No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Secession, self-determination and territorial disagreements: Sovereignty claims in the contemporary South Pacific
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 May 2021
Abstract
This article maps the legally varied sovereignty claims in the contemporary South Pacific; whether secessionist, self-determination based, or consisting of territorial disputes or lesser disagreements. The analysis reveals that Pacific practice in this domain is consistent with general international law; that despite any fractures at the domestic level, relations between the states and territories of the region is peaceful, that their shared values have instead given rise to innovative solutions to legal problems concerning territory, either through the leveraging of regional institutions – so vital to the region’s identity – to pursue claims against metropolitan powers, or through innovative arrangements to alleviate territorial problems left by colonial powers. Indeed, the region is replete with innovative legal solutions based on shared values and peaceful international relations. As such, Pacific practice and engagement with international law can provide a blueprint for others around the globe.
- Type
- ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Footnotes
*
The author would like to thank Anja Hilkemeijer for invaluable feedback on earlier drafts – although any errors or oversights remain the author’s own. The text is current at 1 December 2020. It does not take into account the February 2021 decision by Micronesian States to withdraw from the Pacific Islands Forum (which will take 12 months to take effect) and which may or may not prove to be a temporary decision. On the withdrawal see G. Fry, ‘Pacific Islands Forum Split: Possibilities for Diplomacy’, Devpolicy Blog, 23 February 2021, available at www.devpolicy.org/the-pacific-islands-forum-split-possibilities-for-pacific-diplomacy-20210223/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-pacific-islands-forum-split-possibilities-for-pacific-diplomacy-20210223.
References
1 See, for instance, the Pacific Islands Forum’s statement, ‘Blue Pacific’s Call for Urgent Global Climate Change Action’, 15 May 2019, available at www.forumsec.org/pacific-islands-forum-statement-blue-pacifics-call-for-urgent-global-climate-change-action/.
2 Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to the Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. UK), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 5 October 2016, [2016] ICJ Rep. 833, at 849–51, paras. 37–43. On the concept of territorial dispute see M. G. Kohen and M. Hébié, ‘Territorial Conflicts and their International Legal Framework’, in M. Kohen and M. Hébié (eds.), Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law (2018), 5.
3 Defining the Pacific (or South Pacific as those in the region sometimes call it) is complicated. The PICs are often defined as a sub category of Pacific Island Forum (PIF) members, which is comprised of states having exercised – or NSGTs being well into the process of exercising – their right to self-determination: Cook Islands (which is in free association with New Zealand), Fiji, Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands (which is in free association with the US), Federated States of Micronesia (which is in free association with the US), Nauru, Niue (which is in free association with New Zealand), Palau (which is in free association with the US), Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, as well as the NSGTs of New Caledonia (France), French Polynesia (France), and finally, Tokelau (a PIF associate member and New Zealand NSGT). Other Pacific NSGTs are Pitcairn (UK), American Samoa (US) and – sometimes included in the region – Guam (US). Norfolk Island (Australian dependency) is seeking status as a NSGT and the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas (CNMI) is today integrated with the US but was historically part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. It, together with Hawaii, is generally considered as being outside the region and neither have any independent standing in the PIF. Australia and New Zealand are however important members of the Pacific Islands Forum, but are not PICs.
4 On the crystallization of self-determination in 1960 as a right under customary international law see Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019, [2019] ICJ Rep. 95, at 132, para. 152 (Chagos Advisory Opinion).
5 On this principle see, for instance, S. R. Ratner, ‘Drawing a Better Line: uti possidetis and the Borders of New States’, (1996) 90 American Journal of International Law 590.
6 Kofi A. Annan, Letter dated 22 October 2001 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2001/988 (2001), Enclosure II ‘Bougainville Peace Agreement’, Arts. 4, 59, 298, 325, available at peacemaker.un.org/png-bougainville-agreement2001peacemaker.un.org/png-bougainville-agreement2001.
7 See, for instance, Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217; for an analysis of self-determination claims outside the colonial context see J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), 388–418.
8 See, for a brief description, ibid., at 555–6, 646.
9 1949 Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia, 69 UNTS 206.
10 1962 Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (West Irian), 437 UNTS 273.
11 UN General Assembly, Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (West Irian), UN Doc. A/RES/1752(XVII)) (1962); 1962 Agreement concerning West New Guinea (West Irian), 437 UNTS 273. For a legal analysis of the UNTEA, which ran from 1 October 1962 to 1 May 1963, see C. Stahn, The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration (2008), 249.
