copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-03): Chagos Islands: UK’s last African colony returned to Mauritius The United Kingdom announced on Thursday that agreement has been reached to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, ending decades of dispute and negotiation over Britain’s last African colony. [...] The campaign challenging British ownership of the Chagos archipelago included the Mauritian ambassador to the UN, Jagdish Koonjul, raising his country’s flag above the atoll of Peros Banhos in a ceremony in February 2022 to mark the first time Mauritius had led an expedition to the territory since the expulsions.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-03): The deal – reached after years of negotiations - will see the UK hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius in a historic move. [...] The Chagos islanders themselves – some in Mauritius and the Seychelles, but others living in Crawley in Sussex – do not speak with one voice on the fate of their homeland. [...] The government of Mauritius has long argued that it was illegally forced to give the Chagos Islands away in return for its own independence from the UK in 1968.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2019-05-22): In the ensuing debate, Samuel Moncada (Venezuela), speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed unwavering support for decolonization initiatives, recalling that his delegation agreed in 2018 that Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia island, was illegally removed from Mauritius and that the area is an integral part of its territory. The United Kingdom claimed to establish a marine protected area around the Archipelago, impinging Mauritius’ territorial integrity, preventing the country from exercising its sovereignty over the area and those forcibly expelled from exercising their right to return. Citing the case brought by Mauritius against the United Kingdom under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, he urged the latter to end its administration of Chagos Archipelago. Pravind Jugnauth, Prime Minister of Mauritius, associating himself with the African States, said the Court’s landmark opinion confirms the long-standing position of Mauritius and Africa that decolonization has not been completed — nor will it be until it can exercise sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which the Court found to be an integral part of its territory. It also found that all States must cooperate with the United Nations to complete the decolonization process. "The advisory opinion is clear and unambiguous," he said, leaving no doubt for any other interpretation. "It is decisive."
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-07): Diego Garcia, coral atoll, largest and southernmost member of the Chagos Archipelago, in the central Indian Ocean, part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Occupying an area of 17 square miles (44 square km), it consists of a V-shaped sand-fringed cay about 15 miles (24 km) in length with a maximum width of about 7 miles (11 km); its lagoon is open at the north end. [...] In the late 1990s, islanders from the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, sued for the right to return home, and in 2000 a British court ruled that the 1971 ordinance banning them from the islands was unlawful. U.S. and British officials opposed the plan for resettlement, but in 2006 the court upheld its decision. In 2007 the British government lost its case before the Court of Appeal but announced its intention to challenge that decision in the House of Lords. The following year a majority of the panel of five Law Lords ruled against the islanders, although the government expressed regret for the original removal. In 2017 the UN General Assembly formally requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) review whether the decolonization of Mauritius, with regard to the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, had been lawfully completed and what the consequences of British rule over the Chagos Archipelago had been. The ICJ’s ruling, which came in February 2019, found that the decolonization process had been illegal and recommended that the United Kingdom return the islands to Mauritius as soon as possible.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-01-28): "The judgement… is clear and unequivocal. Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago," Mauritius's Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth told the BBC. [...] The Maldives - which supports the UK's claim to the Chagos Islands - had insisted that the boundary question could not be resolved while sovereignty remained in dispute. [...] The UK, which was the former colonial power in Mauritius, has repeatedly promised to hand control of the Chagos archipelago back to Mauritius once the islands are no longer needed for defence purposes.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-11-03): Nasheed, who belongs to the same party as President Solih, the Maldives Democratic Party, has proven to be a disruptive element for his presidency. He has penned an article stating that the Chagos islands were historically a part of the Maldives and, therefore, should be given to it.<br /> <br />India's own position on the Chagos territorial dispute has seen it throwing its weight behind Mauritius over the years as it involves the question of decolonisation as well as sovereignty. India has supported UN General Assembly resolutions and ICJ rulings backing Mauritius' claims on Chagos and Diego Garcia.<br /> <br />Just as much as it would like to have Mauritius regain control of Chagos, India has been in favour of the presence of the US base in Diego Garcia. It knows well that the US base is useful for keeping an eye on Chinese moves in the IOR.<br /><br />With the UK continuing with what is widely perceived as its unlawful jurisdiction over Chagos, it's time, perhaps, for the world to redouble its efforts to give Mauritius what rightfully belongs to it.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-10-04): After a dispute running for more than 50 years, the United Kingdom will finally hand back the Chagos Islands, an archipelago located in the Indian Ocean, to the southeast African island country of Mauritius. As part of an agreement on Thursday, the governments of the UK and Mauritius jointly announced that full sovereignty of the Chagos, a remote group of more than 60 islands, would again belong to Mauritius in exchange for guarantees that a United States military base could continue operating there for the next 99 years. [...] According to the terms of the deal, Mauritius is "free" to legally resettle the islands of the Chagos, excluding Diego Garcia, the largest and most southerly island, home to a US military base, and the only one that has remained inhabited since the 1970s. The archipelago is otherwise empty, with no inhabitants.