← Votes

A/RES/71/292 GA

Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965

71
Session
94
Yes
15
No
65
Abstentions
Draft symbol A/71/L.73
Adopted symbol A/RES/71/292
Category POLITICAL AND LEGAL QUESTIONS
Sponsors (1)
P5 Positions
Russia ~ United States United Kingdom China ~ France ~
UN Document A/RES/71/292 ↗

Vote Recorded VoteA/71/PV.88 June 22, 2017

— Abstain (65)
✗ No (15)
Absent (19)
✓ Yes (94)
Speeches following this vote (16) may include explanations of vote
The President
Before giving the floor for explanations of vote, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.
Ms. Bird (Australia)
Australia acknowledges the range of carefully considered positions on the matter before us and wishes to take this opportunity to explain its vote. We respect the decision of the Government of Mauritius to bring forward resolution 71/292, which we appreciate was sponsored by all members of the Group of African States. Australia has been a strong supporter of the United Nations decolonization ag…
Mrs. Carrión (Uruguay)
Uruguay, in line with its tradition of respect for international law and its support for the request for the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, as well as its support for the decolonization processes and the sovereignty and territorial integrity claims of peoples, voted in favour of resolution 71/292 submitted for the consideration of the Assembly. Uruguay values the initiat…
Mrs. Puerschel (Germany)
Germany’s abstention in the voting on resolution 71/292 is not to be understood as expressing any view whatsoever on the legal consequences of the matters in question. In our view, the dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom is bilateral in character. We welcome the fact that both parties are willing to settle the issue peacefully, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. W…
Mr. Li Yongsheng (China)
China abstained in the voting on resolution 71/292, which was just adopted. I wish to reiterate China’s firm support for the decolonization process and its understanding of the position of Mauritius on the question of decolonization. Recently, the countries concerned made efforts, through consultation and negotiation, to seek solutions to the question concerning the Chagos archipelago. China no…
Mr. Gómez Camacho (Mexico)
Mexico recognizes the International Court of Justice as the supreme jurisdictional body in charge of peacefully resolving disputes through the application of international law. My country has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court and acknowledges its contribution to the strengthening of the rule of law through the issuance of advisory opinions. Mexico has turned to and supported the use of the …
Mr. Van Bohemen (New Zealand)
New Zealand is a strong supporter of the international rule of law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through recourse to international courts and judicial mechanisms. However, we do not believe that the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice offers a useful method for clarifying the issues in this case. While advisory opinions can provide valuable guidance…
Mr. Lundkvist (Sweden)
Sweden firmly supports the International Court of Justice and its role in settling disputes submitted to the Court in accordance with article 36 of its Statute. Sweden also supports and encourages the use of advisory opinions in accordance with article 65 of the Statute. In our view, the competence of the Court in disputes referred to it by States and the mandate of the Court to give an advisory …
Mr. Zamora Rivas (El Salvador)
The topic under discussion today is undoubtedly one that involves bilateral relations. The problem is that the discussion has not gone deep enough; the actual root of the problem — namely, why is there a relationship between Mauritius and the United Kingdom at the bilateral level— has not been addressed? This issue is not the same as cases when our countries have bilateral discussions on territor…
Mr. Blanchard (Canada)
Canada abstained today because it does not take sides in foreign territorial disputes. However, as friends to both Mauritius and the United Kingdom, Canada encourages those two States to resolve or manage their dispute peacefully and amicably. I would like, however, to add a few points that I think are important in this instance. Canada supports the International Court of Justice and the importa…
Mrs. Pucarinho (Portugal)
Portugal abstained in the voting on resolution 71/292, adopted today. Portugal supports the goal of non-self-governing territories to exercise the right to self-determination, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, including the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in resolution 1514 (XV) and adopted on 14 De…
Mr. Heumann (Israel)
Without addressing the substantive issues raised in resolution 71/292, Israel is of the view that the resolution seeks to refer a bilateral dispute to the International Court of Justice. In our view, it is inappropriate to have recourse to the advisory opinion mechanism in order to involve the International Court of Justice in a territorial dispute that is essentially bilateral in nature. The und…
Mr. Vieira (Brazil)
Brazil voted in favour of resolution 71/292. We continue to encourage all of the parties involved to remain genuinely engaged in dialogue and committed to the peaceful settlement of this issue. Decolonization constitutes one of the unfinished tasks of the United Nations and is therefore an issue of interest to the international community as a whole. The General Assembly has a crucial role to pla…
Mr. Suan (Myanmar)
Myanmar has always been a steadfast advocate of decolonization. We stand by, in good faith, the 1960 United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. However, we believe that the ongoing bilateral negotiations represent the best way to avoid confrontation and to bring a mutually accepted solution to Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Myanmar therefore …
Mr. Habib (Indonesia)
Indonesia is among the countries that went through a long and difficult process of decolonization. For that reason, we understand fully what it means for the people of a nation to obtain their rightful independence and sovereignty from their former colonial Power. Such was the mandate of our Constitution, which underlined that it is the inalienable right of all nations to achieve their independe…
The President
We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to conclude its consideration of agenda item 87?
Full text of resolution OCR extract — may contain errors
United Nations A/RES/71/292 General Assembly Distr.: General 22 June 2017 Seventy-first session Agenda item 87 17-10434 (E) *1710434* Please recycle Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 22 June 2017 [without reference to a Main Committee (A/71/L.73 and Add.1)] 71/292. Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 The General Assembly, Reaffirming that all peoples have an inalienable right to the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory, Recalling the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, and in particular paragraph 6 thereof, which states that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Recalling also its resolution 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, in which it invited the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take effective measures with a view to the immediate and full implementation of resolution 1514 (XV) and to take no action which would dismember the Territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity, and its resolutions 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967, Bearing in mind its resolution 65/118 of 10 December 2010 on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, reiterating its view that it is incumbent on the United Nations to continue to play an active role in the process of decolonization, and noting that the process of decolonization is not yet complete, Recalling its resolution 65/119 of 10 December 2010, in which it declared the period 2011–2020 the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism, and its resolution 71/122 of 6 December 2016, in which it called for the immediate and full implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, A/RES/71/292 Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 2/2 Noting the resolutions on the Chagos Archipelago adopted by the Organization of African Unity and the African Union since 1980, most recently at the twenty- eighth ordinary session of the Assembly of the Union, held in Addis Ababa on 30 and 31 January 2017, and the resolutions on the Chagos Archipelago adopted by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries since 1983, most recently at the Seventeenth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held on Margarita Island, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, from 13 to 18 September 2016, and in particular the deep concern expressed therein at the forcible removal by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of all the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago, Noting also its decision of 16 September 2016 to include in the agenda of its seventy-first session the item entitled “Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965”, on the understanding that there would be no consideration of this item before June 2017, Decides, in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, to request the International Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, to render an advisory opinion on the following questions: (a) “Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and having regard to international law, including obligations reflected in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967?”; (b) “What are the consequences under international law, including obligations reflected in the above-mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued administration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Chagos Archipelago, including with respect to the inability of Mauritius to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin?”. 88th plenary meeting 22 June 2017
Cite this page

UN Project. “A/RES/71/292.” UN Project, https://un-project.org/votes/resolution/A-RES-71-292/. Accessed .