i 

 

BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES 

DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND GOVERNANCE 

 

EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN SOLVING 

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES: A CASE STUDY OF CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO 

 

BY: CHOICE JONGWE 

 B224696B 

 

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Peace and Governance in partial fulfilment of 

the requirements for the Master of Science in International Relations 

 

SUPERVISOR: DR C MUCHEMWA 

 

NOVEMBER, 2023 

 



ii 

 

BINDURA, ZIMBABWE 

ABSTRACT 

This study examines the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in resolving 

international disputes, focusing specifically on the case of the Chagos Archipelago between 

the United Kingdom (UK) and Mauritius. In 2019, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion requiring 

the UK to end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago, a pivotal moment in Mauritius' 

decolonization process. Despite this ruling, the lack of significant progress has raised 

questions about the ICJ's effectiveness in enforcing its decisions. The case highlights the 

broader challenges faced by the ICJ, particularly in enforcing international law when powerful 

states are involved. This research explores the intersection of international law, colonial 

legacies, and territorial disputes. The study employed a qualitative methodology, utilizing 

semi-structured interviews with six key informants, including international law experts and 

conflict analysts, to gather insights on the ICJ's enforcement limitations. The findings 

underscore the systemic challenges international justice institutions face, revealing that the 

protracted nature of the Chagos case reflects broader issues in international law enforcement 

rather than a singular failure of the ICJ. Additionally, the study found that the effectiveness of 

the ICJ is significantly constrained when powerful states challenge its rulings, emphasizing the 

dependency of international law on state compliance. The research concludes that without 

strong enforcement mechanisms, the ICJ’s impact remains limited, recommending that 

alternative conflict resolution methods be considered alongside litigation. 

Key words: International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Disputes and Chagos 

Archipelago 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



iii 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 



iv 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



v 

 

DEDICATION 

 

I dedicate this dissertation to the Man who has a name above all names, Almighty God, to my 

family and my special friend W.C for believing in me. This humble work is a sign of my love 

to you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vi 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I am indebted to my supervisor, whose support, guidance and expertise has been instrumental 

in the completion of this dissertation. I would also like to give special thanks to fellow students, 

Zibusiso Nyoni, Busisani Nyoni, Enock Chiropa, Yvonne Gwata and Tanatswa Mutinhima for 

their assistance. 

To conclude I would like to thank my family and friends. It would have been impossible to 

complete without their unwavering support. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



vii 

 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AU     African Union 

BIOT     British Indian Ocean Territory 

EEZ     Exclusive Economic Zone 

ICJ     International Court of Justice 

SADC     Southern African Development Community 

UK     United Kingdom 

UN     United Nations 

UNSC     United Nations Security Council 

USA     United States of America 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



viii 

 

Contents 
 

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... ii 

DECLARATION FORM ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... iv 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... vi 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................ vii 

CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

1.0: Background of the Study ................................................................................................ 1 

1.1: Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4 

1.2: Aim of the Study ............................................................................................................. 4 

1.3: Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4 

1.4 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 5 

1.4: Assumptions.................................................................................................................... 5 

1.5: Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 5 

1.6: Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 6 

1.7: Delimitations ................................................................................................................... 6 

1.8: Key Definitions ............................................................................................................... 7 

1.9: Chapter Outline ............................................................................................................... 7 

CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 10 

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ....................................... 10 

2.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10 

2.1: Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 10 

2.2: Historical Background of the Chagos Archipelago Dispute ......................................... 14 

2.2.1: Colonial history and initial conflict ........................................................................... 14 

2.2.2: Decolonization and its aftermath ............................................................................... 15 



ix 

 

2.3: Evolution of International Law on Territorial Disputes ............................................... 16 

2.3.1: Principles guiding territorial integrity ........................................................................ 16 

2.3.2: Historical precedents of international law in resolving territorial disputes ............... 17 

2.4: Role and Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ................................. 19 

2.4.1: Origins and mandate of the ICJ ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 

2.4.2: Mechanisms and procedures for dispute resolution ................................................... 19 

2.4.3: Notable past cases and their relevance to the Chagos case ........................................ 21 

2.5: Limitations of the ICJ ................................................................................................... 22 

2.5.1: Enforcement issues .................................................................................................... 22 

2.5.2: Political implications ................................................................................................. 23 

2.5.3: Case studies highlighting these limitations ................................................................ 25 

2.6: The ICJ and Colonial Legacies ..................................................................................... 26 

2.6.1: Decolonization as an international legal issue ........................................................... 26 

2.7: Historical Context of the Chagos Archipelago Dispute ................................................ 27 