12 Ibid., at 251–2.
13 On self-determination situations being ‘in international relations’ see, for instance, UN General Assembly, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/Res/25/2625 (1970).
14 Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 4, at 134, para. 160.
15 For the contrasting view that the adoption of the General Assembly resolution is no impediment to the conclusion that the right of self-determination was not lawfully exercised see R. McCorquodale, J. Robinson and N. Peart, ‘Territorial Integrity and Consent in the Chagos Advisory Opinion’, (2020) 69 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 221, at 237.
16 Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 4, at 135, para. 163.
17 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971, [1971] ICJ Rep. 16, at 50, para. 105 (Namibia Advisory Opinion).
18 Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 4, at 136, para. 167.
19 And indeed, the Assembly’s subsidiary body, the Committee on Decolonization, further attests to that power.
20 UN General Assembly, Question of New Caledonia, UN Doc. A/RES/42/79 (1987), referred to in M. Kohen, Possession contestée et souveraineté territoriale (1997), 88, note 54.
21 See notably J. Saltford, The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West Papua, 1962–1969 (2003).
22 Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 4, at 136, para. 167.
23 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 31 March 2014, [2014] ICJ Rep. 226, at 260, para. 97. Note however that not all judges considered correct the exclusion of subjective appreciation. For an assessment see R. Kolb, ‘Short Reflections on the ICJ’s Whaling Case and the Review by International Courts and Tribunals of “Discretionary Powers”’, (2014) 32 Australian Yearbook of International Law 135, at 139.
24 UN General Assembly, Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN Doc. A/RES/1514 (XV) (1960), para. 5.
25 East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, [1995] ICJ Rep. 90, at 103–4, paras. 30–1.
26 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948, [1948] ICJ Rep. 57, at 63, in Kolb, supra note 23, at 142.
27 Namibia Advisory Opinion, supra note 17, at 22, para. 20.
28 See, for instance, the annual statements of the Prime Ministers of Vanuatu before the UN General Assembly from 2016–2018: UN Doc. A/71/PV.19 (2016), at 5; UN Doc. A/73/PV.12 (2018), at 20.
29 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 403, at 438, para. 82.
30 1985 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands defining the boundaries between the British and Netherland possessions in the island of New Guinea, in P. van der Veur, Documents and Correspondence on New Guinea’s Boundaries (1966), 108; 1972 Agreement between Australia and Indonesia Concerning Boundaries between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, 974 UNTS 319. For an analysis see J. R. V. Prescott, ‘Problems of International Boundaries with Particular Reference to the Boundary between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea’, in R. J. May (ed.), Between Two Nations: the Indonesia-Papua New Guinea border and West Papua Nationalism (1986), 1.
31 On recent incursions see Dateline Pacific, ‘Border Incursions a Sign that West Papua also a PNG Issue’, Radio New Zealand, 15 April 2014, available at www.rnz.co.nz/international/programmes/datelinepacific/audio/2592598/border-incursions-a-sign-that-west-papua-also-a-png-issue; J. Blades, ‘Line Between PNG and Indonesia Increasingly Blurred, Radio New Zealand International’, Radio New Zealand, 21 December 2015, available at www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/292667/line-between-png-and-indonesia-increasingly-blurred. More generally, see R. J. May, ‘“Mutual Respect, Friendship and Cooperation”? The Papua New Guinea-Indonesia Border and its Effect on Relations between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia’, in R. J. May (ed.), State and Society in Papua New Guinea: the First Twenty-Five Years (2001), 286. Border Arrangement Treaties concluded, initially by Australia for PNG and then PNG itself with Indonesia, and periodically updated since 1973, provide for co-operation over a border area, including via a Joint Committee. No explicit mention is made for law enforcement operations. The latest of such treaties is the 2013 Basic Agreement on Border Arrangements. The Presidential Decree bringing this agreement into force is found at: Presidential Decree 76, Ratification of the Basic Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea on Border Arrangements (2018), LN Number 156, available at peraturan.go.id/peraturan/view.html?id=11e8e0d60fe5b72a881e313533373432. For the earlier agreements see E. Wolfers (ed.), Beyond the Border: Indonesia and Papua New Guinea South-East Asia and the South Pacific (1988). 1986 Treaty of Mutual Respect, Friendship and Cooperation 1463 UNTS 9, between the Republic of Indonesia and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, provides mutual guarantees under the jus ad bellum, but again, there is no provision for hot pursuit.
32 Foreign Ministers Mochtar Kusumaatmadia and Rabbie Namaliu, ‘Joint Communique’, 29 October 1984, in Wolfers, ibid., at 201–2.