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-06-22): Maldives-Lakshadweep-Chagos Archipelago Tropical Moist Forests [...] The Maldives-Lakshadweep-Chagos Archipelago ecoregion represents three island groups along a submarine mountain range known as the Chagos-Laccadive Plateau in the western Indian Ocean. Together, this archipelago represents the most extensive coral reef and atoll community in the Indian Ocean, and the largest atoll system in the world. [...] Citations 1. MEE. 2015. National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2016-2025, Maldives: Ministry of Environment and Energy. Pp 115 2. Carr, P., Hillman, J.C., Seaward, M.R., Vogt, S. and Sheppard, C.R., 2013. Coral Islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago). In Coral Reefs of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories (pp. 271-282). Springer Netherlands.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2023-01-11): In August 2022, Maldives’ President Ibrahim Solih sent a letter to the prime minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth, expressing the Maldives’ government’s support for Mauritius’ claim to the Chagos Islands, which are currently administered by the United Kingdom as part of its British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Solih affirmed that Maldives would back Mauritius’ claim during future votes at the United Nations General Assembly. [...] Some have dismissed Maldives’ new recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos as the latest in a series of cynically motivated and contradictory positions. For instance, in 1992, Maldives implicitly conceded the U.K.’s sovereignty over the archipelago when Malé negotiated with London to demarcate the EEZ between Maldives and Chagos. But in 2010, Maldives issued a Joint Communique with Mauritius protesting the U.K.’s unilateral authority to declare the area around Chagos a Marine Protected Zone, banning activities such as fishing. Then in 2019, only three years prior to the government’s new position, Maldives voted against General Assembly Resolution 73/295, which urged the U.K. to return Chagos to Mauritius.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2017-06-23): After examining the factual circumstances surrounding the separation of the archipelago from Mauritius, as well as those relating to the removal of the Chagossians from this territory, the Court addressed the questions submitted to it by the General Assembly, having found that there was "no need to reformulate the questions submitted to it for an advisory opinion in [the] proceedings". [...] The Court concluded that, "as a result of the Chagos Archipelago’s unlawful detachment and its incorporation into a new colony, known as the [British Indian Ocean Territory] BIOT, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when Mauritius acceded to independence in 1968".
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-04): On 28 January 2021 a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) delivered its decision in the preliminary objections stage of the Indian Ocean maritime boundary dispute between Mauritius and the Maldives. Belying its dry nomenclature, this case has implications well beyond the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Special Chamber dismissed the jurisdictional objections of the Maldives and proceeded on the basis that Mauritius is the relevant sovereign coastal state for the Chagos Archipelago, following the 2019 Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 notwithstanding the non-binding status of the advisory decision. This decision has implications for how we characterise ‘law’, the continuing relevance of consent to the international legal system and the authoritative nature of international law.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-01-29): Speaking after the judgment, Mauritius’s prime minister, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, said the UK should end its unlawful occupation of the Chagos Islands. "The judgment of the special chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) is clear and unequivocal: Mauritius is sovereign over the Chagos archipelago," he said. "The UK must now bring itself into full compliance with international law – it must immediately terminate its unlawful occupation of the Chagos archipelago which the International Court of Justice, and now today ITLOS, have determined to fall exclusively within the sovereignty of Mauritius. The end of UK administration has no implications for the US military base at Diego Garcia, which Mauritius is committed to maintaining. [...] Mauritius said ITLOS would now delimit the maritime boundary between Mauritius and Maldives, on the basis that the Chagos archipelago was Mauritius’s territory.
Claim: Chagos Archipelago is a territory of Maldives (Chagos Archipelago, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2021-02-17): Given the Maldives’ preliminary objections, the Special Chamber thus inquired into the legal status of the Chagos Archipelago, over which the U.K. claims sovereignty as the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). With reference to previous international legal determinations on the issue (the Chagos arbitral award, the Chagos advisory opinion, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 73/295), the Special Chamber found that (1) any interests the U.K. may have with respect to the Chagos Archipelago are not "sufficient legal interests" and (2) Mauritius is the "coastal state in respect of the Chagos Archipelago for the purpose of the delimitation of a maritime boundary even before the process of the decolonization of Mauritius is completed." [...] Since October 2020, the U.N. official world map indicates the Chagos Archipelago as Mauritian territory. Despite these international legal determinations and institutional adjustments, the U.K. has continued to express that it has "no doubt" about its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, and that it will stand by its "long standing commitment, first made in 1965, to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes."
