Showing signs of colonial arrogance, UK has refused to comply with a UN deadline to hand over the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. The dispute is reflective of a world still grappling with its unresolved colonial legacy and the UK’s tenacity on the issue evokes echoes of a colonial attitude that continues to rear its head in parts of the world.
Earlier this year, in an advisory opinion on the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found the separation of islands in 1965 was in contravention of international law. The court urged the UK to end “its administration of the Chagos Islands as rapidly as possible”.
Rejecting the ruling by ICJ, the UK has anyhow refused to hand over the archipelago to the island- country Mauritius. On contrary to the UK, a majority of UN member states voted in favour of a non-binding resolution that had urged the UK to “withdraw its colonial administration” from the Chagos Islands within six months. However the deadline passed on November 22, and it seems that the current UK government is no closer to giving up control of the islands.
This is not the first time that the ICJ has appeared toothless. It must be noted that so far several nations have refused to be budged by the rulings of the ICJ even Pakistan in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case has flouted the directives of the court.
Notably, Pakistan had announced soon after the directives that it does not accept the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in matters related to national security, its Foreign Office stated as the ICJ stayed the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav.
Foreign Office spokesman Nafees Zakaria immaturely hitting out at India, has said that the country has been “trying to hide its real face” by taking the case of Jadhav to ICJ. Jadhav, 46, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court and India approached the highest UN judicial body with the plea to stay his execution.
Pakistan’s mentor, China has also criticised and refused to honour the ICJ verdict declaring rejection of its territorial claims in the South China Sea, with Communist party-controlled newspapers warning of a military escalation in response to what they denounced as a US ploy to thwart China’s rise. As the ICJ ruled in favour of the Philippines and against Beijing’s claims to huge swaths of the strategically important waterway, Beijing rebuffed the verdict, calling it “a piece of paper that is destined to come to nought”. UK has also been following the footsteps of China and Pakistan in rejecting the court’s verdict.
Amusingly, the basis of the establishment of this toothless body, International Court of Justice (ICJ) was that its decisions should be enforceable and binding on most Nations of the World, but it has been seen that in reality, the decisions of the ICJ over the years have become extremely difficult to enforce leading to the efforts in making sure the said decisions are enforced through several methods other than cohesive or military interference. Countries such as Pakistan openly flout its directives rendering it of no use.
As a result, it becomes crucial at this stage to involve the organs of the United Nations in the enforcement of the ICJ decisions in order not to make the ICJ a good for nothing bulldog.