Maldives does not wish to interfere in the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom over the Chagos Archipelago, asserts the Attorney General of the Maldives, Ibrahim Riffath.
The AG made this remark in his opening statement at the hearing on Preliminary Objections regarding the Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Mauritius and Maldives in the India Ocean, arranged by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Monday.
In his statement, AG Riffath stressed that Maldives “was left with no choice” but to make the Preliminary Objections to the jurisdiction of the Special Chamber regarding the dispute, although the island nation has a long history of supporting multilateralism and respect for the international law.
Highlighting that Maldives has no dispute with Mauritius, AG Riffath asserted that the only dispute is between Mauritius and the United Kingdom regarding the sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago and not maritime boundary delimitation.
Although Maldives has a history of friendly relations with Mauritius, AG Riffath stated that he is saddened that Mauritius decided to use the proceedings to settle its territorial dispute with UK “at the expense of Maldives”.
Maldives cannot be expected to take sides in that dispute, especially in proceedings before this tribunal. The Special Chamber cannot rule on disputes over land territory, let alone where one of the parties to the dispute is not even present to argue its case. If there was no dispute as to who is the coastal State of the Chagos Archipelago, there would be no issue with delimitation. The Maldives would eagerly negotiate an agreement on the maritime boundary.Ibrahim Riffath, Maldives Attorney General
Stressing that the island nation has been pushed into the middle of a conflict “not in its making”, the AG noted that the attempts of Mauritius to portray Maldives as opposing decolonization, is unfortunate, as Maldives has always supported decolonization and self-determination of countries in accordance with international law
“Such accusations are offensive and unfair”, said the AG, who went on to claim that Maldives has always been a strong advocate of upholding international principles and adhering to international obligations.
AG Riffath said that the Preliminary Objections by Maldives are very clear and are consistent with the decisions of international courts and tribunals. It was already decided in 2015 by the Annex VII Tribunal in the Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration between Mauritius and UK. The Tribunal in that case declined jurisdiction on the ground that a dispute over land territory was "clearly" a matter falling outside of UNCLOS.
In this regard, Maldives submitted that the exact same jurisdictional problem arises for Mauritius’ claim in these proceedings, apart from, unlike that previous arbitration, UK is not even a party to this case.
Mauritius claims that the 2015 Award is irrelevant because the sovereignty dispute over the Chagos Archipelago has now been resolved. It invokes as its central argument — indeed its only argument — that the non-binding Advisory Opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice on 25 February 2019 — in Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 — immediately extinguished British sovereignty over this territory. But the Court clearly stated in that Opinion that the questions put to it by the United Nations General Assembly did not involve the bilateral territorial dispute. Instead, the Advisory Opinion related to matters of self-determination and decolonization. The Court said nothing about sovereignty”Ibrahim Riffath, Maldives Attorney General
Further, the AG stated that Maldives voted against the resolution by the UN General Assembly in May, as the island nation has always supported all processes concerning the decolonization of territories within the UN.
It was always believed that the issue of Chagos Archipelago would be best addressed through dialogue between concerned states, Maldives earlier said.
After less than a month Mauritius initiated UNCLOS proceedings against the Maldives based on questionable grounds that the Advisory Opinion had immediately transformed Mauritius into the undisputed coastal State of the Chagos Archipelago.
Highlighting that it is not even possible for Maldives to negotiate an agreement on delimitation or even establish a specific maritime boundary dispute with Mauritius without either an agreement or a binding decision on the competing sovereignty claims of Mauritius and UK, the AG noted that Maldives can only observe that the long-standing sovereignty dispute has not suddenly disappeared.
Under this context, AG Riffath noted that this only gives way for the conclusion that Mauritius had rushed to bring said proceedings as a pretext for resolving its sovereignty dispute with UK.
We look forward to the day when Mauritius and the United Kingdom resolve their dispute over the Chagos Archipelago. This would allow the Maldives to negotiate a maritime boundary with complete clarity as to which is the coastal State for the purposes of UNCLOS”Ibrahim Riffath, Maldives Attorney General
In addition, the AG noted that if Maldives did not make the Preliminary Objections, the Special Chamber would have to decline to exercise jurisdiction on its own initiative. Maldives also seeks to uphold the integrity and legitimacy of UNCLOS tribunals.
In conclusion AG Riffath expressed hope that the Preliminary Objections will be considered, "rather than any reluctance whatsoever to submit valid disputes to these highly important compulsory procedures".
