UK Foreign Office Responds to Pen for Rights on Folhlhavai (Chagos Archipelago): Maintains Sovereignty Is a UK–Mauritius Matter and Rejects CERD Decision 1 (2025)

The United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has formally responded to Pen for Rights – Maldivians for Chagos over concerns raised about Folhlhavai and the UK–Mauritius Treaty. The response follows correspondence sent on 22 December 2025 and a subsequent letter to the Attorney General’s Office on 29 June 2026. The FCDO’s Parliamentary Correspondence Team states that it was asked to reply and apologizes for the delay.

The response places several important British positions on record. The FCDO maintains that sovereignty over Folhlhavai, designated the Chagos Archipelago in European colonial nomenclature, is “a bilateral matter between the UK and Mauritius”. It claims that “various courts, rulings and institutions” have made this clear. Britain also acknowledges the decision adopted by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on 2 December 2025. The FCDO states that the Government “does not agree with the approach CERD has taken”. These positions clarify the basis upon which Britain currently approaches Folhlhavai, but they do not address the distinct historical question raised by Pen for Rights. No international tribunal has adjudicated an affirmative Maldivian sovereignty claim based on title predating European colonial intervention. Maldives has also never placed such a sovereignty and decolonisation claim before the United Nations General Assembly.

Readers may examine the [full FCDO response of 26 August 2026] alongside this analysis.

What the International Proceedings Actually Addressed

The International Court of Justice delivered its Advisory Opinion in 2019 following a request from the General Assembly. The question concerned whether the decolonisation of Mauritius had been lawfully completed when Mauritius became independent in 1968. It arose from Britain’s separation of Folhlhavai from colonial Mauritius in 1965. The Court concluded that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed. It also held that Britain was required to end its administration of the archipelago as rapidly as possible. The Court defined the subject of its inquiry with equal clarity. It stated that the General Assembly’s questions concerned “the decolonization of Mauritius” and explained that the General Assembly had not sought its opinion for the purpose of resolving a territorial dispute between two States.

An antecedent Maldivian title was not among the questions submitted to the Court. The Court was not asked whether Folhlhavai had belonged to Maldives before European colonial intervention. It did not examine how European powers originally acquired sovereignty over the archipelago. It also did not determine whether an earlier Maldivian title had ever been lawfully transferred or extinguished. These limits define the scope of the Advisory Opinion without diminishing the authority of its findings concerning Mauritius.

The 2021 proceedings before the Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea are also important. The Special Chamber considered the consequences of the ICJ Advisory Opinion when deciding whether maritime delimitation between Mauritius and Maldives could proceed. It concluded that Mauritius’s sovereignty over Folhlhavai could be inferred from the ICJ’s determinations. Maldives, however, was not claiming Folhlhavai in those proceedings. Its preliminary objection relied upon the existing sovereignty dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Maldives argued that this unresolved dispute prevented the Special Chamber from proceeding with maritime delimitation. It did not submit a Maldivian chain of territorial title for adjudication.

The existing jurisprudence therefore gives Mauritius substantial support in relation to the decolonisation claim it advanced. It does not amount to an adjudication of competing Maldivian and Mauritian historical titles because no such dispute was before either tribunal. This distinction is central to the present correspondence. Britain can properly rely upon international decisions concerning the Mauritius decolonisation question. A broader assertion that those decisions have already excluded an antecedent Maldivian title requires a different legal foundation.

The Maldivian Question Begins Earlier

The issue now being investigated by Pen for Rights begins before the colonial arrangements considered in the Mauritius proceedings. One important source is the sixteenth-century titulature of Sultan Hassan IX, which refers to the “Seven Islands of Pullobay”. The geographical identity of Pullobay must be established from the surviving sources. Its territorial significance within the Sultan’s titulature also requires examination within the political context of the period. Other Maldivian records may provide evidence of territorial authority. Early European maps and geographical accounts may assist in identifying the islands and the manner in which they were understood.

The inquiry must distinguish historical association from territorial title. Geographical knowledge does not necessarily prove sovereignty. A place-name cannot establish title on its own. Royal titulature may carry greater evidentiary significance, but its meaning must still be tested against contemporary records. The stronger inquiry concerns sovereign authority. Evidence that Maldivian rulers regarded Folhlhavai as part of their territorial domain would be significant. Evidence of governmental acts or assertions of authority would strengthen that position further.

If an antecedent Maldivian title can be established, the subsequent history of that title becomes critical. Portuguese, Dutch, French and British records should be examined for evidence of how European powers understood existing sovereignty. Particular attention should be given to the earliest European assertions of possession. The legal basis upon which France claimed the islands must be identified. Britain’s subsequent acquisition of French possessions must then be examined within that chain.

A transfer from France to Britain could explain the succession between those two European powers. It would not necessarily explain how France acquired a superior title against an earlier sovereign. An existing title might have been transferred through cession. Conquest under the international law applicable at the time could also be relevant. Abandonment may provide another explanation. European occupation might instead have proceeded on the assumption that the islands belonged to no existing sovereign. The documentary record must determine which explanation is supported by evidence.