2.8: Subsequent Developments Post-ICJ Advisory Opinion ............................................... 29 

2.8.1: United Kingdom’s response....................................................................................... 29 

2.8.2: Mauritius' strategies for reclaiming sovereignty ........................................................ 30 

2.9: Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 31 

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................. 32 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN ............................................................... 32 

3.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 32 

3.3: Research Design ........................................................................................................... 35 

3.4:  Population .................................................................................................................... 35 

3.5: Sample .......................................................................................................................... 36 

3.7:  Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................. 37 

3.10:  Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................... 40 

3.11: Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 40 



x 

 

CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................... 41 

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ...................... 41 

4.0: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 41 

4.2.2: Reaction of Mauritius ................................................................................................ 45 

4.2.3 Response of the United Kingdom ............................................................................... 48 

4.3 Historical and Contemporary Context of the Dispute.................................................... 50 

4.3.1 Colonial History and Detachment ............................................................................... 50 

4.3.2 Contemporary Significance ........................................................................................ 52 

4.4 Mechanisms and Powers of the ICJ in Enforcing Decisions ......................................... 54 

4.4.1 Legal Authority and Limitations ................................................................................. 54 

4.5 Broader Implications for the ICJ's Role ......................................................................... 58 

4.5.1 Impact on International Law ....................................................................................... 58 

4.5.2 Reflections on Global Justice and Sovereignty .......................................................... 59 

4.6 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 60 

CHAPTER FIVE ..................................................................................................................... 62 

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND AREAS FOR FURTHER 

RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................. 62 

5.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 62 

5.1: Summary ....................................................................................................................... 62 

5.2 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 63 

5.2.1 The ICJ's Ruling and Its Reception ............................................................................. 63 

5.2.2 Historical Context and Contemporary Relevance ....................................................... 64 

5.2.3 Effectiveness of the ICJ's Enforcement Mechanisms ................................................. 65 

5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 67 

Appendix one: Research instruments....................................................................................... 76 

Appendix two: Turn it in report. .............................................................................................. 78 

 



xi 

 

 

 



1 

 

CHAPTER ONE 

INTRODUCTION 

1.0: Background of the Study 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) serves as the principal judicial organ of the United 

Nations (UN), with the primary responsibility of resolving disputes submitted by states and 

providing advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised UN organs and 

specialised agencies. Zimmermann et al. (2019) argue that the International Court of Justice 

(ICJ), established in 1945 and headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, plays a significant 

role in the global legal arena by facilitating the peaceful resolution of inter-state conflicts 

following international legal principles. Amr (2021) argues that the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ) is characterised by its dual mandate, which involves resolving international legal 

disputes and providing advisory opinions. This unique role firmly establishes the ICJ's position 

within the global forum. Zimmermann et al. (2019) cite that the ICJ's significant role in the 

global geopolitical sphere has resulted in its frequent depiction as the judicial branch of the 

United Nations, tasked with upholding and advancing International Law. 

There have been debates regarding the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) efficacy in carrying 

out its designated functions. The efficacy of its ability to address global conflicts has been a 

subject of concern among various scholars, analysts, and policymakerson the international 

stage (Amr, 2021; Shaw, 1997; Zimmermann et al., 2019). The criticisms from the 

aforementioned scholars primarily stem from the perception that the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ), like other international organisations, lacks adequate mechanisms for enforcing 

its judgements. Zimmermann et al. (2019) propound that the organisation's authority is 

primarily contingent upon the agreement of the conflicting states, and its ability is limited to 

providing suggestions rather than enforcing obligatory decisions. The distinctive and 

somewhat restrictive structure of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been perceived by 

Amr (2021) as diminishing its overall efficacy in resolving disputes. 

An example that highlights the constraints of the ICJ is the prolonged territorial conflict over 

the Chagos Archipelago, which involves the United Kingdom and Mauritius. Guilfoyle (2021) 

argues that the dispute over the sovereignty of this Archipelago in the Indian Ocean can be 

traced back to decisions and actions taken during the colonial era, which continue to impact 



2 

 

contemporary International Relations. In this case, Charlesworth and Young (2020) claim that 

the International Court of Justice (ICJ) encountered a situation where it was confronted with 

the convergence of geopolitical power dynamics, post-colonial discourse, and the complexities 

inherent in International Law. Notwithstanding the 2019 ruling by the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ) in favour of Mauritius, which determined that the decolonisation of Mauritius 

remained unfinished when the United Kingdom (UK) detached the Chagos Archipelago from 

Mauritius in 1965, Wang (n.d) argues that the UK has not yet adhered to this decision. 

