No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Chagos in the South Pacific? The principle of self-determination and the France-Vanuatu dispute over the Matthew and Hunter Islands
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 October 2024
Abstract
The dispute over the Matthew and Hunter Islands (MHIs) has long been a constant strain on Vanuatu-French relations. The article examines this dispute in light of the Chagos Advisory Opinion and a few other cases concerning territorial disputes. It first submits that sovereignty over the MHIs had never been raised until 1962, when, at the occasion of a private claim, France and Britain, the two administering powers of the New Hebrides at that time, considered the issue. The two states reached an agreement in 1965, asserting that the MHIs were part of the French colony of New Caledonia and not the British-French Condominium of the New Hebrides. This article then considers the legal implications and lawfulness of the agreement, which did not take into account the local populations’ will. Although there are some important differences between the Chagos and MHIs disputes, mainly due to the fact that the MHIs are uninhabited, the applicability of the right of self-determination to both cases is nevertheless beyond doubt. The article contends therefore that the 1965 Agreement between France and Britain may constitute a violation of the right to self-determination of the people of the New Hebrides (Vanuatu), who were not consulted on the decision to attach the MHIs to the French territory of New Caledonia, and suggests that there may be, however, some other legal principles under international law that can come into play. Finally, the article contends that negotiated solutions could be a potential way forward for the parties involved.
- Type
- ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law in association with the Grotius Centre for International Law, Leiden University
Footnotes
*
The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments, as well as Jonathon Yeldon for his cautious proof-reading. Lili Song would also like to thank Nongji Zhang of the Harvard Law Library for going the extra mile to facilitate access to materials needed for the revision of the article.
References
1 See, e.g., C. Pajon, ‘President Macron’s Historic Pacific Visit: A Signal of France’s Regional Step-Up’, The Diplomat, 21 July 2023, available at thediplomat.com/2023/07/president-macrons-historic-pacific-visit-a-signal-of-frances-regional-step-up/; ‘French President Macron’s Historic Visit to Vanuatu and PNG Strengthens Bilateral Relations’, Vanuatu Investment Marketing Bureau, 20 July 2023, available at vimb.vu/blog/french-president-macrons-historic-visit-to-vanuatu-and-png-strengthens-bilateral-relations/; ‘French President Macron Travels to Vanuatu for Historic Visit and Warns against “New Imperialism”’, Euronews, 27 July 2023, available at ∼www.euronews.com/2023/07/27/french-president-macron-travels-to-vanuatu-for-historic-visit-and-warns-against-new-imperi#:∼:text=During%20a%20historic%20visit%20to,a%20speech%20in%20Port%2DVila.
2 N. Maclellan, ‘Vanuatu MP Says Macron Should Act on Matthew and Hunter’, Islands Business, 27 July 2023, available at islandsbusiness.com/news-break/vanuatu-mp-says-macron-should-act-on-matthew-and-hunter/; E. Foon and H. Bule, ‘Vanuatu traditional leaders call for Macron to address islands dispute’, RNZ, 26 July 2023, available at www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/494498/vanuatu-traditional-leaders-call-for-macron-to-address-islands-dispute; ‘Vanuatu MP Urges French President Macron to Return Matthew and Hunter’, Daily Post, 25 July 2023, available at www.dailypost.vu/news/vanuatu-mp-urges-french-president-macron-to-return-matthew-and-hunter/article_25eb6216-0591-5e3e-8f6c-1e24b54712ee.html.
3 H. Bule and D. Wiseman, ‘Macron to Provide Money to Vanuatu, Look at Land Dispute’, RNZ, 28 July 2023, available at www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/494637/macron-to-provide-money-to-vanuatu-look-at-land-dispute.
4 Vanuatu Maritime Zones Act 2010, Arts. 7(2)(b), 8, 9; Décret n° 2002–827 du 3 Mai 2002 définissant les lignes de base droites et les lignes de fermeture des baies servant à la définition des lignes de base à partir desquelles est mesurée la largeur des eaux territoriales françaises adjacentes à la Nouvelle-Calédonie, Art. 2.