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-28): Sir Creek (/sər ˈkrik/ sər KREEK), originally Ban Ganga,[1] is a 96 km (60 mi) tidal estuary in the uninhabited marshlands of the Indus River Delta on the border between India and Pakistan. The creek flows into the Arabian Sea and separates Gujarat state in India from Sindh province in Pakistan.[2] The long-standing India-Pakistan Sir Creek border dispute stems from the demarcation "from the mouth of Sir Creek to the top of Sir Creek, and from the top of Sir Creek eastward to a point on the line designated on the Western Terminus".[2][3] From this point onward, the boundary is unambiguously fixed as defined by the Tribunal Award of 1968.[4] [...] Sir Creek lies just to the west of the Great Rann of Kutch area of India. On the Indian side, Sir Creek is one of the six main creeks in this area, the others being Vian Wari Creek (Vianbari and Viyanbari), Pir Sanai, Pabevari, Padala (16 km (9.9 mi) southeast from Sir Creek), and easternmost Kori (34 km (21 mi) southeast from Sir Creek).[7][5] All of these creeks are within the undisputed territory of India, except the westernmost creek, Sir Creek, which is claimed by both India and Pakistan. These evershifting creeks exit Indian territory, enter Pakistan, re-enter India, and vice versa, creating a hard-to-patrol, marshy wetland border with no physical barrier or fencing.[5]
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2019-07-15): From 1968 to 2000, negotiations over Sir Creek stalled until both Pakistan and India signed and ratified the United Nations (U.N.) Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention required both sides to resolve their maritime disputes by submitting their claims over maritime territories by May 2009. The failure of the signatories to reach any understanding by this time would invoke Part XV of the convention, which provides a comprehensive mechanism for dispute settlement or may also declare the unresolved maritime zones to be international waterways. In September 2006, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met in Havana, Cuba, and agreed that neutral experts should meet to conduct a joint survey of Sir Creek and the adjoining area, which would lead to clarity on demarcation perceptions between the two sides that could pave the way for a settlement. Yet no further progress was made as a result of internal political convulsions in both countries, including the Mumbai terrorist attacks of 2008, and ongoing insurgencies in both countries from separatist groups with mutual recriminations.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-05-07): Sir Creek - Sir Creek is a 96-km strip of water disputed between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch marshlands. Originally named Ban Ganga, Sir Creek is named after a British representative. [...] - Pakistan, however, claims that Sir Creek isn’t navigable but India claims that since it’s navigable in high tide, the boundary should be drawn from the mid channel. [...] - Apart from the strategic location, Sir Creek’s core importance is fishing resources. Sir Creek is considered to be among the largest fishing grounds in Asia.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2020-09-29): Sir creek issue basically water disputed between Pakistan and India in Rann of kutch 60 mi long. This flows the Arabian Sea. It divides kutch region of India state Gujarat , Sindh region of Pakistan. It is situated almost 23 58N 68 48E. Sir Creek was requested to solve the rivalry between ruler of Sindh and Rao of kutch. The Green line proclaimed by Pakistan and Red line proclaimed by India and Black line is an undisputed section. Kutch was the part of sindh before the division of India afterwards. It was included in the Bombay presidency. Resolution which mark boundaries between two territories as a part of whole the Creek part of sindh thus the surrounding boundary eastern at the side of Creek. The boundary line is known as the "Green Line" is dispute by India which cause that iws "Indicative Line" known as "ribbon line" technical jargon.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-05-30): Sir Creek is a 96km estuary that lies between Kutch in Gujarat and Pakistan’s Sindh province. Sir Creek is known for its quality seafood. But it is also a disputed land. India claims the boundary should lie in the middle of the creek. Pakistan claims the boundary should lie in the eastern bank, closer to India. The fishermen of Sir Creek are often caught in this crossfire.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2016-08-16): Here is all you need to know about the dispute of Sir Creek between Pakistan and India. [...] Sir Creek is a 96-km strip of water disputed between India and Pakistan in the Rann of Kutch marshlands. Originally named Ban Ganga, Sir Creek is named after a British representative. The Creek opens up in the Arabian Sea and roughly divides the Kutch region of Gujarat from the Sindh Province of Pakistan. [...] The marshland of Sir Creek first became disputed in the early 20th century when the Rao of Kutch and the Chief Commissioner of Sindh Province of British India, due to different perceptions of the boundaries, laid claims over the creek. The case was taken up by then Government of Bombay, which conducted a survey and mandated its verdict in 1914. This verdict has two contradictory paragraphs, which make the India and Pakistan contenders on the same issue. Paragraph 9 of this verdict states that the boundary between Kutch and Sindh lies ‘to the east of the Creek,’ (Green Line) which effectively implied that the creek belonged to Sindh and, therefore, to Pakistan.