The Special Chamber of #ITLOS finds that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute concerning the #delimitation of the #maritimeboundary between two parties in the #IndianOcean and that the claim submitted by #Mauritius in this regard is admissible. Key points https://twitter.com/ConstantinYiall/status/1354776892533075969

Maldives 1st preliminary objection was ITLOS lacked jurisdiction because an 'indispensable party', namely, the #UnitedKingdom was absent to this proceedings. ITLOS considered that in view of #ICJ #Chagos Advisory Opinion and UNGA 73/295, the UK was not an 'indispensable party'.

The UK’s continuous claim to sovereignty over the #Chagos archipelago is contrary to international law. "Mauritius sovereignty over Chagos 'can be inferred' from ICJ’s earlier determinations"

ITLOS: It is inconceivable that the UK whose administration over the Chagos archipelago constitutes a wrongful act of continuing character and must be brought to an end as rapidly as possible, may have any legal interest in the delimitation of the maritime areas around Chagos.

Re Maldives' 2nd prelim. obj., whether Mautirus "is the opposite state for delimitation purposes". ITLOS said yes. Under Arts 74(1) and 84(1) of UNCLOS, Mauritius can be regarded as the coastal State in resp. of Chagos "even before the process of decolonization is completed"

Re Maldives' 3rd prelim. ob.: that "boundary negotiations are indispensable". ITLOS found that #Maldives had most of the time refused to negotiate with #Mauritus. No negotiated agreement could be reached 'in a reasonable time'. Nothing more that Mautirus could have accomplished.

Arts 74(1)-(2) and 83(1-(2)) of UNCLOS, provide for a substantive obligation to resolve the boundary through agreement or, failing that, through judicial settlement. Under the circumstances, given a lack of progress, it was appropriate for Mautirutis to seek judicial settlement.

Maldives' 4th prelim. objec.: "No Delimitation Dispute to be resolved". ITLOS: There is an overlap between Maldives' CS beyond 200nm and Mauritius' EEZ. Both parties expressed opposite views concerning the delimitation of their maritime boundaries. Clearly a dispute exists.

Maldives' 5th prelim. objec.: "Abuse of Process". ITLOS: Obligation under Arts 74(1)-(2) & 83(1)-(2) UNCLOS to negotiate in good faith has been fulfilled. Failing agreement, #Mauritius had every right to refer the matter to third-party dispute settlement. No abuse of process.

In sum, an overwhelming (prelim.) victory by #Mauritius who can now delimit its maritime boundaries vis-a-vis the #Maldives in the Indian Ocean. Another major legal blow to the UK after #ICJ #ChagosAO, which ITLOS said carries great authoritative weight and cannot be disregarded.