33 See A. J. Regan, ‘Causes and Courses of the Bougainville Conflict’, (1998) 33 Journal of Pacific History 269; B. Bohane, ‘The Bougainville Referendum and Beyond’, Lowy Institute, October 2019, available at www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Bohane_The%20Bougainville%20referendum%20and%20beyond.pdf.
34 See I. Scales, ‘The Coup Nobody Noticed: The Solomon Islands Western State Movement in 2000’, (2007) 42 Journal of Pacific History 187, at 193.
35 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, [ICJ] Rep. 554, at 565, para. 20.
36 I. Downs, The Australian Trusteeship: Papua New Guinea, 1945-1975 (1980), 440.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., at 555.
39 UN General Assembly, Question of Papua New Guinea, UN Doc. A/RES/3109 (XXVIII) (1973), paras. 4, 5; UN Trusteeship Council, ‘Provisional Verbatim Record of the Fourteenth Hundred and Forty-Eight Meeting’, UN Doc. T/PV.1448 (1975); UN Trusteeship Council, ‘Provisional Verbatim Record of the Fourteenth Hundred and Forty-Ninth Meeting’, UN Doc. T/PV.1449 (1975). For a chronology and extracts of debates regarding PNG see ‘Australian Practice in International Law 1974–1975’, (1978) 6 Australian Year Book of International Law 187, at 189–99, and for Australia’s position in relation to Bougainville in particular at 191, note 12.
40 M. Rafiqul Islam, ‘Secession Crisis in Papua New Guinea: The Proclaimed Republic of Bougainville and International Law’, (1991) 13 University of Hawaii Law Review 453, at 462.
41 J. Giffin, ‘Cautious deeds and Wicked Fairies: a Decade of Independence in Papua New Guinea’, (1986) 21 Journal of Pacific History 183, at 188.
42 R. May, State and Society in Papua New Guinea, The First Twenty-Five Years (2004), 61–3.
43 Downs, supra note 36, at 425.
44 May, supra note 42, at 63–5.
45 Downs, supra note 36, at 425, 441.
46 Ibid., at 332; T. Banivanua Mar, Decolonisation and the Pacific, Indigenous Globalisation and the Ends of Empire (2016), 177.
47 X. Pons, Le Géant du Pacifique (1988), 143.
48 See D. P. O’Connell, International Law (1970), vol. I, at 341.
49 Dates of the armed conflict have been supplied by the ICRC: email from ICRC to author (23 February 2020).
50 Scales, supra note 34, at 188.
51 Ibid.; C. Dureau, ‘Decreed Affinities: Nationhood and the Western Solomon Islands’, (1998) 33 Journal of Pacific History 197, at 215–16.
52 R. Monson, ‘Hu nao save tok? Women, Men and Land: Negotiating Property and Authority in Solomon Islands’, (PhD Thesis, The Australian National University 2012), 296.
53 Ibid.
54 See M. Tabani, ‘A Political History of Nagriamel on Santo, Vanuatu’, (2008) 78 Oceania 332.
55 Ibid., at 340–1; M. Abong, ‘Metamorpheses of the Nagriamel’, in M. Abong and M. Tabani (eds.), Kago, Kastom and Kalja: The Study of Indigenous Movements in Melanesia Today (2018), para. 36.
56 Tabani, supra note 54, at 341.
57 J. V. MacClancy, ‘From New Hebrides to Vanuatu, 1979-80’, (1981) 16 Journal of Pacific History 92; S. Henningham, France and the South Pacific: a contemporary history (1992), 39–43.
58 MacClancy, supra note 57, at 99. Note that Tabani’s account, supra note 54, at 343, differs.
59 Resolution adopted at the 11th South Pacific Forum, Tawara, Republic of Kiribati, 14–15 July 1980, available at www.forumsec.org/eleventh-south-pacific-forum-tarawa-republic-of-kiribati-14-15-july-1980/.
60 MacClancy, supra note 57, at 100.
61 S. Mohamed-Gaillard, ‘Du condominium franco-britannique des Nouvelles-Hébrides au Vanuatu: deux métropoles pour une indépendance’, (2011) 133 Journal de la Société des Océanistes 309.
