MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK accused of “crimes against humanity” for not allowing people to return to Chagos islands, their ancestral home
The UK has been accused of committing “crimes against humanity” for refusing to allow people to return to their former homes on the Chagos Islands, despite a ruling earlier this year by the United Nation's highest court. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe UK ..“crimes against humanity“. Jugnauth is guilty of hyperbole, and thus loses his argument before he's out of the gate.
Dec 28th, 2019 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”List of Crimes Against Humanity Murder/Extermination. Enslavement. Deportation., ...“https://legaldictionary.net/crimes-against-humanity/United Kingdom
”(UK) claim is a violation of resolutions banning the dismemberment of colonial territories before independence.“ Resolutions are not compellable international law, merely advisements. Moreover, any such claim is barred as 'resjudica' ”The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a case brought by Chagos Islanders.
The court in Strasbourg ruled that the islanders’ case was inadmissible because the applicants had already been granted due legal process in Britain, The ruling said that by accepting financial compensation from the British government in the 1980s, the Chagossians, were no technically longer victims of human rights violations.
Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute“
https: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/9758451/Chagos-Islanders-defeated-in-European-Court.html
As did the Mauritian leaders, this makes their claim fraudulent, as they were already compensated. Thus, the rule of equity says: 'No one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud' ”..the Mauritian leaders pressed the UK with respect to the compensation offered for the the Archipelago .. the UK did, however, increase the level of lump sum compensation on offer from £1 million to £3 million and introduced the prospect of a commitment that the Archipelago would be returned to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes. ..The meetings culminated in the afternoon of 23 September 1965 (the “Lancaster House Meeting”) in a provisional agreement on the part of Sir Ramgoolam and his colleagues to agree in principle to the detachment..in exchange for the SofS recommending certain actions by the United Kingdom to the Cabinet. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Dec 28th, 2019 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -1”The United Kingdom evicted (the Chagossians) between 1967 and 1973 to allow the United States to build a military base...Chagossian natives have been prevented from returning to the islands.
“On 22 May 2019, the United Nations General Assembly debated and adopted a resolution that affirmed that the Chagos archipelago 'forms an integral part of the territory of Mauritius.'
”The resolution demanded that the UK 'withdraw its colonial administration … unconditionally within a period of no more than six months.'
”(As many as) 116 states voted in favour of the resolution, 55 abstained and only 5 countries supported the UK.
In response, and according to the above story:
”In a statement, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) told the BBC: 'The defense facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help protect people in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats and piracy.'
”We stand by our commitment to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it's no longer required for defense purposes.“
Well: The world, through its legitimate voice that is the UN, have spoken to the UK:
“Decolonize - right now.”
The UK, which forcefully expatriated a whole population to make room for nothing else than a US military base, continues to claim it needs the base to “help protect people in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats and piracy.”
Okay. In Chagos, the motive is security...6,000 miles away. The native population, Britain does not give a rat's arse.
In Malvinas, their uttermost worry is the rights of the population.
Which is which, Britain?
Terence will excuse me if I have a hearty laugh about his convoluted piece in support of old-style, full-fledged colonialism.
EM
Dec 28th, 2019 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“On 22 May 2019, the United Nations General Assembly debated and adopted a resolution ...The world, through its legitimate voice that is the UN, have spoken to the UK” Once again, it is merely an advisement which is not binding on anybody.
“..his convoluted piece in support of old-style, full-fledged colonialism” In your desperation you have failed to refute that the Chagos, and the Mauritians both reached legal binding agreements with the UK. You can, along with many Britons, may accuse the UK government of 'high-handedness'. But you cannot make case of colonialism, since there was an offer made, and an offer accepted. That compensation was made with a concluding clause, for the eventual return of the Island.
What you have discovered, is that mystical area of 'national security'. In which there may be many times, which you disagree with the doctrine. But, I'm assured by political scientists, that it is considered part of 'Realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals.'
https://www.britannica.com/topic/realpolitik
Somebody writes: “Well: The world, through its legitimate voice that is the UN, have spoken to the UK”
Dec 29th, 2019 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't know that a human being can be so stupid, but alas!
The UN is a political voice, not a legitimate one. For example, in the UN most members of the council for human rights are the worst perpetrators of human rights.
EM
Dec 29th, 2019 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Moreover, any such rulings from the ICJ are advisory, and not binding since the UK had never submitted the question them self's for consideration.
Secondly, if the ICJ was interested in a legal determination, and not a political one. They should have recused the court from entertaining a claim that was now clearly considered to be invalid, due to the legal effect of 'extinctive prescription'
”There is a general principle, in international law jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time.
