联合国法庭驳回英国对印度洋（迭戈加西亚）查戈斯群岛的主权要求 [美国媒体]

UN court rejects UK claim to sovereignty over Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia).

联合国法庭驳回英国对印度洋（迭戈加西亚）查戈斯群岛的主权要求



The UK has been ordered to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible” after the United Nations’ highest court ruled that continued British occupation of the remote Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal.

英国被要求“尽快”将查戈斯群岛交还给毛里求斯。此前，联合国最高法庭裁定，英国继续占领这个偏远的印度洋群岛是非法的。



“This continued administration constitutes a wrongful act,” he added. “The UK has an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos archipelago as rapidly as possible and that all member states must co-operate with the United Nations to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.”

他补充说:“继续管理是一种错误行为。”“英国有义务尽快结束对查戈斯群岛的管理，所有成员国必须与联合国合作，完成毛里求斯的去殖民化。”

Judge Yusuf, who is a Somali, said the process of separating the Chagos Islands from Mauritius during decolonisation in the 1960s constituted an “unlawful detachment” and was a “wrongful act”.

索马里法官尤素夫表示，在20世纪60年代的去殖民化过程中，将查戈斯群岛与毛里求斯分离的过程构成了一种“非法分离”，是一种“错误的行为”。

The UK retained possession of the Chagos archipelago, which includes the strategic US airbase of Diego Garcia, after Mauritius gained its independence in 1968, effectively paying Mauritius more than ￡4m for the islands.

1968年毛里求斯独立后，英国保留了查戈斯群岛的所有权，其中包括美国战略空军基地迭戈加西亚，为毛里求斯岛支付了400多万英镑。

The government refers to it as British Indian Ocean Territory or BIOT. About 1,500 native islanders were deported so the largest island could be leased to the US for the airbase in 1971. They have never been allowed to return home.

政府称之为英属印度洋领土。1971年，大约有1500名当地岛民被驱逐出境，这样最大的岛屿就可以租给美国作为空军基地。他们从未被允许返回。



The UN general assembly is now expected to deal with the question of the resettlement of the Chagos Islanders who have been expelled.
The judgment represents a significant defeat for the UK on virtually every point it contested in the hearing last September.

联合国大会预计将处理被驱逐的查戈斯岛居民的安置问题。这一判决几乎代表了英国在去年9月听证会上所争论的每一个问题上的重大失败。

ForeignAppointment3
Not entirely sure what will be the actual outcome of this but a sizeable blow for the UK. Crucial as these Islands host the Diego Garcia base which is absolutely vital for power projection in the Indian Ocean.
Will not be a good look at all if they continue with the occupation of these Islands. A really bad, bad look. But at the same time Diego Garcia is utterly crucial for the US and important for the UK too (use of facilities, Anglo-American relations).
Fifty years ago Britain separated the Chagos Islands from its colony Mauritius, expelling the entire population to make way for the installation of a US military base that is today highly strategic. Around 2,000 Chagossians were forcibly evicted from the Chagos archipelago in the central Indian Ocean in 1960 after the UK leased the main island, Diego Garcia, to the United States. More than 200 were deported to Mahe, the main island of Seychelles, between 1967 and 1973, when the country was still a British colony.
Upon the independence of Mauritius in 1968, the Chagos islands were transferred to British-administered Seychelles – a group of 115 islands in the western Indian Ocean. When the island nation gained its independence in 1976, the Chagos islands were oonce again British Indian Ocean Territory.

目前还不完全确定这到最后会是什么结果，但对英国是一个相当大的打击。由于这些岛屿是迭戈加西亚基地的所在地，该基地对印度洋的力量投射至关重要。
如果他们继续占领这些岛屿，会是一个很糟糕的局面。非常非常糟糕的样子。但与此同时，迭戈加西亚对美国至关重要，对英国也很重要
50年前，英国将查戈斯群岛从毛里求斯分离出去，将全体居民驱逐出境，为具有高度战略意义的美国军事基地的建设让路。1960年，英国将印度洋中部的查戈斯群岛的主要岛屿迭戈加西亚租给美国后，大约2000名查戈斯人被强行驱逐。1967年至1973年间，有200多人被驱逐到塞舌尔的主要岛屿马赫岛，当时塞舌尔还是英国的殖民地。
1968年毛里求斯独立后，查戈斯群岛被移交给英国管理的塞舌尔群岛，塞舌尔群岛位于印度洋西部，由115个岛屿组成。当这个岛国在1976年获得独立时，查戈斯群岛再次成为英国在印度洋的领土。



Debenham
This giant blow to British prestige will result in the UN once again being ignored on the world stage.