5 Nouvelle-Calédonie, Arrêté du 23 avril 2014 portant création du Parc naturel de la mer de Corail. After this legal ground was challenged regarding repartition of competences such as provided by the Loi organique de 1999 portant statut de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, the Congress of New Caledonia voted in a new text (Loi du Pays) to create an appropriate legal framework for the Marine Protected Area: Loi du pays n°2022-1 du 12 janvier 2022 relative à la protection des aires marines de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, JONC, 20 Janvier 2022, 381.
6 Letter from Ham Lini Vanuaroroa, Prime Minister of Vanuatu, 11 July 2007, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra07/van_0701306.pdf.
7 D. Fisher, France in the South Pacific: Power and Politics (2013), at 146; J. Cullwick, ‘Prime Minister Adamant on Sovereignty over Matthew and Hunter’, Daily Post, 8 May 2014, available at www.dailypost.vu/news/prime-minister-adamant-on-sovereignty-over-matthew-and-hunter/article_acbd76ea-0dde-5b7d-b5fb-c5602edfc357.html.
8 Letter of the French Secrétaire de la mer to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), 18 July 2007, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra07/fra_letter_july2007.pdf; UNCLCS, ‘Summary of Recommendations of the Commission on The Limits of the Continental Shelf in Regard to the Submission Made by France in Respect of French Guiana and New Caledonia Regions on 22 May 2007’, 2 September 2009, available at www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra07/COM_REC_FRA_02_09_2009_summary.pdf.
9 See, e.g., H. Kines, ‘Islands Battle Hots Up’, Islands Business, January 1983, at 23; ‘NZ Research Ship Flares Vanuatu-France Border Dispute’, RNZ, 5 August 2017, available at www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/336520/nz-research-ship-flares-vanuatu-france-border-dispute; ‘Vanuatu PM Hits Out at France over Matthew and Hunter Dispute’, RNZ, 26 March 2019, available at www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/385606/vanuatu-pm-hits-out-at-france-over-matthew-and-hunter-dispute.
10 See ‘NZ Research Ship Flares Vanuatu-France Border Dispute’, ibid.
11 Notable recent publications include M. Mosses, ‘Revisiting the Matthew and Hunter Islands Dispute in Light of the Recent Chagos Advisory Opinion and Some Other Relevant Cases: An Evaluation of Vanuatu’s Claims Relating to the Right to Self-Determination, Territorial Integrity, Unlawful Occupation and State Responsibility Under International Law’, (2019) 66 Netherlands International Law Review 475; S. Heathcote, ‘Secession, Self-Determination and Territorial Disagreements: Sovereignty Claims in the Contemporary South Pacific’, (2021) 34 Leiden Journal of International Law 653; S. Heathcote, ‘Joint Territorial Governance in the South Pacific Law’, in J. E. Viñuales et al. (eds.), The International Legal Order in the XXIst Century/L’ordre juridique international au XXIeme siècle (2023), 53; J. Sautier, ‘Un différend méconnu entre la France et le Vanuatu: le cas des îlots Matthew et Hunter’, (2016) XXI Annuaire du droit de la mer, at 49.
12 Flash d’Océanie, ‘Les îles Matthew et Hunter n’en finissent pas d’empoisonner les relations franco-vanuatuanes’, Tahiti Infos, 30 November 2010, available at www.tahiti-infos.com/Les-iles-Matthew-et-Hunter-n-en-finissent-pas-d-empoisonner-les-relations-franco-vanuatuanes_a13518.html; see Fisher, supra note 7, at 146.
13 P. Maillet, M. Monzier and C. Lefevre, ‘Petrology of Matthew and Hunter Volcanoes, South New Hebrides Island Arc (Southwest Pacific)’, (1986) 30(1) Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 1.