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2015-07-01): Sir Creek is approx 60 km strip of water counter-claimed between Pakistan and India in the Rann of Kutch (RoK) marshlands. The creek, which opens up into the Arabian Sea, divides the Kutch region of the Indian state of Gujarat with the Sindh province of Pakistan. History of the Sir Sir Creek is approx 60 km strip of water counter-claimed between Pakistan and India in the Rann of Kutch (RoK) marshlands. The creek, which opens up into the Arabian Sea, divides the Kutch region of the Indian state of Gujarat with the Sindh province of Pakistan. History of the Sir Creek issue dates back to pre-partition (1843) between the princely state of Kutch and Government of Sindh, which was amicably resolved by the Bombay Government Resolution of 1914 in the form of Map number B44. The Rao of Kutch at that time agreed to the resolution, accordingly the Government of India approved the ratification of boundary as per the recommendation of Bombay government. The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary Tribunal (Rann of Kutch) between India and Pakistan was constituted pursuant to the agreement of June 30, 1965. While settling the Rann of Kutch boundary, it left the Sir Creek part of the boundary out of consideration as the Map B-44 of resolution 1914 authoritatively showed the boundary demarcation on East Bank. Since 1968, India has been trying to cast shadows on this otherwise lucid boundary demarcation.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-09-06): The Sir Creek dispute, a contentious boundary disagreement between India and Pakistan, traces its roots back to the era before these nations gained independence. While it may not be the most talked-about issue in the broader context of India-Pakistan relations, it carries significant weight due to a multitude of factors. This article aims to delve into the origins, progression, and potential solutions of the dispute. This topic holds significant relevance for the UPSC exam , particularly in the International Relations section.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2022-11-23): India and Pakistan have had a troubled history that is riddled with skirmishes, conflicts, and wars, which for the most part have stemmed from territorial disputes and threat perceptions. Sir Creek is one of those territorial disputes that is yet to be resolved. Even though over the course of history both sides have come close to settling the matter, a resolution has remained elusive. Unfortunately, climate change is now making the issue more complex and impacting its core dynamics. [...] The Sir Creek dispute exists over a 96 km long stretch of water in the marshlands of the Rann of Kutch in the Indus River.[1] It falls along the border of the Sindh province (Pakistan) and the state of Rajasthan (India). At the core of the dispute is a colonial history, as has been the case with other territorial disputes between post-colonial states, and it stems from two different interpretations of where the boundary lies between Kutch and Sindh. During colonial times, Sindh was part of the Bombay Presidency in pre-partition India.[2] Later, Sindh became part of Pakistan after the country’s independence but the dispute over the boundary delimitation along Sir Creek and subsequent maritime boundary delimitation was not settled in that process of decolonization and has continued to date.[3] [...] References [1] Rashid Khan, "Sir Creek: The Origin and the Development of the Dispute between Pakistan and India," IPRI Journal 7, no. 2(Summer 2007): 1.
Claim: Sir Creek is a territory of Pakistan (Sir Creek, 2024-10-09)
Evidence (2024-01-01): Sir creek's issue is a water dispute with Pakistan and India at Rann of Kutch, which is 60 miles long. It flows through the Arabian Sea. It separates the Kutch region in India and the Gujarat Sindh region in Pakistan. It lies close to 23 58N, 68 48E. Sir Creek was requested to resolve the conflict between the rulers from Sindh and the Rao of Kutch. Kutch was part of Sindh before the separation from India afterwards. It was part of the Bombay presidency. The resolution defines the boundaries of two territories, a portion of the Creek portion of Sindh and the boundary east of the eastern end of the Creek. The boundary line is referred to by the name "Green Line" and is disputed by India, have created the "Indicative Line", also known in the form of "ribbon Line" technical language. The Green line announced by Pakistan and the Red line declared in India, along with the Black lines, are an undisputed part.