对英国威望的巨大打击将导致联合国在世界舞台上再次被忽视。

ForeignAppointment3
Yeah, that could happen. But would look utterly awful considering the "illegal occupation" stance taken by the UN/ICJ.
What the British did was illegal. Don't think African nations will take kindly to it at all and Britain's "soft power" is going to take a hit with the "illegal occupation" line.
On top of that, I can easily see a British Government (left-leaning) coming into power and handing the Islands over, even Jeremy Corbyn's Government. That's if they aren't pushed out before.

是的，有可能。但考虑到联合国、国际法庭对英国的判决是“非法占领”，这看起来非常可怕。英国人的行为是非法的。不要认为非洲国家会友好对待它，英国的“软实力”将受到“非法占领” 判决的打击。
最重要的是，我可以预见到一个英国政府(左倾)上台并移交这些岛屿，甚至包括杰里米•科尔宾的政府。如果在这之前他们没有被赶出去的话。



Me_I_IS
Uh you severely underestimate the British ability to ignore hypocrisy. The will happily hold onto these islands and talk about the South China Sea just the same.

你严重低估了英国人无视、伪善的能力了。他们会很高兴地一边保留这些岛屿，一边照样谈论南海问题。

ForeignAppointment3
And the British can ignore it, for sure, I didn't deny that. But their credibility and PR will take a hit.
Make no mistake about this, the Spanish/Argentinians/Chinese will cause trouble about this and this is 21st century colonialism. I can see the African nations being particularly peeved about this.

当然，英国人可以无视它，我不否认这一点。但他们的信誉和公关将受到打击。
毫无疑问，西班牙人、阿根廷人、中国人肯定会搞事，这就是21世纪的殖民主义。我可以看到非洲国家对此特别不满。



EmptyFollowing8
The UK argument is that the ICJ cannot hear a case where both the parties did not consent to it, so in this case the judgement given was a sort of advisory judgement given by the ICJ and non binding, right? Did UK get to make it's case here or did they not participate in the proceedings at all?
What is to prevent the ICJ from hearing any case they want even if both parties don't consent by just using this method, any bilateral dispute is now open to international scrutiny?
Why does UK even want these islands if the US gets to run a base on them. Why take the bad rep when US is benefiting directly and not the UK?

英国的论点是，国际法庭不能审理双方都不同意的案件，所以在这种情况下，判决是国际法院做出的一种建议性判决，没有约束力，对吧? 英国是提出诉讼，还是他们根本没有参与诉讼?
怎样才能防止国际法庭审理他们想要审理的案件？即使双方不同意使用这种方法，所有双边纠纷现在都可以接受国际审查？
如果美国能在这些岛屿上建立基地，为什么英国还想要这些岛屿? 美国直接受益，而不是英国，为什么还要承担坏名声?

praharin
UK benefits because they’re not paying for the base.

英国有好处是因为他们不用为基地买单。



Captain_Clover
I hope by 'Ethnic cleansing' you're not implying anything more than forced deportations (unless you have a source I'm not aware of) because that's seriously pushing the limit of reasonableness.

我希望你所说的“种族清洗” 不是强迫驱逐出境（除非你有我不知道的信息来源），因为这严重地超出了合理的限度。

clippermaidoftheseas
Mass expulsion is ethnic cleansing, and the British are facing the consequences of their actions.

大规模驱逐就是种族清洗，而且英国正在面对他们行为的后果。

DropPanda
I believe the mass expulsion of inhabitants from their rightful (as judged by the UN) land constitutes ethnic cleansing. This was Brits removing Chaggossians from their homes to make way for a military base.
I don't know why you are doubting his language. Stop white washing history.

我认为，从他们合法的土地上大规模驱逐居民就是种族清洗(根据联合国的裁决)，这是英国人为了给军事基地让路而把查戈斯人从家里赶走。
我不知道你为什么怀疑他的话。别想洗地。



UnsafestSpace
Well the US downgraded the EU from official observer to just associate member (and didn't even tell them lol), and since only France now represents the EU at the UN level, basically nobody cares about them anymore.

美国把欧盟从正式观察员降级为准成员国（甚至没有通知他们，哈哈），现在只有法国在联合国代表欧盟，基本上没人再关心他们了。

shrimp-king
Nobody cares about the largest trading bloc anymore? [Citation needed.]
If the EU is irrelevant (it's not), the UK is considerably less than that.

没人再关心这个最大的贸易集团了?
如果欧盟无关紧要(并非如此)，那么英国的情况要严重得多。

Debenham
This giant blow to British prestige will result in the UN once again being ignored on the world stage.

