Advertisement

The Politics of Chagos: Part Played by Parliament and the Courts Towards Resolving the Chagos Tragedy

  • David Snoxell
Chapter
Part of the The World of Small States book series (WSS, volume 4)

Abstract

The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was created for political reasons. Only a political solution based on compromise and negotiation can bring about a resolution of this maelstrom of issues which have dogged the UK for over 50 years. A combination of political and legal pressure is the only way to persuade HMG that an overall settlement is possible and in the national interest. Chagos history abounds with policy failures, myth and deception. Litigation and the courts help redress the political deficit. While proclaiming the sanctity of international law the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ignores, cherry picks and splits hairs where it conflicts with entrenched policies. The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group has helped focus parliamentary, media and public attention on the issues, otherwise the preserve of the legal system and academia. William Hague said in 2010 “It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience; neither is it in our interests.” Parliamentary, public and international pressure will continue until the Chagossians are allowed to return.

References

  1. Aust A (1968) Legal aspects of BIOT immigration. In: Folio 2 file FCO 32/490. National Archives, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Aust A (1970) Immigration legislation for BIOT. In: Folio 6 file FCO 32/725. National Archives, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowcott O (2017) UN vote backing Chagos Islands a blow for UK. The Guardian, 22 June. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/22/un-vote-backing-chagos-islands-a-blow-for-uk. Accessed 7 Jan 2018
  4. Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom App no 35622/04 [2009] ECHR 410Google Scholar
  5. Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom App no 35622/04 [2012] ECHR 2094Google Scholar
  6. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (2015) (Mauritius v United Kingdom) Permanent Court of Arbitration. https://www.pcacases.com/web/view/11. Accessed 3 July 2017
  7. Corbyn J (and 32 further signatories) (2016) Justice for Chagos. The Times, London, 10 December 2016Google Scholar
  8. Dunne RP, Polunin NV, Sand PH, Johnson ML (2014) The creation of the Chagos marine protected area: a fisheries perspective. Adv Mar Biol 69:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Echandi R (2013) A novel approach towards addressing investor-state conflicts: development of investor-state dispute prevention mechanisms. In: Echandi R, Sauve P (eds) Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy. Cambridge University Press, p 275Google Scholar
  10. Editorial (1975) The Diego Garcians. Washington Post, Washington, 11 September 1975Google Scholar
  11. Foreign Affairs Committee (2007) Seventh Report. Overseas Territories, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Cm 7473Google Scholar
  12. Hague W (2010) Foreign Secretary speech on Britain’s values in a networked world, 1 July 2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-secretary-speech-on-britains-values-in-a-networked-world. Accessed 3 July 2017
  13. Hewitt M (1980) Vencatassen and the Ilois. In: Folio 119 file FCO 31/2770. National Archives, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Jones S (2011) Banished Chagos islanders insist: we are not at point of no return. The Guardian, 19 May. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/19/chagos-islands-resettlement-campaign. Accessed 3 July 2017
  15. Norton-Taylor R, Evans R (2010) WikiLeaks Cables: Mauritius sues UK for control of the Chagos islands. The Guardian, 21 December. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/21/mauritius-uk-chagos-islands. Accessed 3 July 2017
  16. Ottaway D (1975) Islanders were evicted for US base. Washington Post, Washington, 9 September 1975Google Scholar
  17. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2008] UKHL 61; [2008] 3 WLR 955Google Scholar
  18. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 2) [2016] UKSC 35; [2016] 3 WLR 157Google Scholar
  19. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 3) [2012] EWHC 3281 (Admin)Google Scholar
  20. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 3) [2013] EWHC 1502 (Admin)Google Scholar
  21. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No. 3) [2014] EWCA Civ 708; [2014] 1 WLR 2921Google Scholar
  22. R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No.3) [2012] EWHC 2155 (Admin)Google Scholar
  23. Snoxell D (2007) Letter ‘Justice for the Chagos Islands’. The Times, London, 12 February 2007Google Scholar
  24. Snoxell D (2009) Anglo/American complicity in the removal of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, 1964–73. J Imp Commonw Hist 37:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Snoxell D (2017a) A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Part I). Weekly, 29 June 2017Google Scholar
  26. Snoxell D (2017b) A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Part II). Weekly, 6 July 2017Google Scholar
  27. Snoxell D (2017c) A rebuttal of the UK’s case (Part III). Weekly, 13 July 2017Google Scholar
  28. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES71/292 adopted by the General Assembly on 22 June 2017Google Scholar
  29. Wintour P (2016) Chagos Islanders denied right to return home. The Guardian, 16 November. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/chagos-islanders-denied-right-to-return-home. Accessed 5 Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Snoxell
    • 1
  1. 1.High WycombeUK

Personalised recommendations