Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Colin MurrayORCiD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The UK Government’s critique of the International Court of Justice’s Chagos Advisory Opinion has focused upon the Court’s approach to the norms of international law applicable at the time of the British Indian Ocean Territory’s (BIOT) creation, which involved the excision of territories from two of its then-colonies, Mauritius and Seychelles. The decision turned on whether norms of self-determination relating to the territorial integrity of colonised territories had crystalised as customary international law before the BIOT was created in November 1965, a proposition the UK Government continues to publicly reject. This is a dispute about temporality and the development of customary international law. This article interrogates the UK Government’s claims by reviewing the holdings of the UK National Archives, which detail how ministers, legal advisers and officials understood the norms of self-determination applicable to the BIOT. They demonstrate that the UK Government was acutely aware of the implications of these rules for the new colony’s creation and sought to distract UN organs from the relevant legal questions. They therefore provide a window into how certain voices have long been prioritised over others in the processes by which customary international law develops.
Author(s): Frost T, Murray C
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Melbourne Journal of International Law
Year: 2024
Volume: 25
Issue: 1
Pages: epub ahead of print
Online publication date: 17/11/2024
Acceptance date: 05/04/2024
Date deposited: 21/08/2024
ISSN (print): 1444-8602
ISSN (electronic): 1444-8610
Publisher: University of Melbourne; Melbourne Law School
URL: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/mjil/issues/forthcoming-issues
ePrints DOI: 10.57711/mf4j-bw85