Britain Is Being Asked a Prior Question

Pen for Rights is not presently asking the United Nations to adjudicate a Maldivian sovereignty claim. Britain is first being asked to address the historical and legal basis upon which it treats Folhlhavai as exclusively a matter between itself and Mauritius. The FCDO has invoked “various courts, rulings and institutions” in support of that position. The next response should therefore identify those authorities with precision. It should explain whether any of them considered an affirmative Maldivian claim. It should also identify any determination that prevents an antecedent Maldivian title from being examined.

There is a further historical question for Britain. If it considers that no Maldivian title survived into the European colonial period, Britain should explain when that title ceased to exist. The legal process by which this occurred should also be identified. The central question can therefore be stated directly: if Folhlhavai formed part of the Maldivian territorial domain before European colonial intervention, when and by what lawful process did Maldivian title cease to exist? The FCDO’s response does not address this question, although it lies at the centre of the historical case now being developed.

Pen for Rights has therefore prepared a [rejoinder to the FCDO] seeking clarification of the authorities relied upon by the British Government and the legal basis of its position on any antecedent Maldivian title.

A Future Maldivian UN Case Would Be Different

Maldives has not yet sought a United Nations decolonisation process based on its own claim to Folhlhavai. Any future approach to the General Assembly would therefore require its own historical evidence and legal foundation. The Mauritius proceedings began with Britain’s separation of Folhlhavai from colonial Mauritius in 1965. A Maldivian case would begin earlier. It would examine whether Folhlhavai had previously formed part of the Maldivian territorial domain and whether European colonial intervention altered that territorial relationship.

The distinction could become important under the principles of decolonisation. The ICJ attached considerable significance to territorial integrity when considering Mauritius. If evidence establishes an earlier Maldivian title, a prior question would arise concerning the territorial unit from which the historical analysis should begin. Such an argument would require convincing evidence of Maldivian title before European intervention. It would also require a reconstruction of what subsequently happened to that title. The international community has never been asked to consider that evidentiary record in the context of a Maldivian claim.

A future General Assembly initiative would therefore have its own factual and legal foundation. It would not require Maldives to argue that the ICJ wrongly answered the Mauritius decolonisation question. The Maldivian case would ask the international community to examine an earlier period and a different territorial relationship. Its outcome cannot be assumed in advance, but its subject matter would be materially different from the question placed before the Court in 2019.

Britain Rejects CERD’s Approach

The FCDO’s response to CERD is independently significant. The letter acknowledges the Committee’s decision of 2 December 2025 and states that Britain “does not agree with the approach CERD has taken”. The British Government also states that Folhlhavai has no permanent population and has never been self-governing. It concludes that “[n]o question of self-determination for its population arises”.

The same letter acknowledges the removal of Chagossians during the 1960s and 1970s. Britain also expresses regret for the manner in which that removal occurred. The rights of the Chagossian community and the question of Maldivian territorial title are legally distinct and should be analysed separately. Britain’s reasoning on population nevertheless raises a separate concern. The present demographic condition of Folhlhavai followed a history of displacement acknowledged by Britain itself. The absence of a permanent population must therefore be considered alongside the circumstances that produced that absence.

CERD has attached importance to Chagossian participation, return and self-determination. Britain has now formally recorded its disagreement with the Committee’s approach. The legal basis for that disagreement should form part of the continuing engagement with both the United Kingdom and CERD. This aspect of the FCDO response is particularly important because it moves the disagreement beyond the sovereignty question and into the treatment of the rights of the displaced community.

What Follows From the FCDO Response

The FCDO letter represents an important development because Britain has now formally responded to Pen for Rights. Its position on sovereignty has been placed on record, together with its rejection of CERD’s approach. These statements provide clear issues for the next stage of legal and diplomatic engagement. The immediate Maldivian task is to consolidate the historical case. The identity and significance of Pullobay must be established. Sultan Hassan IX’s titulature should be examined alongside other Maldivian and European records. The origins of French and British claims should also be reconstructed. The objective should be a documented chain of territorial title that can withstand historical and legal scrutiny.

Britain should then be required to address that evidence directly. If it maintains that sovereignty over Folhlhavai can only concern Britain and Mauritius, it should identify the legal authority that excludes consideration of an antecedent Maldivian title. If Britain considers that such a title once existed but later disappeared, it should explain when and how that occurred. Mauritius placed its decolonisation question before the General Assembly and obtained an important international outcome. Maldives has never placed its own historical sovereignty and decolonisation question concerning Folhlhavai before that body. A future Maldivian case would therefore begin from an earlier historical period and would require the international community to consider evidence that was not before the ICJ in 2019.

Britain’s response has now clarified the position that the United Kingdom intends to maintain. The next stage should examine the historical and legal foundation of that position, particularly the unanswered question of how any antecedent Maldivian title to Folhlhavai was supposedly displaced. The existing international proceedings provide important answers concerning the decolonisation of Mauritius. They do not remove the need to investigate a Maldivian historical claim that has never been presented for international adjudication.