14 Ibid.
15 See the official website of the Protected Marine Area: mer-de-corail.gouv.nc/.
16 J. Joshua, ‘Matthew, Hunter Dialogue’, Daily Post, 3 January 2017, available at dailypost.vu/news/matthew-hunter-dialogue/article_74783f07-617a-5a1d-8f4c-455dcdd9f513.html; B. Makin, ‘Matthew and Hunter Day’, Daily Post, 12 March 2015, available at dailypost.vu/news/matthew-and-hunter-day/article_253d5ec4-47b1-5a5c-ac54-69a739cee733.html. For more discussion about Vanuatu legends about the MHIs see L. Song, M. Mosses and G. Giraudeau, ‘The Ambiguous History of Matthew and Hunter Islands: Tracing the Roots of Vanuatu and French Claims’, (2023) 58(3) Journal of Pacific History 232.
17 Vanuatu Cultural Centre, J.-M. Leye, ‘History of Hunter and Matthew Islands’, 224/68 (audiocassette), 21 June 2007.
18 Ibid.
19 Vanuatu Cultural Centre, Ch. Nimoho, ‘Talks of Matthew and Hunter Islands (Futuna)’, 235/5 (audiocassette), 6 September 1982.
20 See A. Sharp, The Discovery of the Pacific Islands (1960), at 153; M. Quanchi and J. Robson, Historical Dictionary of the Discovery and Exploration of the Pacific Islands (2005), at 122; J. Dunmore, Who’s Who in the Pacific Navigation (1991), at 116. T. Gilbert, Voyage from New South Wales to Canton in the Year 1788 (1968), at 27; Editorial, ‘Wanted: One Barren, Volcanic Island to be Landlords of’, Pacific Islands Monthly, April 1963, 89. Pacific Islands (Pilot). [With] Suppl. [and] Admiralty Notices to Mariners (London: British Admiralty Hydrographic Department, 1885).
21 For more details, see note 12, supra.
22 See Fisher, supra note 7, at 145; D. Cambou, J. Gilbert and M. Degremont, ‘Marine Protected Areas and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights: A Case Study of the National Park of the Coral Sea in New Caledonia’, in S. Allen, N. Bankes and Ø. Ravna (eds.), The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Marine Areas (2019), at 209, note 91, citing Fisher; A. Dayant, ‘Not One, but Two New Points of Tension for France in the Pacific’, Lowy Institute, 19 Mar 2019, available at www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/not-one-two-new-points-tension-france-pacific; A. Willemez, ‘Flashpoint: South Pacific – Vanuatu and New Caledonia’, Centre for International Maritime Security, 16 January 2014, available at www.cimsec.org/south-pacific/9356.
23 See Sautier, supra note 11, at 49; Great Britain Admiralty, Pacific Islands Vol. 3, Western Pacific (Richmond: H.M. Stationery Office, 1945), at 604; Government of Australia, ‘Memorandum Prepared for Delegation to Imperial Conference: Unoccupied Islands in the Vicinity Of Australia’, n.d., in Documents on Australian Foreign Policy, 1937–49, Vol. 1, 1937–38, ed. R. G. Neale (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1975), 14–18, available at https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/historical-documents/Pages/volume-01/4-memorandum-prepared-for-delegation-to-imperial-conference; H. J. Buchholz, Law of the Sea Zones in the Pacific Ocean (1987), at 2; S. Ratuva, ‘Pacific Island States’, in P. Clavert (eds.), Borders and Territorial Disputes in the World (2004), 236.
24 See Heathcote, supra note 11, at 671.
25 Into the framework of this project, research was conducted on the sources housed in the National Archives of the United Kingdom, the National Archives and Cultural Centre in Port Vila, the Pacific Manuscripts Bureau in Canberra, the Archives of New Zealand, the French Archives of Foreign Affairs (Archives du Ministère des affaires étrangères or AMAE) at La Courneuve, and the Archives Nationales d’Outre-Mer (ANOM) in Aix-en-Provence. Results were published in Song, Mosses and Giraudeau, supra note 16.
26 See Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Director of Overseas Territories, 5 October 1964, AMAE, 31DJ/88, Letter no. 41/A5; Letter from F.H. Brown to A.M. Wilkie, FCO141.13277, Document 23, 7 October 1965; Editorial, ‘The French Reply’, Islands Business, March 1983, at 22.
