This article examines three ocean boundary disputes in the South Pacific in light of the South China Sea arbitration. First, we consider whether the Matthew and Hunter Islands, over which France and Vanuatu have made competing claims, are full-fledged islands or rocks and argue that they are likely to be rocks. Second, we discuss the dispute between Fiji and Tonga over the Minerva Reefs. We submit that, if the Minerva Reefs are low-tide elevations as public information in English generally suggests, Tonga’s historic claim to the maritime area around the Minerva Reefs would be inconsistent with the principle of ‘the land dominates the sea’. Third, we examine Tonga’s historic claim to the maritime area within a rectangle boundary defined in Tonga’s 1887 Royal Proclamation and submit that the main difficulty for Tonga to establish such claim is to prove that it has effectively exercised sovereignty over the relevant area.

This paper examines the legal implications of the Chagos Advisory Opinion and some other relevant cases on the Matthew and Hunter Islands dispute. In doing so, the piece attempts to evaluate Vanuatu's claims relating to the right to self-determination of the people of New Hebrides (Ni-Vans since 1980), the territorial integrity of New Hebrides/Vanuatu and the alleged unlawful occupation of the Matthew and Hunter Islands by France. First, the paper submits that by transferring the administration of these islands to New Caledonia in 1976 France may have violated the territorial integrity of Vanuatu and the right to self-determination of its people. The paper then considers the competing claims of sovereignty over these Islands and argues that the right to selfdetermination is likely to prevail over France's claims of, inter alia, effectivités. The paper submits therefore that France may be under an obligation to cease its unlawful occupation of these Islands.

No abstract

No abstract