차고스 군도를 되찾기 위한 모리셔스의 국제법 활용에 대한 연구

The right of self-determination and its corollary principle of territorial integrity constituted the normative driving forces of the post–Second World War decolonization movement. The International Court of Justice’s 2019 advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago unequivocally confirmed that the international community had already proclaimed the existence of these two rules of international law through General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960. Having gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1968, Mauritius embarked on decades of persistent legal struggle, invoking international law to reclaim the Chagos Archipelago—its own territory that Britain had unilaterally detached on the eve of independence to establish a U.S. military base. Beginning with litigation before British domestic courts in the 1970s, Mauritius progressively expanded its struggle into the international legal arena, carefully building its case against a major power. In pursuing this strategy, Mauritius considered a range of procedural avenues—including recourse to the ICJ’s advisory jurisdiction, contentious proceedings before the Court, and arbitration under Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—while simultaneously monitoring developments in other international adjudications and the shifting political dynamics within the General Assembly. Ultimately, it was the arbitral proceedings instituted under UNCLOS against the United Kingdom in 2010 that provided the necessary momentum. With this leverage, Mauritius successfully secured a General Assembly resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ, overcoming the intensive opposition and lobbying efforts of two permanent members of the Security Council, the United Kingdom and the United States. In its landmark 2019 opinion, the Court held that the separation of the Chagos Archipelago constituted a violation of international law, specifically of the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity. The Court accordingly concluded that the decolonization of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed and that the United Kingdom was under a legal obligation to terminate its administration of the Chagos Archipelago “as rapidly as possible.” The General Assembly promptly acted upon the advisory opinion by adopting a resolution containing detailed directives for its implementation. Capitalizing on the authority of the advisory opinion and the subsequent General Assembly resolution—which both affirmed that the Chagos Archipelago formed an integral part of Mauritius—Mauritius instituted proceedings before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) against the Maldives in relation to maritime delimitation. ITLOS upheld Mauritius’ position, recognizing the legal effect of the ICJ’s advisory opinion and rendering a delimitation judgment on this basis. Thereafter, a variety of UN specialized agencies gave effect to this legal development within their respective domains. Following decades of complex litigation and diplomatic contestation, the United Kingdom and Mauritius finally concluded, on 22 May 2025, a treaty-based settlement that definitively recognized Mauritius’ sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. The decades-long legal struggle initiated by Mauritius, a small state, against the United Kingdom, a major power, since the 1970s has reasserted the normative authority and practical efficacy of international law as a vehicle for the pursuit of justice in the international community.