62 Ibid., at 320.
63 Henningham, supra note 57, at 42–3, 196.
64 O. Corten, Law Against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (2010), 266.
65 Mohamed-Gaillard, supra note 61, at 319.
66 UN General Assembly, Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte, UN Doc. A/RES/31/4 (1976), to UN General Assembly, Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, A/RES/49/151 (1994), referred to in J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2006), 645, at note 191. For later developments in respect of the Comoros, including the later independence declaration of the Comoros island of Anjouan, see F. Ouguergouz and D. L. Tehindrazanarivello, ‘The question of secession in Africa’, in M. Kohen (ed.), Secession: International Law Perspectives (2006), 257, at 270–1.
67 On the history see D. Scarr, Fragments of Empire: A History of the Western Pacific High Commission, 1877–1914 (1967), 270–8.
68 See J. McAdam, ‘Self-determination and Self-governance for Communities Relocated across International Borders: The Quest for Banaban Independence’, (2017) 24 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 428, at 436–7. More generally, K. M. Teaiwa, Consuming Ocean Island: Stories of People and Phosphate from Banaba (2015).
69 See Chapter IX (Secs. 117–25) of the Constitution of Kiribati (1979), available at www.paclii.org/ki/legis/consol_act/cok257.pdf.
70 Ibid., at Sec. 125.
71 McAdam, supra note 68, at 442.
72 Indeed, in the same year there were unsuccessful attempts to relocate the population of neighbouring Nauru to Curtis Island: M. Barbier, Le Comité de décolonisation des Nations Unies (1974), 611. On Nauru, see Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 June 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep. 240.
73 McAdam, supra note 68, at 443.
74 Ibid., at 447.
75 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ‘Finding a New Home Away from Home’, 1 December 2015, available at www.unocha.org/story/finding-new-home-away-home; Minority Rights Group International, ‘World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: Fiji Islands – Banabans’, 2008, available at www.minorityrights.org/minorities/banabans/.
76 Chagos Advisory Opinion, supra note 4, at 43, para. 181.
77 They are: New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Guam, American Samoa, Pitcairn Islands, and Tokelau.
78 For a map of NSGTs see UN, ‘Non-Self-Governing Territories’, available at www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt. This map shows that 15 of the 17 NSGTs territories are islands, the exceptions being Gibraltar and Western Sahara.
79 See generally the ‘Norfolk Island People for Democracy’ website: www.nipeoplefordemocracy.com/post/final-decision-from-un-imminent. Norfolk Island has also lodged a complaint against Australia before the Human Rights Committee: Complaint No. 3274/2018 of 8 March 2018.
80 ‘Australian Practice in International Law 1974–1975’, supra note 39, at 224.
81 UN General Assembly, Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence, UN Doc. A/RES/41/41 A (1986).
82 A list was created by the General Assembly pursuant to UN General Assembly, Transmission of Information under Art. 73e of the Charter, UN Doc. A/RES/66(I) (1946).
83 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Kanak of New Caledonia notes that the New Caledonian situation is one where there is both a right to self-determination and the rights of indigenous people: UNCHR, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, James Anaya’, UN Doc. A/HRC/18/35/Add.6 (2011), paras. 14–17.
84 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007) (adopted by 144 votes in favour; four votes against; 11 abstentions).
85 US House of Representatives Joint Resolution 259, Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, 55th Congress, 2nd Session 30 Statutes at Large 750 (1898).
86 See J. M. van Dyke and M. K. MacKenzie, ‘An Introduction to the Rights of the Native Hawaiian People’, (2006) Hawaii Bar Journal 63. See the attempt in 2001 to have a Permanent Court of Arbitration tribunal pronounce on the matter from the perspective of international law. The claim was, however, found to be inadmissible: Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom, Arbitral Award of 5 February 2001, PCA Case No. 1999-01. See for comment D. J. Bederman and K. R. Hilbert, ‘Lance Paul Larsen v The Hawaiian Kingdom’, (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law 927.
87 US, Simultaneous Joint Resolution 19, Joint resolution to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, 103rd Congress, 1st Session 107 Statutes at Large 1510 (1993).
88 Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 556 US 163 (2009).
89 Ibid.
90 See van Dyke and MacKenzie, supra note 86, at 63.
91 For this reason Hawaii’s territorial disagreements with the US federal authorities, for instance over Johnston (Kalama) Atoll, are not considered further here.
92 See supra note 3 for further explanation.
93 See S. Heathcote, ‘Agreement Establishing the Pacific Islands Forum’, (2018) 8 Oxford Database on International Organisations.
94 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 641, para. 26; South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), Award of 12 July 2016, PCA Case 2013-19, at 132, para. 309. For an earlier pronouncement that low tide elevations are neither islands nor land territory and are thus incapable of generating maritime zones, but querying whether they might constitute ‘territory’ and hence be susceptible to appropriation: Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40, at 101–2, para. 205.