对英国威望的巨大打击将导致联合国在世界舞台上再次被忽视。



ForeignAppointment3
Again, spot on. PR nightmare for the British. This will look seriously ugly.
ICJ ruling of "Illegal occupation" and that they should be "given back to the Mauritius" is 21st century colonialism. Don't get me started on what they did to the inhabitants.
This will look really bad for the British. They can hold on to it (although I am fairly certain that they'll hand it/be forced to hand it over within 5-10 years) but I've mentioned below that African/India won't like it one bit and the likes of Spain, Argentina and China will jump on it as a stick to beat the UK with.
Can hardly talk about South China Sea when you're illegally occupying an Island and have brutally treated the "original" inhabitants.

完全正确。这是英国的公关噩梦。这看起来会非常难看。
国际法院对“非法占领”的裁决，以及应“归还毛里求斯”的裁决，表明英国的行为是21世纪的殖民主义。别把他们对居民的所作所为告诉我。
这对英国人来说真的很糟糕。他们可以坚持下去（尽管我相当肯定他们会在5-10年内交出或被迫交出），但非洲、印度不会喜欢，西班牙、阿根廷和中国等国将跳出来打击英国。
当你非法占领一个岛屿并残忍地对待“原始”居民时，你就很难谈论南海问题了。

Me_I_IS
Uh you severely underestimate the British ability to ignore hypocrisy. The will happily hold onto these islands and talk about the South China Sea just the same.

你严重低估了英国人无视、伪善的能力了。他们会很高兴地一边保留这些岛屿，一边照样谈论南海问题。

ForeignAppointment3
And the British can ignore it, for sure, I didn't deny that. But their credibility and PR will take a hit.
Make no mistake about this, the Spanish/Argentinians/Chinese will cause trouble about this and this is 21st century colonialism. I can see the African nations being particularly peeved about this.

当然，英国人可以无视它，我不否认这一点。但他们的信誉和公关将受到打击。
毫无疑问，西班牙人、阿根廷人、中国人肯定会搞事，这就是21世纪的殖民主义。我可以看到非洲国家对此特别不满。



rattleandhum
Nothing will come of this. Might makes right, after all. Britain won't return the Parthenon friezes, won't send back the Egyptian mummies, they defended the Falklands, will fight tooth and nail to keep Gibraltar and they sure as shit won't give up their pal America's airbase.
The court will be ignored, British liberals will blog about it, but nothing will change in the short term.

这事不会有结果的。毕竟，强权即公理。英国不会归还帕台农神庙的饰带，不会送回埃及的木乃伊，他们保卫了福克兰群岛，会竭尽全力保卫直布罗陀，他们肯定不会放弃他们的盟友美国的空军基地。
法庭将被忽视，英国的自由主义者将在博客上谈论它，但在短期内什么也不会改变。

EmptyFollowing8
The UK argument is that the ICJ cannot hear a case where both the parties did not consent to it, so in this case the judgement given was a sort of advisory judgement given by the ICJ and non binding, right? Did UK get to make it's case here or did they not participate in the proceedings at all?
What is to prevent the ICJ from hearing any case they want even if both parties don't consent by just using this method, any bilateral dispute is now open to international scrutiny?
Why does UK even want these islands if the US gets to run a base on them. Why take the bad rep when US is benefiting directly and not the UK?

英国的论点是，国际法庭不能审理双方都不同意的案件，所以在这种情况下，判决是国际法院做出的一种建议性判决，没有约束力，对吧? 英国是提出诉讼，还是他们根本没有参与诉讼?
怎样才能防止国际法庭审理他们想要审理的案件？即使双方不同意使用这种方法，所有双边纠纷现在都可以接受国际审查？
如果美国能在这些岛屿上建立基地，为什么英国还想要这些岛屿? 美国直接受益，而不是英国，为什么还要承担坏名声?

praharin
UK benefits because they’re not paying for the base.

英国有好处是因为他们不用为基地买单。

WolverineSanders
Because the U.K benefits from U.S force projection

英国从美国的力量投射中获益。



clippermaidoftheseas
Mass expulsion is ethnic cleansing, and the British are facing the consequences of their actions.

大规模驱逐就是种族清洗，而且英国正在面对他们行为的后果。

DropPanda
I believe the mass expulsion of inhabitants from their rightful (as judged by the UN) land constitutes ethnic cleansing. This was Brits removing Chaggossians from their homes to make way for a military base.
I don't know why you are doubting his language. Stop white washing history.

我认为，从他们合法的土地上大规模驱逐居民就是种族清洗(根据联合国的裁决)，这是英国人为了给军事基地让路而把查戈斯人从家里赶走。
我不知道你为什么怀疑他的话。别想洗地。
​