERD decision are now documented in writing. "Pen for Rights" states that this is progress for the next steps in the legal and diplomatic process. According to the organization, the most important task for the Maldives now is to strengthen its historical evidence. This involves proving what "Pullobay" was and its significance. The titles of Sultan Hassan IX, along with other Maldivian and European records, must be researched. The origins of the French and British claims must be re-examined. The organization states that the goal is to compile evidence of ownership that is legally and historically incontestable.

Following this, the UK will have to respond directly to that evidence. "Pen for Rights" asserts that if the UK maintains that Chagos is only a matter between themselves and Mauritius, they must demonstrate the legal basis that excludes Maldivian historical rights. Furthermore, if it is claimed that such a right existed but was later lost, the UK must explain how that occurred. The organization noted that Mauritius achieved an international result by taking its case to the UN, whereas the Maldives has not yet submitted the issue of historical ownership of Chagos to any international body.