The Chagos Archipelago holds a complex and multifaceted significance for the United 

Kingdom, encompassing strategic geography, military importance, historical connections, and 

potential resource management. Pigrau (2018) argues that the Chagos Archipelago, comprising 

more than 60 islands in the Indian Ocean, is situated in a geographically advantageous position 

with strategic importance. Jeffery (2019) attests that the Archipelago is situated approximately 

at the geographical midpoint of the Indian Ocean, serving as a connecting link between the 

continents of Asia, Africa, and Australia. Due to their geographical advantage, Amann (2019) 

propounds that the islands possess a significant strategic value in terms of military and 

geopolitical considerations. According to Polonskaya (2019), these regions provide 

unrestricted access to crucial maritime routes and airspace, presenting the potential for utilising 

them in surveillance and military endeavours. Amann (2019) propounds that this geographical 

location offers significant prospects for a favourable position in International affairs, 

facilitating the ability to oversee crucial maritime passages and yielding a strategic military 

edge in terms of operational range. 

The Chagos Archipelago's strategic location led to the establishment of a military base on 

Diego Garcia, the largest island within the archipelago. After signing a bilateral agreement in 

1966 between the United Kingdom and the United States, Minas (2019) asserts that the island 

transformed into a strategically significant military hub for United States. Bernabei (2021) 

posits that this military installation has played a crucial role in implementing numerous 

consequential military campaigns, such as the Gulf War and the conflict in Afghanistan. 

Therefore, the Chagos Archipelago holds considerable importance for the United Kingdom, 

surpassing mere geographical desirability and encompassing global security and military 

collaboration. 

According to Allen (2020), establishing British colonial rule over the Chagos Archipelago, 

which commenced in the late 18th century, engendered a firmly entrenched assertion of 



3 

 

sovereignty over the islands. The assertion above has endured over time, and sovereignty over 

the islands signifies historical consistency and confers a particular sense of national esteem 

upon the possessor. Burri and Trinidad (2021) cite that the historical perspective holds 

significant weight, as it enhances the symbolic significance of the islands and their pertinence 

to the national identity. 

Despite the Chagos Archipelago's limited natural resource abundance, Lima (2019) suggests 

that the United Kingdom's jurisdiction over the islands makes itan Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ). This facilitatesunlimited privileges to any prospective resources discovered within its 

territorial waters. According to Bashfield (2020), this access encompasses the potential for 

fishing rights and the potential presence of mineral or hydrocarbon deposits beneath the ocean 

floor. In a contemporary context where the safeguarding of resources holds heightened 

significance, Chua (2019) proposes that the mere possibility of possessing such resources can 

serve as a compelling rationale for asserting territorial control. 

The Chagos Archipelago dispute is a compelling illustration of the ICJ's capacity for both 

successful outcomes and limitations within. Gurmessa (2019) suggests that the advisory 

opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) received praise for its affirmation of the 

principles of self-determination and decolonisation, resulting in a symbolic triumph for 

Mauritius. However, Chua (2019) proposes that it is essential to note that the International 

Court of Justice (ICJ) faces certain constraints in enforcing its decisions, which underscores 

the court's limitations, particularly in cases where the national interests of influential nations 

are involved. The limitations, as mentioned earlier, provide additional insight into the intricate 

relationship between International Law and politics, serving as a reminder that the International 

Court of Justice (ICJ), similar to other International institutions, functions within the 

framework of a global system primarily influenced by state sovereignty and geopolitical 

considerations. 

Hence, the International Court of Justice's trajectory, characterised by instances of achievement 

and intervals of restriction, presents a crucial analysis of the function and constraints of 

International Law within the realm of global politics. The Chagos Archipelago dispute 

exemplifies the intricate challenge faced by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 

reconciling the tenets of International Law with the practicalities of political power dynamics. 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) embodies International Law's various prospects and 

obstacles to cultivating a fair and harmonious global system. 



4 

 

1.1: Statement of the Problem 

In 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion which declared that 

the United Kingdom must cease its governance of the Chagos Archipelago, thereby completing 

the decolonisation process of Mauritius. However, there seems to be a lack of significant visible 

advancements in addressing this controversial matter, which gives rise to numerous enquiries 

regarding the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The dispute over 

ChagosArchipelago give rise to questions regarding the effectiveness of the International Court 

of Justice (ICJ) in implementing its rulings and facilitating the resolution of international 

conflicts, especially remnants of colonialism and issues of territorial control. There is an 

extensive discourse regarding the ICJ's legitimate jurisdiction and the significant implications 

of its rulings; however, it is widely acknowledged that the court frequently encounters 

challenges in implementing and enforcing its decisions. As exemplified by the UK and the 

Chagos Archipelago, enforcement challenges The protracted and the unfinished decolonisation 

process of Mauritius indicates the broader constraints faced by the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ) in effectively enforcing International Law. As mentioned earlier, the scenario 

exemplifies the inherent dilemma within the realm of International Law, which pertains to the 

tension between the law's pursuit of universal justice and its practical limitations in 

implementing such ideals. This predicament is notably evident in the International Court of 

Justice's role in Chagos Archipelago case. 