95 For a detailed analysis of the regime see D. P. O’Connell, ‘The Condominium of the New Hebrides’, (1968–1969) 43 British Year Book of International Law 71.
96 One recent account concludes that Vanuatu is sovereign over the islands: M. Mosses, ‘Revisiting the Matthew and Hunter Islands Dispute in Light of the Recent Chagos Advisory Opinion and Some other Relevant Cases: An Evaluation of Vanuatu’s Claims relating to the right to Self-determination, Territorial Integrity, Unlawful Occupation and State Responsibility under International Law’, (2019) 66 Netherlands International Law Review 475.
97 See, for instance, the French statement that it ‘… exercises full sovereignty over Matthew and Hunter Islands, which have always been an integral part of the French territory of New Caledonia’: Communication from the Government of France to the UN Secretariat, 6 December 2010, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/DEPOSIT/communicationsredeposit/mzn78_2010_fra_en.pdf.
98 For instance, A. Willemez, ‘Flashpoint: South Pacific – Vanuatu and New Caledonia’, Centre for International Maritime Security, 16 January 2014, available at www.cimsec.org/south-pacific/9356.
99 The Joint Court exercised Condominium jurisdiction. For a description see O’Connell, supra note 95, at 122–7.
100 Reported in J. Charpentier, ‘Pratique française du droit international - 1983’, (1983) 29 Annuaire français de droit international 850, at 931.
101 This is the statement of the then French Prime Minister in reply to a written question No. 29278, asked by Mr Lafleur in the Assemblée nationale on 6 June 1983: No. 29278, J.O. – ANQ 6 juin 1983, at 2494, reported in Charpentier, ibid., at 931–2.
102 Assuming a delimitation of those spaces by colonial authorities, the principle of uti possidetis applies: Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 659, at 701–27, paras. 132–227, especially at 707, paras. 156–7.
103 See, for instance, Minquiers and Ecrehos (France v. UK), Judgment of 17 November 1953, [1953] ICJ Rep. 47. For an assessment in respect of islands see S. Murphy, ‘International Law Relating to Islands’, (2016) 386 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de La Haye 9, at 106–8.
104 Dispute concerning the Beagle Channel (Argentina v. Chile), (1977) XXI RIAA 53, at 145, para. 108.
105 This is similar to the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Honduras), supra note 102, at 709, para. 164.
106 Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. USA), (1928) II RIAA 829.
107 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Honduras), supra note 102, at 708, para. 161.
108 Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea v. Yemen), (1998) XXII RIAA 209, at 314–15, paras. 461–4.
109 Reply by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs to a written question from Mr Edouard Frédéric-Dupont, 27 June 1983: No. 3118, J.O. - ANQ 27 juin 1983, at 2885.
110 Mosses, supra note 96, at 477.
111 Supra note 109, at 2885.
112 J. T. MacClancy, ‘Vanuatu since Independence: 1980–1983’, (1984) 19 Journal of Pacific History 100, at 107. Whilst France does not appear to be arguing title on the basis of an occupation, one can nonetheless note that even uninhabited territories, as these two islands certainly are, are not terra nullius making them susceptible to occupation, if they belong to political entities – which may well be the appropriate characterization accorded to traditional owners here. M. Hébié, ‘The Acquisition of Original Titles of Territorial Sovereignty in the Law and Practice of European Colonial Expansion’, in Kohen and Hébié, supra note 2, at 87. On the requirements for an occupation in the Pacific see M. Hébié, ibid., at 74–5; B. Orent and P. Reinsch, ‘Sovereignty over Islands in the Pacific’, (1941) 35 American Journal of International Law 443, cited by Hébié, ibid., at 83.
113 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), supra note 94, at 679, para. 139.
114 France, ‘Decree No. 2002-827 of 3 May 2002 - Decree defining the straight baselines and closing lines of bays used to determine the baselines from which the breadth of French territorial waters adjacent to New Caledonia is measured’, (2004) 53 Law of the Sea Bulletin 58.
115 Baselines have indeed been drawn by Vanuatu in its Maritime Zones Act No. 6 of 2010 (Republic of Vanuatu): Official Gazette, Extraordinary Gazette Number 12, 18 June 2010, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/vut_2010_Act06.pdf.
