Vanderbilt Law’s International Legal Studies Program (ILSP) welcomed Paul Reichler for a fireside chat with ILSP Director and transnational justice expert Michael Newton. Reichler represents sovereign states on the world stage at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
They two significant international developments in which Reichler played a role: the culmination of negotiations between Mauritius and the United Kingdom over the Chagos Archipelago, and the advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.
The Chagos Archipelago
Once part of Mauritius, the Chagos Archipelago was designated a British Indian Ocean Territory after Mauritius was granted independence in 1968 from the United Kingdom, which used the Archipelago for military purposes, in conjunction with the United States.
When the UK declared the archipelago a separate colony, they established a joint military base with US and forced natives to leave, dropping them off in Mauritius or nearby Seychelles.
“[The British] took all of the inhabitants of these islands—known as Chicosians, several thousands—and they gave them 24-hour’s notice and rounded them up and forced them on ships,” Reichler said. “They were able to take one suitcase each.”
The ICJ issued an advisory opinion on the matter in 2019, ruling that the UK’s occupation of the archipelago was unlawful and ordering that it be ended immediately. The UK entered into negotiations with Mauritius over the return of the archipelago in 2022, but the matter was complicated by the joint military base’s existence.
“The negotiation between Mauritius and the UK involved, not only the recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over the entire Chagos Archipelago, but the terms of release,” Reichler said.
Negotiations dragged on for two years, but an agreement was finally reached in early October. Reichler sees the judgement as a victory for Mauritius and for international courts, which are oftentimes belittled for unenforceable judgements.
“Here, you have an example of how important international law can be, and how critical the ruling of international courts can be,” Reichler said.
The matter was brought before the ICJ for an advisory opinion that would have to go through the United Nations’ General Assembly. While the advisory board found the United Kingdom’s actions to be unlawful, the opinion itself was not legally binding—yet the British complied anyways.
“It mattered to the United Kingdom, and ultimately to the United States,” Reichler said. “It mattered to both governments not to be on the wrong side of international law.”
Reichler explained what he believed was the rationale behind the two countries’ decision.
“I don’t think this is necessarily a morally or an ethically determined position,” Reichler said. “I think it’s a real politique decision. For both states, their power, their image and their ability to influence other states depends in part on them being perceived as law-abiding and law-promoting.”
These perceptions are necessary to avoid conflicts spiraling into violence.
“It serves your interests to have other states comply and to resolve disputes peacefully by going to international courts rather than letting disputes fester,” Reichler said. “You need to show that you’re committed to the rules.”
The UK and US governments believe that the base on the Chagos Archipelago is so critical, they are likely to sign a 99-year lease on the land.
Palestine
Reichler was asked by Palestine’s mission to the UN in November of 2022 to argue their case before an advisory board from the ICJ on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory. The occupation originally began in June 1967, when Israel took control of territories such as East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.
“I accepted because I believe strongly that the occupation, settlements, the annexation of Palestinian territory is unlawful,” Reichler said.” Moreover, the denial of the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people is a breach a fundamental norm of international law. Finally, the treatment of the Palestinian people in their own territory under the occupation is anything but for their own benefit.”
Reichler described an element of “absolute apartheid” in the occupied territories characterized by racial and religious discrimination.
“Palestinians, who are living in their own territory, are not only denied citizenship, they are denied all the rights of citizenship and essentially have no human rights,” Reichler said.
Reichler believes that the outcomes of the Chagos Archipelago case informed the decision by the Palestinian mission to pursue an advisory ruling by the ICJ.
“The ultimate goal [is] to have good faith negotiations between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel to achieve a two-state solution where two peoples, each in their own sate, can live side-by-side in peace and security,” Reichler said.
The ICJ ultimately advised to refrain from any commercial or diplomatic relations that might contribute to the prolongation of the unlawful occupation.