“The principle of extinctive prescription, that is, the bar of claims by lapse of time, is recognized by international law. It has been applied by arbitration tribunals in a number of cases. The application of the principle is flexible and there are no fixed time limits…. Undue delay in presenting a claim, which may lead to it being barred, is to distinguished from effects of the passage of time on the merits of the claim in cases where the claimant state has, by failing to protest or otherwise, given evidence of acquiescence’”: I Oppenheim 526 and 527. See Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), Chap. 18; King, Prescription of Claims in International Law, (1934) 15 B.Y.I.L. 82. Cf. prescription, acquisitive.
The last time I looked they have tossed a claim that exceeded thirty years (The Gentini case PCA 1903). Between 1967 and 1973, the Chagossians, then numbering over 1,000 people, were expelled forty-six years ago.
Funny how Terry has no respect for the UN's opinion on the Chagos, but thinks their opinion on Lula is super important and Brazil should follow it.
Dec 29th, 2019 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much like the countries of the world that only care about self-determination or rule of law or human rights when it suits them. Britain has treated those people horribly, and Mauritius is trying to use them now it seems expedient.
DT
Dec 30th, 2019 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Terry has no respect for the UN's opinion” In your humble opinion. What I have shown is that according the tenets of international the UK has every facet on their side. Since they have dotted all the I's on their side of the equation. The rest is merely political rhetoric. The UN didn't have any other choice with Lula. Since he would never have been convicted in N. American or a European court.
What ever the Chagos merits of their claim they have exhausted their legal process. If they are equal in law with rest of us then they are also subject to latches, and resjudica.
In other words legally its finished.
In your own words. And who cares what the UN thinks about Lula, it's merely an advisement which is not binding on anybody.
Dec 30th, 2019 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0DT
Dec 30th, 2019 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Who cares what the UN thinks about Lula” Oops your bias is working to day. Lula's case is governed by the UNHR of which Brazil is a signatory, and therefor bound by it.
Further more, it is your view that the precepts of the rule of law should be cast aside, to accommodate what ever is the flavour of the month and override all previous legal determinations.
”For the United Nations (UN) system, the rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, ... It requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of the law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/what-is-the-rule-of-law/
Your bias, you think you know better than both the ICJ judges and Brazil's highest courts. And isn't that the same UNHRC that infamously has some of biggest human rights abusers as members?
Dec 30th, 2019 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DT
Dec 30th, 2019 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you think you know better” I have shown exactly why the ICJ is not in compliance with rule of law.
“Brazil's highest courts” Are evidence of how corrupt the system really is.
Its noted that regardless of your comments about some of the UNHRC members, you are unable to show that they're wrong. Which is your usual way, when you've lost the issue, revert to an argumentum ad hominem.
You can smell the greed oozing from every word this man speaks. “Born again” supporter of the Chagossian cause now is he???
Dec 30th, 2019 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There are two issues here, connected but different.
The handing over of the Chagos islands to Mauritius, when they are no longer needed. In reality when the lease runs out in just under 20 years. Which is what the Mauritians freely agreed to and accepted money for at the start. Where there is no EVIDENCE to the contrary.
The right of the Chagossians to “return” to the Islands.
Is Mr Jugnauth saying that under Mauritius control the Islanders would have a right to return?
There is nothing in the ruling about any “return” whilst still under British control.
Something for which the Chagossian have now twice been compensated for by the British following court rulings.
The real issue being these Islands will soon to be classified as reefs, unable to sustain human habitation or separate economic activity. There is nothing to go back to, they are sinking beneath the waves.
Mr Jugnauth is only interested in what can be extracted from there.
DT
Dec 31st, 2019 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“you think you know better than both the ICJ judges and Brazil's highest courts” The question is not what I think, but how they act, even though they know better.
Pugol-H
Dec 31st, 2019 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Mauritians agreed, but not freely. It's true there's no guarantee they'll let anyone return though, whether that's tomorrow or in 20 years. But how convenient for some parties if the islands are reclassified as reefs... classified by whom?
Allegations of coercion which only surface after everyone involved in the negotiations is dead, with no evidence whatsoever to support them.
Dec 31st, 2019 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, right.
It is actually now increasingly a matter for Mauritius and the Chagossians, the court cases against the Brit Gov have all been settled. Compensation paid.
The problem with allowing any “return” while still under UK control is sustaining a population in a place which can no longer support human habitation, and is as far away as it gets.
Unless you are going to start fishing and drilling to pay for it, which is what Mr Jugnauth will do.
Any application to change the status from Islands to reefs would have to go to the relevant UN Committee, I’m not aware any such application.
Mine was a comment on the habitability of the islands not the legal status.
It does happen countries try to “downgrade” someone else’s Island, look up Spain/Portugal dispute rocks/islands.
Usually countries want to go other way, as rocks only have 12 mile territorial waters/contiguous zone where as Islands get a 200 mile EEZ possible sea bed claim.
Mauritius certainly want to control the Islands and establish an EEZ as soon as possible.
It could well be that in 20 odd years when Mauritius eventually get to make that claim someone could object on the ground they are now reefs/rocks.
What bad luck that would be.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!