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

Abstract

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.

France and Oceanian Sovereignties

“…The sovereignty issue thus became a matter of concern for the Park's management committee whose members tried to propose diplomatic solutions while customary authorities from both sides stuck to their initial position that Matthew and Hunter traditionally belong to Vanuatu. The dispute remains unresolved but its historical and recent development highlights the multi‐layered nature of sovereign claims as well as the increasing maritimization of geopolitical issues in the Pacific (see Mosses 2019 for an international law approach of the case). As Marlène Dégremont (this collection) notes, ‘[w]ith the advent of the Natural Park of the Coral Sea, the Matthew and Hunter sovereignty issue brings environmental management into the diplomatic sphere along with customary arrangements.’…”