1 [2008] UKHL 61, 4 All E.R 1055 (2008), at <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-10.htm>.

2 See infra note 17 and accompanying text.

3 For background see David, Vine, Island of Shame: The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia (2009)Google Scholar.

4 Agreement on the Availability for Defence Purposes of the British Indian Ocean Territory, Dec. 30, 1966, 603 UNTS 273, as amended by 1032 UNTS 323 (1976), 2106 UNTS 294 (1999). The treaty is expected to be renewed for another twenty years in 2016.

5 See 866 UNTS 302 (1972); 1018 UNTS (1976); 2001 UNTS 397 (1982); 1576 UNTS 179 (1987).

6 See the table of congressional appropriations for 1970 to 1987 in Vytautas B., Bandjunis, Diego Garcia: Creation of the Indian Ocean Base 309 (2001)Google Scholar. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, Base Structure Report: Fiscal Year 2007 Baseline, 78 tbl. (2007), the total plant replacement value of Diego Garcia amounts to $2, 514 billion.

7 See Richard, Edis, Peak of Limuria: The Story of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago 93–96 (rev. ed. 2004)Google Scholar.

8 Robert E., Harkavy, Bases Abroad: The Global Foreign Military Presence 49, 184, 274, 310 (1989)Google Scholar; James, Bamford, Body of Secrets 165, 277 (2001)Google Scholar.

9 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial and Legal Aspects of the Agreement on the Availability of Certain Indian Ocean Islands for Defense Purposes (Comptroller General Rep. No. B-184915) (Jan. 7, 1976)Google Scholar; 21 Foreign Relations of the United States 1964–1968, at 94 (Nina David, Howland ed., 2000)Google Scholar.

10 British Indian Ocean Territory Order, 1965, S.I. 1965/1920, amended by S.I. 1968/111.

11 See the advisory opinion of January 16, 1970, by FCO assistant legal adviser Anthony I. Aust (as quoted in the 2006 High Court judgment, infra note 17, at 1086), which continued as follows:

12 Hazel, Fox, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Dependent Territories, in 4 Encyclopedia of Public International Law 1025, 1026 (Rudolf, Bernhardt ed., 2000)Google Scholar.

13 2004 Brit.Y.B. Int’l L. 665, 665 (statement by Bill Rammell, FCO parliamentary undersecretary of state, during House of Commons debates on July 7, 2004) [hereinafter Rammell statement]; see Jean-Marie G. Le, Clézio, Archipel des Chagos—Diego Garcia: les déponés du paradis, Le Point, Jan. 19, 2007 Google Scholar; David R., Snoxell, Anglo/American Complicity in the Removalof the Inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, 1964–73, 37 J. Imperial & Commonwealth History 127 (2009)Google Scholar.

14 Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d 427 (D.C. Cir. 2006), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 1166 (2007); see John R., Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 100 AJIL 692 (2006)Google Scholar; Laura, Westra, Environmental Justice and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: International and Domestic Legal Perspectives 109, 167 (2008)Google Scholar.

15 [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB); Chagos Islanders v. Attorney Gen., [2004] EWCA (Civ) 997 (reported in 2003 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 486).

16 Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of Mauritius, Concerning the Îlois from the Chagos, Archipelago, July 7, 1982, 1316 UNTS 127 (entered into force Oct. 26, 1982)Google Scholar.

17 Regina, ex parte Bancoult v. Foreign & Commonwealth Office, [2006] EWHC (Admin) 1038, aff’d [2007] EWCA (Civ) 498; see Stephen, Allen, Looking Beyond the Bancoult Case: International Law and the Prospect of Resettling the (Outer) Chagos Islands, 7 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 441 (2007)Google Scholar; Richard, Mox Aes, Judicial Review of Prerogative Orders in Council: Recognising the Constitutional Reality of Executive Legislation, 67 CAMB. L.J. 12 (2008)Google Scholar.

18 Citing Kenneth, Roberts-Wray, Commonwealth and Colonial Law 727 (1966)Google Scholar.

19 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in his dissenting opinion, called the royal prerogative to legislate by order-in-council an “anachronistic survival” (para. 69).

20 Rejecting as “extreme” the FCO lawyers’ argument that the exercise of “prerogative legislation” is immune from judicial review, Lord Hoffmann suggested the need for judicial review “with a light touch” (para. 52). See also Lord Rodger of Earlsferry’s concurring opinion (para. 105).

21 Lord Bingham was referring to three stern warning letters from the U.S. Department of State (dated June 21, 2000, November 16, 2004, and January 18, 2006) outlining scenarios in which terrorists might infiltrate the outer Chagos islands (135 miles north of Diego Garcia) and compromise the security of the U.S. base by using boats, missiles, and electronic devices.