27 See Buchholz, supra note 23, at 2; R. Crocombe, ‘Land Reform: Prospects for Prosperity’, in R. Crocombe (ed.) Land Tenure in the Pacific (1987), 389; Government of Australia, supra note 23; Editorial, ‘Wanted: One Barren, Volcanic Island to be Landlords of ’, Pacific Islands Monthly, April 1963, at 89.
28 See Buchholz, supra note 23, at 2; Crocombe, ibid., at 389.
29 Bob Paul’s letter to the Pacific Islands Monthly, ‘The Man Who Once Claimed Matthew Is.’, Pacific Islands Monthly, June 1983, at 7.
30 The Court only had jurisdiction over the New Hebrides lands.
31 British National Archives, FCO141.13277 F.68/378/6, 18 December 1962.
32 Based on research mentioned above in note 25, supra.
33 This request was transmitted by the ambassador of France in Britain to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 29 March 1963, AMAE, Letter 442/A5, 31DJ/88.
34 Note from the Legal Service of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the director of Diplomatic Archives, 20 August 1964, AMAE, 31DJ/88. Unless otherwise stated, the translation is the authors’ own.
35 Letter from the British secretary of state for the colonies to the acting British resident commissioner, New Hebrides, 24 November 1964, TNA, FCO 141/13277.
36 Letter from F. H. Brown to A. M. Wilkie, British National Archives, FCO141.13277, 7 October 1965.
37 Letter from British and French Resident Commissioners to the New Hebrides to the Joint Court of the New Hebrides, British National Archives, FCO141.13277, 22 November 1965 (emphasis added). For discussion about why Britain was content with the French claim, see Song, Mosses and Giraudeau, supra note 16, at 247–8.
38 Letter from E. Buteri to Henri Martinet and Robert Paul, 22 November 1965, TNA, FCO 141/13277, doc. 26.
39 Editorial, ‘The French Reply’, Islands Business, March 1983, at 22.
40 Note from the Legal Service of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the director of Diplomatic Archives, 20 August 1964, AMAE, 31DJ/88. Unless otherwise stated, the translation is the authors’ own.
41 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331.
42 M. Fitzmaurice ‘The Practical Working of the Law of Treaties’, in M. D. Evans (ed.) International Law (2018), 138, at 139.
43 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 1 July 1994, [1994] ICJ Rep. 112.
44 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), PCIJ Series A/B, No 53, at 22.
45 For further discussion about unwritten treaties see R. Gardiner, Treaties (2023), at Ch. 1.III.3.
46 British National Archives, FCO107/377, 7 October 1981, Document 9, at 2.
47 ‘Convention between the United Kingdom and France concerning the New Hebrides, signed at London, October 20, 1906’, (1907) 1(2) American Journal of International Law 179, Supplement: Official Documents (April 1907). See also S. Heathcote, ‘Legal Models and Methods of Western Colonisation of the South Pacific’, (2022) 24 Journal of the History of International 62, at 92.
48 Protocol respecting the New Hebrides, signed at London, 6 August 1914, by representatives of the British and French governments, enclosed in ‘The New Hebrides Order in Council’, 1922. The 1914 Protocol was not formally ratified until 1922.
49 New Zealand Embassy in Paris, Letter to secretary of external affairs, Wellington, 1965, Archives New Zealand Te Rua Mahara o te Kāwanatanga, Wellington, 07/1965-08/1977, PAR 304/1/6, R22447223.
50 United Nations, ‘New Caledonia’, UNST/PSCA(05)/D3/No.37/ENG/COP.1 (May 1988), 2, available at www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/sites/www.un.org.dppa.decolonization/files/decon_num_37-1.pdf.
51 Ibid.
52 K. Parlett, ‘State Conduct in Territorial Disputes beyond Effectivités: Recognition, Acquiescence, Renunciation and Estoppel’, in M. Kohen and M. Hébié (eds.), Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law (2018), 169, at 183 (emphasis added). See also M. Hébié, ‘Acquiescement et volonté tacite du titulaire de la souveraineté territoriale’, in J. E. Vinuales et al. (eds.), The International Legal Order in the XXI century, Essays in honour of Professor Marcelo Gustavo Kohen (2023), 71.
