The Letter That Defied Empire: Maldives and the Unfinished Sovereignty of Chagos

By the Legal & Research Desk, Maldivians for Chagos

It is no coincidence that the chorus claiming “the Maldives has accepted Mauritian Sovereignty over Chagos” has grown louder just as colonial powers and their allies seek to close the book on unfinished business. This narrative is not innocent. It is a calculated colonial strategy, an echo of imperial manoeuvring, crafted to present the illusion of finality and to deny the Maldives its rightful place in the history and future of the Indian Ocean. Those who rush to proclaim this fiction should pause, read carefully, and resist the temptation to confuse diplomatic courtesy with the surrender of sovereign rights. What is being projected in press circles, political statements, and even at international forums is not truth but the latest iteration of colonial misdirection. It ignores both the precision of Maldivian diplomacy and the architecture of international law. It is time to put this colonial narrative to rest, once and for all.

The Letter, the Vote, and the Caveat

On 27 April 2023, the Government of the Maldives issued a statement (Ref: 2023-001) clarifying its communications to Mauritius. The record is crystal clear: the Maldives informed Mauritius that it would vote in favour if the United Nations General Assembly were to reconsider Resolution 73/295, the resolution that endorsed the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Chagos (2019). This decision, as the Government emphasised, was made “following the pronouncement by ITLOS that the ICJ advisory opinion... will be fully accepted in the ongoing case.” In other words, it was an act of diplomatic consistency with the procedures of the international legal system, not an abrogation of Maldivian rights.

The same letter to Mauritius, referenced in the Government’s press release (PDF version), was emphatic: Maldives’ support at the UN level was “without prejudice” to its ongoing claims at ITLOS. This is no mere throwaway phrase; “without prejudice” is a talisman in international law. It means: we reserve all our rights. Thus, the Maldives did not recognise Mauritian Sovereignty in a binding, unconditional manner.

The Colonial Script of “Closure”

Critics who say “the case is closed” are not merely mistaken; they are advancing a colonial script designed to smother legitimate claims. ITLOS itself, in its 28 April 2023 judgment, delimited a maritime boundary within 200 nm but explicitly declined to delimit beyond 200 nm because it was “not in a position” to determine entitlement there (Press Release 334). That is not a closed case; it is an open one, suspended on the unresolved question of entitlement, a question which, by definition, remains alive.

The ICJ Advisory Opinion may have been persuasive, but it was not binding on non-parties to the dispute. ITLOS acknowledged it for the delimitation between Mauritius and the Maldives, but this does not convert the advisory text into a universal judgment.

Regarding the 22 May 2025 UK–Mauritius Treaty, the relevant documents are publicly available, including the UK treaty page, the official PDF, and briefings from the Commons Library and the Lords Library. The UK Government confirmed the treaty took effect on 15 July 2025. However, according to Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, such treaties cannot impose obligations or extinguish rights of non-parties. This means that the Maldives, as a non-party to the treaty, remains unaffected by its stipulations.

Why the Maldives’ Claim Endures

The Chagos Archipelago sits in the Indian Ocean, not as a blank slate but as a territory historically entwined with Maldivian identity and Sovereignty. Ahmad ibn Majid, the renowned Arab navigator of the fifteenth century, described the Maldivian seas as stretching into the “southern islands” (Tibbetts, Arab Navigation in the Indian Ocean, Internet Archive). Duarte Barbosa (1518) noted in his Portuguese account that the “Maldivas” extended far into the ocean (Hakluyt Society edition, 1918, Internet Archive). French maps from 1764 to 1782, such as Bellin’s Carte des Isles Maldives and the BnF’s Plan of Diego Garcia, explicitly labelled Chagos as part of the Maldivian sphere (Gallica BnF, 1764 map, Gallica BnF, Diego Garcia plan). Later, H.C.P. Bell, British Commissioner to the Maldives, in his 1887 study, acknowledged the Maldives’ seafaring sphere extending deep into the Indian Ocean (Bell, The Maldive Islands, Internet Archive).

These sources confirm what Maldivians have always known: Chagos was never a void, never an orphan; it was an extension of Maldivian Sovereignty until it was wrenched away by colonial fiat.

A Gesture, Not a Surrender

When the Maldives informed Mauritius of its readiness to support the following UNGA resolution, it was not just a gesture of solidarity with the UN Charter’s call for the eradication of colonialism, but a strategic manoeuvre. The Government’s own words could not be clearer: our support for Mauritius does not prejudice or alter the Maldives’ ongoing claims at ITLOS. This was a calculated move, a testament to our diplomatic acumen and strategic thinking.

Thus, the Maldives honoured the multilateral mechanism without surrendering its sovereign narrative. It was statesmanship, not servitude. Those who project otherwise are simply recycling the old colonial habit of declaring victory before the battle is even fought.

Message to the World

To legislators in the UK House of Commons and Lords, and to members of the US House of Representatives and Senate: do not be misled into believing Mauritius has secured undisputed Sovereignty through ITLOS, the ICJ, or a bilateral treaty. Look again, history and law tell a different story. The Maldives has not ceded. To those in the People’s Majlis of the Maldives who fear the Government has given away the store: read the caveats and recognise the tactical manoeuvre. And to those in the international community and UN corridors who parrot “the case is closed”: international law itself refuses you the satisfaction.

The Maldives is banking on history, law, and strategy. Chagos remains a contested archipelago, and no advisory opinion, bilateral treaty, hasty press statement, or colonial strategy can erase that.

The law is clear, the record is clear, and the resolve of the Maldivian people is clear: our claim is not a matter of the past, but an ongoing pursuit. It cannot be refuted, neither by ITLOS nor by Mauritius, nor by colonial residues or the deliberate strategies of colonial powers masquerading as legal inevitability. Our claim endures, and we will continue to assert it with unwavering determination.