An international decision on the excolonie in the UK could have an impact on the Malvinian case

The advisory opinion of the ICJ was requested in 2017 by the United Nations General Assembly. It should be recalled that the Chagos archipelago was part of the British colony of Mauritius and that in 1965, three years before its independence, the United Kingdom separated this archipelago from the Mauritian territory and rented it still today. In the United States. On this occasion, the population of Chagos was expelled from this territory.

According to the Argentine government, in a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the resolution "it has relevance"For the question of the Malvinas Islands for"be a situation of territorial dismemberment, and refer to the principles that are fundamental in the claim on our islands"

As you may have known domain.com, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consider that the pronouncement reflects many arguments presented by the Argentine diplomacy in the various instances of the procedure, which strengthens the national positions and contributes to the debate around the legal arguments available for Argentina in the matter.

In this regard, they stressed that The Court expressly decided that it was the General Assembly that controlled the popular consultation processes in the event of decolonization., defeating the alleged validity of the referendum held in the Malvinas Islands in 2013.

In turn, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pointed out that the Court had recalled that there is no mechanical and unambiguous application of the principle of self-determination of peoples and the General Assembly decided that it does not apply to certain populations non-self-governing territories to understand that such populations do not constitute a "people".

The ICJ decided by 13 votes to 1 that the separation of Chagos it was not valid and it was an unlawful act that engages international responsibility. The Court held that the United Kingdom was required to put an end to the Chagos administration and to allow the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius and urged all States to cooperate with the United Nations in this process. .

The Court ruled that referendums could be organized without the intervention of the General Assembly, valuing both the role of this body and that of the Committee on Decolonization that follows the question of the Malvinas. He indicated that it was up to the Assembly to decide and oversee the modalities of the decolonization of a territory.

In addition to the support given to Mauritius, Argentina sponsored – in 2017 – the resolution of the General Assembly that requested this advisory opinion and intervened through the intermediary of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the relevant cases of this procedure before the International Court of Justice, pursuant to directives of a State policy on the question of the Malvinas Islands.

The answer from the United Kingdom

The British Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alan DuncanHe said his country's government would take into account the international decision, but said the dispute with Mauritius should be settled "bilaterally".

"Of course, we consider the detail of the opinion with caution, but it is a bilateral dispute and the UN wishing to obtain the opinion of the International Court of Justice It is therefore a misuse of powers that is a dangerous precedent for other bilateral disputes, "he said.