53 See infra. For example, Shaw notes that ‘[t]here are argument as to the relationship between the states concerned, the identity of the sovereign for the purpose of the territory and the nature of competences involved’: M. Shaw, International Law (2014), at 165, and further references therein. See also Heathcote, supra note 47, at 94.
54 See 1906 Convention, supra note 47, Preamble and Art. I(1) (emphasis added).
55 The text of the 1907 Instructions was agreed upon by the British and French governments on 29 August 1907 and was not revised in 1914: British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 108, at 519.
56 D. P. O’Connell, ‘The Condominium of the New Hebrides’, (1968–1969) 43 British Yearbook of International Law 71, at 93.
57 See 1907 Instructions, supra note 55 (emphasis added).
58 See Heathcote, supra note 47, at 94; the learned author argued: ‘Legally speaking the regime was different to the joint protectorate over Samoa not only because there was no recognised local sovereign in the New Hebrides but also because it was intended that the condominium itself, as a legal person distinct from its members, hold sovereignty over the New Hebrides.’
59 Colonial Office, Reports on the New Hebrides (1955) (emphasis added); reports in other years stated the same. As seen in M Kohen, ‘Is the Notion of Territorial Sovereignty Obsolete?’, in M. A. Pratt and J. A. Brown (eds.), Borderlands Under Stress (2000), 35, at 41–2. See also Colonial Office, New Hebrides: Anglo-French Condominium: Report for the years 1965 and 1966 (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1968) at 105.
60 The French National Court in the New Hebrides had to consider the legal status of the New Hebrides when the Condominium sued for compensation after a vehicle of a French District Agent was negligently damaged. No judgment was given as the defendant subsequently paid the damages.
61 Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, Fiche No. 513, as seen in O’Connell, supra note 56, at 86.
62 V. P. Bantz, ‘The International Legal Status of Condominia’, (1998) 12 Florida Journal of International Law 77, at 77, 89.
63 See O’Connell, supra note 56, at 81.
64 Ibid., at 81–2.
65 A. A. El-Erian, ‘Condominium and Related Situations in International Law: With Special Reference to the Dual Administration of the Sudan and the Legal Problems Arising out of It’, doctoral thesis (1951) Columbia University, at 141. He also states: ‘For a state to claim a Condominium in a certain territory with another state means that she claims that the territorial sovereignty of that territory belongs to her conjointly with the other state.’ Ibid., at 100.
66 M. Shaw, International Law (2014), at 166.
67 See Bantz, supra note 62, at 121; J. H. Samuels, ‘Condominium Arrangements in International Practice: Reviving an Abandoned Concept of Boundary Dispute Resolution’, (2008) 29(4) Michigan Journal of International Law 727, at 738; H. Blais, ‘Sharing Colonial Sovereignty? The Anglo-French Experience of the New Hebrides Condominium, 1880s–1930s’, in J. R. Fichter (ed.) British and French Colonialism in Africa, Asia and the Middle East (2019), 225.
68 See Bantz, supra note 62, at 94 (with further reference to A. Coret, Le Condominium I (1960)), 121.
69 E.g., see O’Connell, supra note 56, at 109.
70 Ibid.
71 For discussion about principles of acquisition of territory see M. Dixon, Textbook on International Law (2013), Ch. 6.3; J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (2019), Ch. 9.
72 French Foreign Affairs Archives, 31DJ/88, 5 October 1964, Letter n°41/A5.
73 For discussion about the merits of the French claim over the MHIs see Mosses, supra note 11.
74 Common Article 1 of the 1966 Covenants provides:
-
1.
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
-
2.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
-
3.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
75 Self-determination is the subject of abundant academic literature. For recent publications on the history of self-determination see, for instance, P. Sands, ‘Colonialism: A Short History of International Law in Five Acts’, in (2023)431 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, at 298 et seq.; or T. Sparks, Self-Determination in the International Legal System (2023).