22 Posford Haskoning Consultants, Feasibility Study for the Resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago: Phase 2B (2002)Google Scholar (summarized in 2004 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L.663, 668, 672, and 2006 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 638).

23 As Lord Hoffman noted, “funding is the subtext of what this case is about” (para. 55).

24 Ch. 29 (as quoted by Lord Hoffmann (para. 42), also citing William, Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 137 (15th ed. 1809): “No power on earth, except the authority of Parliament, can send any subject of England out of the land against his will.”)Google Scholar.

25 Bancoult v. McNamara, 445 F.3d at 435, 437.

26 See A. W. Brian, Simpson, Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention 1097 (2001)Google Scholar; Louise, Moor & A. W. Brian, Simpson, Ghosts of Colonialism in the European Convention on Human Rights, 2005 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 154, 156 Google Scholar; Peter H., Sand, Diego Garcia: British-American Legal Black-Hole in the Indian Ocean? 21 J. Envtl. L. 113 (2009)Google Scholar.

27 The United Kingdom ratified the Geneva Conventions on Sept. 23, 1957, without extension to overseas territories. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s January 28, 1998, ratification of Geneva Convention Protocols I and II was explicitly extended to the BIOT by declaration of July 2, 2002. Geneva Convention (Amendment) Act (Overseas Territories) Order, 2002, S.I. 2002/1076. On June 27, 2003, Mauritius formally objected to the BIOT extension, asserting its own sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.

28 The FCO contends that the United Kingdom’s ratification of May 20, 1976, does not extend to the BIOT. See Fox, supra note 12, at 1029. The UN Human Rights Committee has repeatedly indicated, however, that it considers the Covenants to apply to the BIOT and, in its concluding observations on the British report to the 2008 meeting, urged the United Kingdom “to include the territory in its next periodic report.” UN Doc. CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6, para. 22 (2008). While Article 12(4) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country,” the United Kingdom expressly reserved the right not to apply Article 12(4) to immigration laws for its dependent territories. See Guy, Goodwin-Gill, The Limits of the Power of Expulsion in Public International Law, 1975 47 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 55, 140 Google Scholar; Richard, Plender, International Migration Law 133, 142 n.28 (2d ed. 1988)Google Scholar.

29 After ratifying the Convention on December 8, 1988, the United Kingdom extended it to British dependent tettitories except for the BIOT by declaration of December 9, 1992.

30 After ratifying the Convention on June 24, 1988, the United Kingdom extended it to Gibraltar and Guernsey (by declarations in 1988 and 1994, respectively), but not to the BIOT.

31 Ratified by the United Kingdom on Oct. 4, 2001, the Convention was not extended to overseas territories.

32 See, e.g., 2003 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 686, 857 Google Scholar; 2004 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 716 Google Scholar; 2006 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 639 Google Scholar.

33 See 472 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (2003) 547 (Terrorist Suspects (Renditions), Statement by the Secretary of State); [U.S.] Central Intelligence Agency Press Release, Director’s Statement on the Past Use of Diego Garcia (Feb. 21, 2008). On July 3, 2008, the secretary of state assured Parliament that “our US allies are agreed on the need to seek our permission for any future renditions through UK territory.” 478 Parl. Deb. (H.C.) (6th ser.) (2008) 58WS (emphasis added).

34 See the submission of organization Reprieve to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Overseas Territories: Seventh Report 2007–8 , H.C. 147-II, Ev203 at 207 (2008)Google Scholar.

35 2056 UNTS 211. The Convention has been ratified by 155 countries, including the United Kingdom (with an explicit extension to the BIOT, on July 31, 1998), though not the United States. See Andrew C. S., Efaw, The United States Refusal to Ban Landmines: The Intersection Between Tactics, Strategy, Policy, and International Law, 159 MIL. L. Rev. 87 (1999)Google Scholar; John R., Crook, U.S. Policy Regarding Landmines, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 102 AJIL 190 (2008)Google Scholar.

36 Some 10, 000 landmines (in Gator, Volcano, and Modular Pack Mine System dispenser packages for aircraft delivery) were stockpiled on ships at Diego Garcia in 1997, according to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor Report: Toward a Mine-Free World 328 (1999)Google Scholar [hereinafter ICBL Report]. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Military Operations: Information on U.S. Use of Land Mines in the Persian Gulf War 39 (Report No. GAO-02–1003) (Sept. 30, 2002)Google Scholar (table 7 showing a minimum of 10.3 million anti-personnel landmines stockpiled by the U.S. Department of Defense as of 2002).

