Rejoinder to UK FCDO Letter TO2025/31423: The Maldivian Dimension of the Chagos Question

22 December 2025

Pen for Rights – Maldivians for Chagos
Indian Ocean Decolonisation Initiative

Editorial Note

This rejoinder responds to a formal letter issued by the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office dated 11 November 2025 (Ref: TO2025/31423). It is published to place the Maldivian legal position on the public record.

Rejoinder

Pen for Rights – Maldivians for Chagos acknowledges receipt of the letter issued by the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office dated 11 November 2025, reference TO2025/31423, responding to our correspondence of 27 August addressed to Lord Kennedy of Southwark. This rejoinder clarifies the legal and historical position of the Maldives in relation to the Chagos Archipelago and addresses material omissions in the FCDO’s reply.

1. Scope and limits of the international instruments cited

The FCDO letter relies principally on the 2019 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and the 2021 decision of a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in the Mauritius-Maldives maritime delimitation case. Neither instrument, separately or cumulatively, constitutes a binding determination of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago.

The ICJ’s 2019 pronouncement was advisory in nature. It did not adjudicate territorial title, nor did it determine competing claims of sovereignty. The Maldives was not a party to those proceedings, and its historical position, territorial extent, and decolonisation status were not examined. An advisory opinion cannot extinguish the rights of a State that was neither heard nor considered.

Similarly, the ITLOS Special Chamber did not rule on sovereignty. It relied on the ICJ Advisory Opinion solely to satisfy a preliminary jurisdictional requirement for the purpose of maritime delimitation. The Chamber explicitly avoided deciding territorial title. Treating that limited inference as a conclusive sovereignty determination misrepresents the judgment itself.

No international court or tribunal has issued a binding judgment awarding sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.

2. The Maldives as an omitted but affected State

The FCDO letter does not engage with the position of the Maldives as an affected State. This omission is legally significant.

The Maldives was a British protectorate from 1887 until independence in 1965, during which period the United Kingdom exercised control over its external affairs. The detachment of the Chagos Archipelago occurred in this colonial context. The Maldives never consented to any loss of territory or associated maritime space.

Proceedings and arrangements that exclude an affected State cannot lawfully resolve questions that bear upon that State’s territorial integrity, maritime entitlements, or right to self-determination.

3. Decolonisation and territorial integrity

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 prohibits the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of colonial territories prior to independence. This prohibition applies to each colonial territory individually.

The assertion that the Maldives and Mauritius were administered separately does not resolve the decolonisation issue. Administrative separation does not legitimise the severance or reallocation of territory through colonial fiat. The relevant question is whether the process respected the territorial integrity of the Maldives at the point of decolonisation. That question remains unaddressed in the FCDO’s reply.

4. Third-State rights and the UK-Mauritius agreement

The FCDO letter refers to the United Kingdom-Mauritius agreement of May 2025 and its scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Domestic ratification procedures do not determine the international legal effects of a treaty vis-à-vis third States.

Under Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty cannot create rights or obligations for a third State without that State’s consent. Any bilateral arrangement that presupposes a final settlement of sovereignty or reorganises maritime space in a manner affecting the Maldives cannot be opposable to the Maldives absent its express agreement.

5. Geopolitical support and legal validity

The FCDO letter states that the United Kingdom-Mauritius agreement has been “backed” by the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, Japan, and South Korea.

Diplomatic expressions of support do not constitute legal determinations of sovereignty, nor do they resolve questions arising under international law relating to decolonisation, territorial integrity, or the rights of affected third States. Political alignment or strategic endorsement cannot substitute for a lawful process that addresses all parties whose legal interests are implicated.

The invocation of international support, while relevant in a political context, does not cure procedural exclusions, does not bind third States, and does not extinguish unresolved legal claims arising from colonial-era territorial arrangements. Sovereignty and decolonisation are governed by international law, not by coalition consensus.

6. Historical context

The FCDO reply does not address the substantial historical record indicating long-standing Maldivian connections to the Chagos region, including navigational use, seasonal presence, cultural memory, and colonial-era documentation. These connections form part of the broader historical context relevant to any lawful assessment of territorial and maritime rights in the Indian Ocean.

Conclusion

The FCDO letter TO2025/31423 does not resolve the Maldivian dimension of the Chagos question. Reliance on advisory and jurisdictional instruments, allied support, and domestic ratification procedures cannot extinguish the rights of an affected third State.

Pen for Rights – Maldivians for Chagos reiterates that the Maldives retains legitimate legal and historical interests in the Chagos Archipelago and that any durable and lawful resolution must engage with those interests openly and in accordance with the principles of decolonisation and international law.

Signed

Abdulla Rasheed
Administrative Custodian
Pen for Rights – Maldivians for Chagos
Indian Ocean Decolonisation Initiative