Advisory Opinion or Judgment? The Case of the Chagos Archipelago

Main Article Content

Brygida Kuźniak
Danuta Kabat-Rudnicka

Abstrakt

The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the ICJ’s advisory opinion of 25 February 2019 on the Chagos Archipelago. It will endeavour to answer the following questions: (i) is it consistent with the letter and the spirit of international law for the ICJ to issue advisory opinions in cases involving a dispute between states, which, due to the lack of consent from one of the states, cannot be brought before the ICJ and be settled by a judgment of that judicial body?; (ii) is such a ruling the right way to settle the issue of decolonization?; and (iii) did Brexit play any role in the case under discussion? The article begins by describing the background to the dispute between the UK and Mauritius. The focus of the analysis then shifts to the nature of advisory opinions and the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago. Next, the authors discuss the possible impact of Brexit on the dispute between the UK and Mauritius itself, as well as on the UK’s international standing in general. The article concludes with reflections on voluntarism in international law. The authors conclude that de lege lata an authorized body or organization may ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion in situations where it believes that such an opinion would be useful for its work. However, such advisory opinions should not have the character of authoritative court statements made in pending disputes between sovereign states. As a consequence, such opinions should refer only to abstract legal problems, which means that in some cases the ICJ should refrain from issuing them.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Kuźniak, B., & Kabat-Rudnicka, D. (2021). Advisory Opinion or Judgment? The Case of the Chagos Archipelago. Przegląd Prawniczy Uniwersytetu Im. Adama Mickiewicza, 13, 45-75. https://doi.org/10.14746/ppuam.2021.13.03
Dział
Articles

Bibliografia

  1. Allen S., International Law and the Resettlement of the (Outer) Chagos Islands, “Human Rights Law Review” 2008.
  2. Allen S., Self – determination, the Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Chagossians, “ICLQ” 2020.
  3. Andrzejczuk R., Prawa człowieka podstawą prawa narodów do samostanowienia, Lublin 2004.
  4. Brunnée J., Consent in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, ed. R. Wolfrum, vol. II, New York 2012.
  5. Cormacain R., Prerogative legislation as the paradigm of bad law-making: the Chagos Islands, “Commonwealth Law Bulletin” 2013.
  6. Czapliński W., Sądownictwo międzynarodowe, in Wielka encyklopedia prawa, eds. J. Symonides, D. Pyć, vol. IV, Warszawa 2014.
  7. Frost T., Murray C., The Chagos Islands Cases: The Empire Strikes Back, “Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly” 2015.
  8. Greig D. W., The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court and the Settlement of Disputes between States, “International & Comparative Law Quarterly” 1966.
  9. Hakeen O. Y., Chowdhury T., The persistence of colonial constitutionalism in British Overseas Territories, “Global Constitutionalism” 2019.
  10. Jeffery L., For Mauritians, joy; for Chagossians, sadness: Mauritian independence, the sacrifice of the Chagos Archipelago, and the suffering of the Chagos islanders, in The Mauritian Paradox: Fifty years of development, diversity and democracy, eds. R. Ramtohul, T.H. Eriksen, Baltimore 2018.
  11. Kilian P., Self–determination of Peoples in the Charter of the United Nations, “RECHTD” 2019.
  12. Knop K., Diversity and Self – Determination in International Law, Cambridge 2002.
  13. Kolb R., The Elgar Companion to the International Court of Justice, London 2014.
  14. Kozłowski A., Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości in Współczesne sądownictwo międzynarodowe, ed. J. Kolasa, vol. II Wrocław 2010.
  15. Kuźniak B., Marcinko M., Ingelevič-Citak M., Organizacje międzynarodowe, Warszawa 2017.
  16. Law M., The Chagos Request: Does It Herald a Rejuvenation of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Function, “Queen Mary Law Journal” 2018.
  17. McCorquodale R., Robinson J., Peart N., Territorial Integrity and Consent in the Chagos Advisory Opinion, “International & Comparative Law Quarterly” 2020.
  18. Milanovic M., ICJ Delivers Chagos Advisory Opinion, UK Loses Badly, “European Journal of International Law Blog” 2019.
  19. Minas S., Why the ICJ’s Chagos Archipelago advisory opinion matters for global justice – and for ‘Global Britain’, “Transnational Legal Theory” 2019.
  20. Oppenheim L., International Law. A Treatise, vol. I, London–New York 1912.
  21. Pomerance M., Self – Determination in Law and Practice. The New Doctrine in the United Nations, The Hague–Boston–London 1982.
  22. Pomerance M., The ICJ’s Advisory Jurisdiction and the Crumbling Wall between the Political and the Judicial, “American Journal of International Law” 2005.
  23. Popiuk-Rysińska I., Uczestnicy stosunków międzynarodowych, ich interesy i oddziaływania in Stosunki międzynarodowe w XXI wieku, eds. E. Haliżak et al., Warszawa 2006.
  24. Roepstorff K., The Politics of Self-Determination Beyond the Decolonisation Process, New York 2013.
  25. Sand P. H., Fortress Conservation Trumps Human Rights?: The ‘Marine Protected Area’ in the Chagos Archipelago, “The Journal of Environment & Development” 2012.
  26. Shaw M. N., Prawo międzynarodowe, Warszawa 2000.
  27. Snoxell D., An ICJ Advisory Opinion, Basis for a Negotiated Settlement on the Issues concerning the Future of the Chagos Islanders and of the British Indian Ocean Territory, “QIL” 2018.
  28. Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska A., Kompetencje doradcze sądów międzynarodowych, in Współczesne sądownictwo międzynarodowe, ed. J. Kolasa, vol. II, Wrocław 2010.
  29. Yee S., Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 7) – The Upcoming Separation of the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion: Between the Court’s Participation in the UN’s Work on Decolonization and the Consent Principle in International Dispute Settlement, “Chinese Journal of International Law” 2017.