76 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, [1971] ICJ Rep. 16.
77 Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, [2019] ICJ Rep. 95.
78 For a few examples of actual territorial disputes linked to the historical process of decolonization, let us mention Mayotte and Tromelin Island in the Indian Ocean or the Falklands in the Atlantic.
79 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, para. 150.
80 Resolution 1541(XV), A/RES/1541(XV) (15 December 1960).
81 Resolution 2625(XXV), A/RES/25/2625 (24 October 1970) carrying the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
82 See Resolution 1514(XV), A/RES/1514 (14 December 1960), para. 6.
83 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, para. 160.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Resolution 2066(XX), A/RES/2066(XX) (16 December 1965).
87 Resolution 2232(XXI), A/RES/2232(XXI) (20 December 1966) (Question of American Samoa, Antigua, Bahamas, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Dominica, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Grenada, Guam, Mauritius, Montserrat, New Hebrides, Niue, Pitcairn, St. Helena, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia St. Vincent, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tokelau Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands).
88 Resolution 2357(XXII), A/RES/2357(XXII) (19 December 1967) (Question of American Samoa, Antigua, Bahamas, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Dominica, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Grenada, Guam, Mauritius, Montserrat, New Hebrides, Niue, Pitcairn, St. Helena, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tokelau Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands).
89 Ibid., para. 172.
90 The UN General Assembly, requested by the Comorian authorities, has always recognized Comorian sovereignty on Mayotte and condemned the attachment of Mayotte to France under the principle of self-determination of peoples and territorial integrity of the Comoros. See Resolution 3161(XXVIII), A/RES/3161 (XXVIII) (14 December 1973), Resolution 3291(XXIX), A/RES/3291 (XXIX) (13 December 1974), Resolution 31/4, A/RES/31/4 (21 October 1976), Resolution 49/18, A/RES/49/18 (6 December 1994).
91 In its Resolution 34/91 of 12 December 1979 titled ‘Question of the islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India’, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed ‘the necessity of scrupulously respecting the national unity and territorial integrity of a colonial territory at the time of its accession to independence’: Resolution 34/91, A/RES/34/91 (12 December 1979).
92 See L. Song and M. Mosses, ‘Revisiting Ocean Boundary Disputes in the South Pacific in Light of the South China Sea Arbitration: A Legal Perspective’, (2018) 33(4) International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 768, at 775–8.
93 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, para. 150.
94 O. Corten and P. Klein, ‘Le différend franco-malgache sur les Iles Eparses du Canal du Mozambique à la lumière de l’avis consultatif de la Cour internationale de Justice sur les Chagos’, in Vinuales et al., supra note 52, at 44.
95 Ibid.
96 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, Declaration of Judge Abraham, at 62.
97 See Resolution 1514, supra note 82, para. 6.
98 Resolution 2625(XXV), A/RES/2625(XXV) (24 October 1970).
99 See Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, para. 160.
100 See Corten and Klein, supra note 94.
101 See Section 2, supra.
102 Ibid.
103 See, for instance, Kichwa indigenous people of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Judgment of 27 June 2012, [2012] CIDH.
104 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, [1975] ICJ Rep.12, para. 55.
105 French constitutional law recognizes the legal existence of the ‘people of France’ and the ‘Kanak people’, not the ‘people of New Caledonia’. Such perspective from the UN means that we do not have to consider the difficult issue of determining who should be allowed to vote in the referendums of independence. For such reference to the ‘people of New Caledonia’, see for example the last resolution: Resolution 77/142, A/RES/77/142 (16 December 2022).
106 On this question see also P. Bodeau-Livinec, ‘Le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples insulaires’, in SFDI, Les îles et de le droit international (2020), 112 et seq.
107 New Caledonia’s FLNKS, the pro-independence political group that represents the Kanaks, recognized in 2009, through the Keamu Declaration, that the Matthew and Hunter Islands traditionally belong to Vanuatu and not New Caledonia. On the Keamu Declaration see N. Maclellan, ‘Ocean Diplomacy: the Kéamu Accord, Kastom and Maritime Boundaries’, (2022) 4 ANU Discussion Paper.