116 See X. de la Gorce, ‘Plateau continental étendu Nouvelle Calédonie/contestation Vanuatu’, Lettre du Secrétaire général de la mer au Président de la Commission des limites du plateau continental, Paris, 18 July 2007, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra07/fra_letter_july2007.pdf. Translation at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/fra07/fra_letter_july2007_english.pdf. Preliminary Information submitted by the Republic of Vanuatu to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf 10 August 2009, available at www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/preliminary/vut_2009_revisedpreliminaryinfo.pdf.
117 For France, see supra note 114, and for the Republic of Vanuatu, see supra note 115.
118 Communication from the Government of France to the UN Secretariat, supra note 97.
119 Ibid.
120 1983 Agreement relating to the delimitation of their economic zone (with annex and maps), 1597 UNTS 435.
121 For acts not listed here see MacClancy, supra note 112, at 107–8.
122 Contrast the situation in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Honduras), supra note 102, at 708–10, paras. 160–8.
123 A detailed study of the South Pacific’s nineteenth and early twentieth century treaties makes no mention of any with New Hebridean chiefs: T. Bennion, ‘Treaty-Making in the Pacific in the Nineteenth Century and the Treaty of Waitangi’, (2004) 35 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 165.
124 Neither France nor Vanuatu were prepared to provide the author with the decision, but documents in the National Archives in London. See Foreign and Commonwealth Office, File FCO 141/13277.
125 Letter addressed to Mssrs Henri Martinet and Robert Paul, dated 22 November 1965, Port Vila, signed by B. Buteri, FCO 141/13277, Doc 28D.
126 Ibid.
127 Letter dated 7 October 1965 to British Resident Commissioner, from Colonial Office, FCO 141/13277, Doc. 23. See also Telegram from the British Resident Commissioner to the FCO, dated 20 February 1973, Ref CF 270/44, FCO 141/13277, Doc. 29.
128 See, for instance, M. G. Kohen, ‘Is the Notion of Territorial Sovereignty Obsolete?’, in M. A. Pratt and J. A. Brown (eds.), Borderlands Under Stress (2000), 35, at 41–2.
129 Letter from their Honours, the British and French Judges of the Joint Court, 22 November 1965, FCO 141/13277, Doc. 28C.
130 Note from AM Wilke to FH Brown, Colonial Office, FCO 141/13277, Doc. 21.
131 Letter dated 18 December 1962, No. 7 JC, FCO 141/13277, Doc. 28A. On the evidentiary value of maps see K. Del Mar, ‘Evidence in Territorial Disputes’, in Kohen and Hébié, supra note 2, 417, at 426–8. Where maps provide conflicting answers, as here, other titles of greater persuasiveness and of greater value should be found: Arbitral Award Relating to the Issue of Control and sovereignty over Aves Island (Venezuela v. Netherlands), (1865) XXVIII RIAA 115, 121.
132 On abandonment see K. Parlett, ‘State conduct in territorial disputes beyond effectivités: recognition, acquiescence, renunciation and estoppel’, in Kohen and Hébié, supra note 2, 169, at 183–5 and references therein.
133 Statement by the Right Honourable M. S. K. Livtuvanu, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu, before the Sixty-Seventh Session of the UNGA, 28 September 2012, available at gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/67/VU_en.pdf.
134 Statement by the Right Honourable E. Napatei, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu, ‘9th Legislature, Second Ordinary Session of 2010’, Hansard Report of the Republic of Vanuatu, at 43, para. 104, available at parliament.gov.vu/images/hansard_report/french_version/2010/DeuSessOrdLUNDI_15_NOVEMBRE2010.pdf.
135 Statement by the Right Honourable M. C. Kalosil, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu before the Sixty-Eighth Session of the UNGA, 28 September 2013, available at gadebate.un.org/en/68/vanuatu andgadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/VU_en.pdf.
136 Ibid., at 5.
137 Statement delivered by the Honourable J. Y. Natuman, Prime Minister of Vanuatu before the Sixty-Ninth Session of the UNGA, 29 September 2014, at 6, available at gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/69/VU_en.pdf.
138 Ibid.
139 See ‘Nouvelle-Calédonie: querelles autour des îles Hunter et Matthew’, Le Figaro, 12 March 2019, available at www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/nouvelle-caledonie-querelles-autour-des-iles-matthew-et-hunter-20190312.
140 Describing representation in New Caledonia see: Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration of Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, ‘New Caledonia: Working paper prepared by the Secretariat’, UN Doc. A/AC.109/2019/11 (2019), at 5–9, paras. 3–21.
141 Ibid.
142 Accord sur la Nouvelle Calédonie signé à Nouméa, (1998) 121 Journal Officiel de la République Française 8039, Art. 5, available at www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000555817&categorieLien=id.
