Despite recent testimonies, the government will not prosecute the Malvinas in the court of The Hague – 02/04/2019

On 25 February, the International Court of Justice, based in The Hague, decided that the The UK should stop administering Chagos, a British archipelago forming part of its iconic colonial apparatus. Located in the Indian Ocean, houses a US military base, after its 2,000 inhabitants were expelled. It was always Revindicada in London by Mauritius as part of its territory.

The Government has fully participated in the advisory opinion requested by Mauritius to these United Nations tribunals and the result has been extremely positive. On February 25, Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie said it was "an important fact that we must give the attention that corresponds ", since – he pointed "similarity with the Malvinas " and a "huge validity for the Argentine claim" of the sovereignty of the South Atlantic islands over Britain. In its conclusion on the judicial process opened in this country, the Court declared that the end of the British administration in Chagos is what "will allow Mauritius to put an end to the decolonization of its territory", after which the bells began to ring in Buenos Aires. .

Without doubt, in June, when he appeared in New York before the United Nations Decolonization Committee to claim the sovereignty of the Malvinas, Faurie will carry under the arm the opinion of The Hague on Chagos. But according to official sources consulted, the governmentor there is no intention to go to The Hague against the United Kingdom Malvinas, neither in the form of an advisory opinion – as Mauricio de Chagos – nor in the open form of a lawsuit – in litigation – as the government of Nestor Kirchner did against the Uruguay by the pasteras presented to the vera del Río Uruguay, which is binational.

The idea of ​​a consultation or a trial for the Falklands in The Hague always roundo by the chief of the Argentine governors after the defeat to the Malvinas. There were repeated consultations even with the lawyer Marcelo Kohen, who represented the country with pasteras. But at this moment of alliance with London, it is the least imagined that they recognize here.

Look also

"He clearly exceeded expectations and corresponds to what Argentina says about international law in the field of decolonization," he said. Clarin Mario Oyarzabal, legal adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a diplomat familiar with international law and fully involved in this process in The Hague by Chagos.

Look also

Clarin Bulletins

What you need to know today | The most important news of the day to read in ten minutes

Monday to Friday morning.

Argentina He was part of the group of countries that sponsored Chagos' request for advisory opinion, and it was also presented in writing supporting Mauricio's application from beginning to end. But there are differences with the Malvinas.

It was a long process also that the United Nations General Assembly should ask the International Court of Justice, with which previously we had to do diplomacy with each of the countries of the Assembly, where Argentina does not have to do so. today there is no support of this type. On the one hand, if it is an advisory opinion, it is necessary to introduce a point, a topic of legal consultation, with specific questions, and Mauritius l & rsquo; Introduced. And he managed to show that in 1965, three years before the decolonization of Mauritius, the United Kingdom separated Chagos, thus affecting this process. Mauritius has diplomacy with the African Union, with consultations and even negotiations with the United Kingdom. There was no solution. And he submitted his request to the Assembly, which was approved and forwarded to the International Court of Justice.

Look also

On the other hand, there is a "trap". When the United Kingdom accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, it stated that did not accept the jurisdictions of what makes the former colonies, Commowealth and former Commonwealth. The Chagos affair has arrived, but the same progress has been made. The Malvinas case would not even be compatible because the United Kingdom accepts the jurisdiction of the Court only for disputes after January 1, 1987.