108 On the spatial perspective that was given to self-determination above the people perspective see Bodeau-Livinec, supra note 106.
109 N. Schrijver and V. Prislan, ‘Case Concerning Sovereignty over Islands before the International Court of Justice and the Dokdo/Takeshima Issue’, (2015) 46 Ocean Development and International Law 281, 283 et seq.
110 Island of Palmas case (USA/Netherlands), Awards, [1928] II RIAA 829; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624; Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 12; Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea v. Yemen), Awards, [1998] XXII RIAA 211; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment of 14 June 1993, [1993] ICJ Rep. 38; Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico), Awards, [1931] 2 RIAA 1105.
111 Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 698, para. 117.
112 On this point see Song and Mosses, supra note 92, at 775.
113 See Sautier, supra note 11, at 59.
114 Ibid. Such missions as La Bayonnaise in 1975, La Dunkerquoise in 1976, and La Dieppoise in 1977. See Song, Mosses and Giraudeau, supra note 16.
115 Ibid.
116 Loi n°76-1222 du 28 décembre 1976 relative à l’organisation de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et dépendances.
117 For more recent examples see Mission de souveraineté pour le Vendemiaire, Ministère de la Défense, 17 June 2015, available at www.archives.defense.gouv.fr/operations/territoire-national/forces-de-souverainete/forces-armees-de-la-nouvelle-caledonie/breves/fanc-mission-de-souverainete-sur-les-ilots-matthew-et-hunter.html; C. Fonfreyde et al., ‘Matthew et Hunter: mission de suivi terrestre’, Mai 2013, at 4, available at mer-de-corail.gouv.nc/sites/default/files/atoms/files/matthew_hunter.pdf; P. Borsa and J. Baudat-Franceschi, Mission ornithologique aux îles Matthew et Hunter, 19–23 janvier 2009, [Rapport de recherche] Institut de recherche pour le developpement (IRD) (2009), at 19–23, available at hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ird-00666118/document.
118 Translation of the authors. See Sautier, supra note 11. The author bases this quotation on an argumentative note from the Direction des affaires politiques, administratives et financières n°7166/DAPAF/AP/AI.
119 See Section 1, supra.
120 The ‘stamp affair’.
121 On that point see Legal status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment, PCIJ Series A/B No 53.
122 A. Abass, International Law: Texts, Cases and Materials (2014), at 202–3.
123 Ibid., at 212.
124 Receipt of the submission made by France to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, UN Doc. CLCS.08.2007.LOS, Continental Shelf Notification (29 May 2007), available at www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_fra.htm.
125 Letter published in Local Newspaper Vanuatu Daily Post on 8 May 2014, available at www.dailypost.vu/news/vanuatu-objects-to-marine-natural-park-established-by-new-caledonia/article_c395b4ab-62f9-5579-8a2a-f564b8203d19.html; see Arrêté n° 2014-1063/GNC du 23 avril 2014 créant le Parc naturel de la mer de Corail.
126 See S. J. Anaya, ‘The Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples: United Nations Developments’, (2013) 35 University of Hawai’i Law Review 983.
127 The UN Human Rights Committee was supportive of applying Art. 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for the benefit of indigenous peoples well before the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples explicitly affirmed the right to self-determination of the indigenous peoples in its Art. 1. See, for instance, Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Canada, CCPR/C/79/Add.105 (7 April 1999).
128 Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Judgment of 12 April 1960, [1960] ICJ Rep. 6, paras. 35–43.
129 Sovereignty and Maritime Delimitation in the Red Sea (Eritrea/Yemen), PCA Case No. 1996-04, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of 9 October 1998, para. 126, available at www.pca-cpa.org.
130 The Government of Sudan/The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (Abyei Arbitration), PCA Case No. 2008-07, (2009) XXX RIAA 145.