143 Ibid., Art. 3.2.1. See V. Goesel-Le Bihan, ‘La Nouvelle Calédonie et l’Accord de Nouméa, un processus de décolonisation inédit’, (1998) 44 Annuaire français de droit international 24, at 42.
144 Ibid.
145 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note 84.
146 Y. le Bouthillier and J. F. Bonin, ‘Article 3: International agreements not within the scope of the present Convention’, in O. Corten and P. Klein (eds.), The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: a Commentary (2011), vol. I, 66, at 73.
147 Ibid.
148 Delimitation of the Abyei Area (Government of Sudan v. People’s Liberation Movement Army), (2009) XXX RIAA 145, at 309, para. 427.
149 See D. Fisher, ‘New Caledonia’s Independence Referendum: Local and Regional Implications’, Lowy Institute, 8 May 2019, available at www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/new-caledonia-s-independence-referendum-local-and-regional-implications.
150 Kohen, supra note 20, at 117–18.
151 K. Ryan and M. White, ‘The Torres Strait Treaty’, (1976) 7 Australian Year Book of International Law 87, at 92, 103–10; 1978 Treaty concerning sovereignty and maritime boundaries in the area between the two countries, including the area known as Torres Strait, and related matters (with annexes), 1429 UNTS 207. For a list of similar treaties relative to other parts of the globe see the Delimitation of the Abyei Area Award, supra note 148, para. 761, note 1263. More recently, the agreement between France and Madagascar over Tromelin Island, cited in Murphy, supra note 103, at 111. That case involves the joint management of resources pending resolution of the dispute over sovereignty. In the Pacific, the islands of Canton and Enderbury were jointly managed pursuant to an agreement between the US and UK, pending resolution of the question of sovereignty, claimed by both states.
152 Ibid.
153 Delimitation of the Abyei Area, supra note 148, at 264, paras. 763–5.
154 Ibid, at 265, para. 766.
155 Wake lies North of the equator but the Marshall Islands being a Forum member, it can be considered a ‘South Pacific’ territory.
156 Republic of Marshall Islands Maritime Zones Declaration Act 2016.
157 Note that American Samoa is also unincorporated and unorganized but in fact has a constitution and government of its own.
158 1885 Protocol between Germany and Spain, respecting the Caroline and Pelew Islands, 76 BFSP 294. This was recognized by Great Britain, conditional on German recognition of the same, in the 1886 Protocol between Great Britain and Spain, respecting the Sovereignty of Spain over the Carolines and Pelew Islands, 77 BFSP 1147.
159 1885 Mediation of Pope Leo XIII on the Question between Germany and Spain relative to the Caroline and Pelew Islands, 76 BFSP 293.
160 Hébié, supra note 112, at 84–5.
161 1886 Mediation of Pope Leo XIII, ibid. The Spanish decree giving effect to that decision is: Spanish Decree, respecting the Government of the Caroline and Pelew Islands, 77 BFSP 815. Also M. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in international law: being a treatise on the law and practice relating to colonial expansion (1926), 149; G. Scholefield, The Pacific: Its Past and Future and the Policy of the Great Powers from the 18 th Century (1919), 183–4.
162 C. H. Alexandrowic, ‘Le rôle des traités dans les relations entre les puissances européennes et les souverains africains (aspects historiques)’, in D. Armitage and J. Pitts (eds.), The Law of Nations in Global History (2017), 227.
163 1886 Declaration between Great Britain and Germany, relating to the Demarcation of the British and German Spheres of Influence in the Western Pacific, 77 BFSP 42.
164 D. Spennemann, ‘The United States Annexation of Wake Atoll, Central Pacific Ocean’, (1998) 33 Journal of Pacific History 239. Today, Johnston is also ‘unorganised and unincorporated’ under US law, having been severed from Hawaii despite the latter’s claim to it, and also, is like Wake, used as a military installation: J. M. van Dyke et al., ‘The Legal Status of Johnston Atoll and its Exclusive Economic Zone’, (1988) 10 University of Hawaii Law Review 183.
165 Spennemann, ibid.
166 Island of Palmas Case, supra note 106. For a more recent analysis: Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Counter-Claims, Judgment of 10 October 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, at 405, para. 205. For a compelling critique of the nineteenth century international law on acquisition to title to territory see A. Anghie, ‘Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law’, (1999) 40 Harvard International Law Journal 1. On Pacific treaties see Bennion, supra note 123.