37 Statement by UK Ambassador David Broucher to the Ottawa Convention Standing Committee meeting (May 16, 2003) (UK interpretation of the general status and operation of the Convention), as quoted by Christopher W., Jacobs, Taking the Next Step: An Analysis of the Effects the Ottawa Convention May Have on the Interoperability of United States Forces with the Armed Forces of Australia, Great Britain and Canada, 180 Mil. L. Rev. 49, 67 (2004)Google Scholar. Yet, in the view of the International Committee for the Red Cross, “permitting the transit of anti-personnel mines through the territory of a State Party would undermine the object and purpose of the [Convention] . . . and contradict its prohibition on assisting anyone in the stockpiling and use of anti-personnel mines”; ICBL Report, supra note 36, annex, at 1005; see Stuart, Maslen, 1 Commentaries on Arms Control Treaties: The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction 100 (2004)Google Scholar.

38 See André, Oraison, Le contentieux territorial anglo-mauricien sur l’archipel des Chagos revisité, 83 Revue de droit international et de sciences diplomatiques et politiques 109 (2005)Google Scholar.

39 Mauritian Constitution, amend. 3, in 12 Constitutions of the Countries of the World 81, 95 (Gisbert H., Flanz ed., 1998)Google Scholar.

40 James, Crawford, The Creation of States In International Law 337 (2d ed. 2006)Google Scholar. But see, for example, supra note 27 and Mauritian statements in the UN General Assembly on December 5, 1983, October 9, 1987, October 12, 1988, and November 11, 2001, UN Docs. A/38/711 at 1, A/42/32 at 48, A/43/28 at 38, and A/56/46 at 17.

41 Most recently in 2006 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 639.

42 See Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam’s report to his cabinet on his talks with British Prime Minister Brown (June 20, 2008), at <http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/pmo/file/cabinet-pmo.jsp>.

43 See EEC-Mauritius Agreement on Fishing in Mauritian Waters, June 10, 1989, pmbl., Art. 1, 1989 O.J. (L159)2.

44 July 7, 2006, Art. 1, 2006 O.J (L 196) 51. See Mauritius’s declaration upon signing (“Mauritius reiterates its rights to exercise complete and full sovereignty over its territory, including the territory and maritime zones of the Chagos Archipelago and Tromelin as defined in the Constitution of Mauritius.”), at <http://www.fao.org/legal/treaties/035s-e.htm>.

45 Mauritius Governmental Notice No. 126 (Aug. 5, 2005) (implementing the 2005 Maritime Zones Act), with geographical coordinates of Mauritius’s EEZ, including the Chagos Archipelago—as in the 1984 Maritime Zones Regulations No. 199 (table C1.T165).

46 1991 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 648 Google Scholar; 2003 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 680 Google Scholar; 54 Law of the Sea Bull. 99 (2004)Google Scholar. Unlike the Mauritian EEZ (based on a twelve-mile territorial sea), the British EEZ for the BIOT is based on a three-mile territorial sea, except for a twelve-mile “prohibited zone” around Diego Garcia (not notified to the United Nations). See B IOT Administration, Notice to All Mariners of New Procedures for Yachts Visiting the British Indian Ocean Territory (Dec. 8, 2006)Google Scholar, reissued as Laws and Guidance for Visitors (Mar. 2007, rev. Feb. 2009)Google Scholar.

47 See Michael, O’Shea, Serious Questions over Sea Boundaries Between Maldives and British Indian Ocean Territory (2007), at <http://www.maldivesculture.com>Google Scholar; Jonathan I., Charney, Rocks That Cannot Sustain Human Habitation , 93 AJIL 863 (1999)Google Scholar.

48 Rammell statement, supra note 13, at 669.

49 See Christian, Bouchard, Climate Change, Sea Level Rise, and Development in Small Island States and Territories of the Indian Ocean, in Crucible for Survival: Environmental Security and Justice in the Indian Ocean Region 258, 270 n.2 (Timothy, Doyle & Melissa, Risely eds., 2008)Google Scholar.

50 Rammell statement, supra note 13, at 669.

51 Center for Naval Analyses, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change 48 (2007), at <http://www.cna.org>>Google Scholar.

52 See Andrew S., Erickson, Walter C., Ladwig III, & Justin D., Mikolay, Diego Garcia’s Strategic Past, Present and Future , 5 Asian Security (forthcoming 2009)Google Scholar.

53 See the official Ramsar Convention site map in Peter H., Sand, United States and Britain in Diego Garcia: The Future of a Controversial Base 60 (2009)Google Scholar. The Diego Garcia lagoon must be the world’s only internationally registered nature reserve that also serves as habitat to nuclear submarines, ordnance supply vessels for landmines and cluster bombs, and prison ships.