131 Ibid., Final Award of 22 July 2009, para.763. The Tribunal relied on Arts. 13(1) and 14(1) of the Convention No 169 to make the above affirmation. Article 13(1) provides:
Governments shall respect the special importance for the cultures and spiritual values of the peoples concerned of their relationship with the lands or territories, or both as applicable, which they occupy or otherwise use, and in particular the collective aspects of this relationship.
Further, Art. 14(1) states:
… measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities. Particular attention shall be paid to the situation of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators in this respect.
132 Ibid., para. 765. ILO Convention No 169, Art. 14(2).
133 Ibid., para. 766.
134 Behring Sea Arbitration, Great Britain v. United States, 15 August 1893, 179 CTS, No. 8, 97, at 98.
135 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (IndonesialMalaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 625; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgment of 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40.
136 Gulf of Maine (Canada v. US), Judgment of 12 October 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 246, at 342. Also see Maritime Delimitation (Denmark v. Norway) where the ICJ considered the question of ‘whether any shifting or adjustment of the median line as fishery zone boundary would be required to ensure equitable access to the capelin fishery resources for the vulnerable fishing communities concerned’. (Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment of 14 June 1993, [1993] ICJ Rep. 38, paras. 72–78).
137 See 1888 Agreement between Great Britain and France, respecting the Somali Coast, signed at London, February 1888, Hertslet’s, Vol. XIX, 204, at 204–5, Art. 1; Arrangement between Great Britain and France, fixing the Boundary between the British and French Possessions on the Gold Coast, signed in the French language at Paris, 12 July 1893, Hertslet’s, Vol. XIX, 228, at 229–30, Art. V; Treaty between Great Britain and Ethiopia, signed by the Emperor Menelek II, and by Her Majesty’s Envoy, at Adis Abbaba [sic], 14 May 1897, Hertslet’s, Vol. XX, 1, at 2, Art. I.
138 Treaty on Sovereignty and Maritime Boundaries in the Area between the Countries, 18 December 1978, (1979) XVIII ILM 291, at 293. Also see Treaty relating to the Legal Regime of Archipelagic State and the Rights of Malaysia in the Territorial Sea, Archipelagic Waters and the Territory of the Republic of Indonesia lying between East and West Malaysia, cited in R. R. Churchill and A. V. Lowe, The Law of the Sea (revised ed., 1988), 109.
139 B. Makin, ‘Matthew and Hunter Day’, Vanuatu Daily Post, 12 March 2015, available at dailypost.vu/news/matthew-and-hunter-day/article_253d5ec4-47b1-5a5c-ac54-69a739cee733.html.
140 Flash d’Océanie, 30 November 2010, available at www.tahiti-infos.com/Les-iles-Matthew-et-Hunter-n-en-finissent-pas-d-empoisonner-les-relations-franco-vanuatuanes_a13518.html; Fisher, supra note 7, at 146.
141 Notable exception is given by the Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) case in front of the ICJ.
142 Adoption of GA/RES.77/276 on March 2023, ‘Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change’, led by Vanuatu, is one of the strong illustrations of such movement.
143 France withdrew its acceptance of the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction after the nuclear testing case, which in any case excluded territorial disputes from jurisdiction. UNCLOS could neither be mobilized to resolve a territorial dispute.
144 Tromelin Island, the only land formation of the Scattered Islands outside the Mozambique Channel, is now disputed solely by Port Louis. First attached to the Isle de France (Mauritius), then to the Ile Bourbon (Réunion Island), the islet was not claimed by Mauritius until eight years after its independence, in 1976. France firmly defended its sovereignty, on the bases of its discovery of Tromelin Island in the eighteenth century and its occupation from 1954 through meteorological infrastructures.
145 Framework Agreement of 7 June 2010 between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of Mauritius on the economic, scientific, and environmental co-management of Tromelin Island and its surrounding areas, available at www.senat.fr/leg/pjl11-299-conv.pdf.
146 However, the agreement is not entirely devoid of normative effects. See D.-S. Robin, ‘La zone maritime disputée entre la France et Maurice autour du récif de Tromelin’, (2019) AFDI, at 579–600.