167 Spennemann, supra note 164, at 239–47.
168 F. D. Roosevelt and J. S. Reeves, ‘Agreement Over Canton and Enderbury Islands’, (1939) 33 American Journal of International Law 521, at 525.
169 Ibid.
170 Spennemann, supra note 164, at 240.
171 See the Clipperton Island Case (France v. Mexico): V. Emmanuel, ‘Arbitral Award on the Subject of the Difference Relative to the Sovereignty over Clipperton Island (France v Mexico)’, (1932) 26 American Journal of International Law 390. On abandonment of small remote islands see Murphy, supra note 103, at 101–2.
172 Ibid.
173 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 12, at 51, para. 122.
174 See the separate opinion of Sir Arnold McNair in International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep. 128, at 155.
175 For doubts as to the status of acquisitive prescription and an analysis of the relevant cases: M. Kohen, ‘Title and effectivités in Territorial Disputes’, in Kohen and Hébié, supra note 2, 145, at 154–6. On private law analogies more generally in this area of law see R. O’Keefe, ‘Legal Title versus Effectivités: Prescription and the Promise and Problems of Private Law Analogies’, (2011) 13 International Community Law Review 147.
176 Spenneman, supra note 164, at 247.
177 The Trust over the Marshall Islands was ended by UN Security Council, Resolution 683, UN Doc. S/RES/683 (1990).
178 See C. Duffy Burnett, ‘The Edge of Empire and the Limits of Sovereignty: American Guano Islands’, (2005) 57 American Quarterly 779.
179 The view taken by Kohen, supra note 20, at 220. See also R. W. Smith, ‘The Maritime Boundaries of the United States’, (1981) 71 Geographical Review 395, at 410, where his view on the 1856 Act is that: ‘[t]he American claim had virtually no legal merit …’.
180 Duffy Burnett, supra note 178, at 798, citing M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civiliser of Nations (2001), 152. See also Anghie, supra note 166.
181 Duffy Burnett, ibid., at 797.
182 Jones v. United States, 137 US 202 (Sup. Ct. 1890), at 212, cited by A. Clanton, ‘The Men who Would be King: Forgotten Challenges to US Sovereignty’, (2008) 26 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 1, at 6.
183 Duffy Burnett, supra note 178, at 787.
184 Central Intelligence Agency, ‘The World Factbook’, available at cia.gov/the-world-factbook/.
185 F. D. Roosevelt and J. S. Reeves, supra note 168, at 525.
186 1979 Treaty of friendship (with agreed minute) (US-Kiribati), 1643 UNTS 239 (Treaty of Tarawa); The Kiribati Independence Order 1979, SI 1979/719.
187 Treaty of Tarawa, ibid.; 1980 Treaty on the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Tokelau and the United States of America (New Zealand-United States of America), 1643 UNTS 251; 1980 Treaty between the United States of America and the Cook Islands on Friendship and Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between the United States of America and the Cook Islands, 1676 UNTS 223; 1979 Treaty of friendship between the United States of America and Tuvalu, 2011 UNTS 79.
188 F. Bunge, ‘Kiribati’, in F. Bunge and M. Cooke (eds.), Oceania: a Regional Study (1985), 280.
189 Ibid.
190 Clanton, supra note 182, at 44.
191 On the island’s discovery: H. E. Maude, ‘Post Spanish Discoveries in the Central Pacific’, (1961) 70 Journal of the Polynesian Society 67, at 102. On Tokelau itself: A Hooper, ‘Tokelau: A Sort of “Self-Governing” Sort of “Colony”’, (2008) 43 Journal of Pacific History 331.
192 A. Hooper, ‘A Tokelau Account of Olosega’, (1975) 10 Journal of Pacific History 89. One should note, however, that this might describe an island of the Manuia Group of American Samoa: A. Angelo and H. Kirifi, ‘The Treaty of Tokehega – an Exercise in Law Translation’, (1987) 17 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 125, at 127, note 7. However, see the contradictory statement at 127, note 9.
193 Clanton, supra note 182, at 8–9.
194 W. P. Morrell, Britain in the Pacific (1960), 265.
195 Treaty on the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Tokelau and the United States of America, supra note 187.
196 Treaty between the United States of America and the Cook Islands on Friendship and Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between the United States of America and the Cook Islands, supra note 187.
197 R. W. Smith, ‘The Maritime Boundaries of the United States’, (1981) 71 Geographical Review at 395, at 410.
198 N. Maclellan, ‘The Region in Review: International Issues and Events 2010’, (2011) 23 The Contemporary Pacific 440, at 444.