Maldives Attorney General's Office quashes rumors over the island nation conceding Maldives-Mauritius overlapping area control over to the latter. According to Maldives AG Office, Maldives remains unchanged in its stance regarding the boundary dispute.
The case concerned with the overlapping exclusive economic zones between Maldives and Mauritius, currently ongoing at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) took an unexpected turn earlier, when it was declared that Maldives was shifting support to Mauritius over Chagos Archipelago decolonization. This resulted with rumors amok, claiming Maldives was attempting to relinquish control from a portion of its exclusive economic zone to Mauritius.
AG's Office clarified the case concerning Chagos Islands' decolonization at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Maldives and Mauritius are two distinct cases, tried at two different courts. The office further confirmed, the decision by Maldives government to support Mauritius with the ICJ advisory opinion demanding UK end its control over Chagos Island, does not reflect the former relinquishing portion of its territorial waters.
The Maldives is basing its preliminary objections of three major aspects, which include;
- Mauritius proposes measuring base-point from Blenheim Reef's dry tide point, which Maldives identifies as a violation against international law. Mauritius objects Maldives' preposition to apportion the disputed territory, which if Maldives is successful in legally claiming will result in acquiring an area of 4,687 square kilometers.
- Maldives identifies that unlike the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), which is the specific body to legally enforce continental shelf limits of countries, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) Special Chamber lacks the scientific experts required to comment. The Maldives finds its 2010 preposition to extend its continental shelf by 200 nautical miles, filed at CLCS should be upheld at ITLOS, and adds that Mauritius' claim at the ITLOS Special Chamber does not have jurisdiction.
- While ITLOS declared jurisdiction on the case, after rejecting the preliminary objections by Maldives, it is observed that Mauritius failed to present the "Natural Prolongation" evidences to confirm continental shelf.
The case filed at ITLOS by Mauritius on August 23, 2019 did not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, which was pointed out as a procedural issue by the Maldives consistently. However, the court declared jurisdiction on January 28, 2021.
Both parties are currently answering the questions directed by the court's Special Chamber.
Maldives presented its responses after thorough discussions with the government authorities, parliament, and with the priority of ensuring the protection of the country's top sovereign rights, confirms AG's Office.
The AG's Office further highlighted the importance of the case for Maldives, which is a fishing heavy country. The authority affirms the Maldivian representatives team is comprised of highly competent international advocates, hydrography and geology experts. Maldives defended its objections in accordance with existing international law, precedence and existing international conventions and charters.
AG's Office clarifies Maldives government shifted its stance in favor of Mauritius in the 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, to support decolonization of Chagos Islands. Previously, Maldives took the stand in favor of maintaining UK's colonial control over Chagos Islands.
Moreover, AG's Office reiterated that Maldives' decision to support Mauritius was not tied to the delimitation of the maritime boundary, but rather, with decolonization of Chagos Islands which according to ICJ was part of Mauritius.
In 2019, ICJ declared UK's detachment of Mauritius from Chagos Archipelago was in violation of international law. The court demanded UK to relinquish its control from Chagos Islands, and revert them back to Mauritius. The court's advisory opinion was upheld at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on May 22, 2019. The resolution from UNGA was passed with 116 nations voting in favor, Maldives along with five other countries were among those who rejected it.
Maldives confirms, its decision to reject the resolution was owed to Mauritius' objection on the former's CLCS request to extend its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, filed on July 26, 2010. Mauritius filed a formal protest on March 24, 2011.
Maldives changed its stance regarding the Chagos Archipelago issue due to its foreign policy of prioritizing decolonization, since it gained independence in 1965. AG's Office further clarifies the relationship between the archipelagic neighbors were improving.
Earlier, Attorney General Ibrahim Riffath confirmed Maldives President sent a letter to Mauritian Prime Minister confirming the island nation's decision to support its neighbor regarding the Chagos Archipelago issue.
"Voting on any matter discoursed at UN General Assembly is tied to the foreign policies of the Maldives. In accordance to Article 115 (j) of the Maldives Constitution, the President of the Maldives has the power "to determine, conduct and oversee the foreign policy of the country, and to conduct political relations with foreign nations and international organizations." AG Office statement read.
It should be noted that the case at ICJ is tied to the Chagos Archipelago decolonization, for which Maldives supports Mauritius to end UK's control over the islands. However, the case at ITLOS is concerned with delimitation of the maritime boundary between Maldives and Mauritius regarding a disputed area within the overlapping area. The two are separate cases, while Maldives' decision to support Maldives at the ICJ case will not affect its stand at the ITLOS trial.
Sign In