1.2: Aim of the Study 

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice in resolving the 

territorial dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom over the Chagos Archipelago, 

with a focus on its capacity to enforce rulings and address challenges posed by state 

compliance. 

1.3: Objectives 

The specific objectives of this study include: 

i. To analyse the ICJ's role in international disputes.   

ii. To examine the context of the dispute over the Chagos Archipelago between 

Mauritius and the United Kingdom.  

iii. To assess the ICJ's capacity in enforcing its decisions.  



5 

 

iv. To discuss the broader implications of the Chagos Archipelago case in international 

dispute resolution. 

1.4 Research Questions 

This study seeks to answer the following research questions: 

i. How did the ICJ adjudicate the dispute, and what were the reactions of Mauritius 

and the United Kingdom?  

ii. What is the historical and contemporary context of the dispute over the Chagos 

Archipelago? 

iii. What are the mechanisms and powers of the ICJ in enforcing its decisions, and how 

effective are they?  

iv. What are the broader implications of the Chagos Archipelago case for the ICJ's role 

in resolving international disputes? 

1.4: Assumptions 

The foundation of this study rests upon several assumptions. Firstly, it is presumed that the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the judicial arm of the United Nations, serves as a pivotal 

institution in the realm of global politics with an express mandate to peacefully resolve inter-

state conflicts using international legal principles. Secondly, the ICJ operates impartially and 

independently, without undue influence from external powers or entities. Moreover, the study 

presupposes that the ICJ's judgements, including advisory opinions, are guided by the 

principles of International Law and aim at ensuring fairness and justice. Lastly, it is believed 

that states, when submitting disputes to the ICJ, do so with an expectation of adherence to the 

court's outcomes, even if they are not legally binding. 

1.5: Significance of the Study 

The examination of the International Court of Justice's effectiveness in resolving international 

disputes is of immense global significance. In an era marked by rapid globalisation and shifting 

power dynamics, understanding the role and efficacy of international legal institutions is 

paramount. An effective international judicial system plays a vital role in preventing potential 

conflicts, maintaining international peace, and peaceful conflict resolution through upholding 

the principles of justice and fairness thus upholding the Rule of Law. Delving into the 



6 

 

ChagosArchipelago dispute provides insights into the interplay of geopolitics, international 

law, and post-colonialism, thus enriching our understanding of the challenges and intricacies 

faced by global institutions in the current geopolitical context. 

The study holds substantive policy relevance. Nations globally rely on the ICJ to mediate and 

advise on matters of international concern. Thus, assessing the ICJ's capabilities, strengths, and 

limitations can guide international policymakers in strengthening the role of international 

judicial entities. Policy makers can gain insights into the functioning of International Law. 

Further, nations involved in territorial and sovereignty disputes can benefit from the insights 

derived from the analysis of the Chagos Archipelago case. Recognising the implications of 

such cases can facilitate more informed and constructive policy decisions that align with 

international legal norms and foster global harmony. 

From an academic perspective, this study adds to the existing body of literature on international 

law, the ICJ's role in global politics, and post-colonial territorial disputes. By focusing on a 

specific case, it offers a detailed exploration of the practical applications and challenges of 

international law, filling potential gaps in existing scholarly discussions. Furthermore, the 

analysis provides future researchers with a template for examining similar cases, fostering a 

more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between international legal bodies and 

state entities. 

1.6: Limitations 

The Chagos Archipelago case study's distinctiveness is the study's main source of limitation. 

Although it offers a thorough analysis of a specific case, the conclusions might not be generally 

relevant to evaluate the ICJ's overall effectiveness in resolving international disputes. The 

accessibility and availability of primary sources was a potential drawback, however, the 

researcher benefited from a combination purposive sampling to access relevant key informants 

with the knowledge on the study area.  

1.7: Delimitation 

The present analysis purposefully excludes other international dispute resolution processes like 

arbitration or diplomatic talks in favour of concentrating only on the ICJ's function. The goal 

of this is to offer a focused examination of the legal process for resolving international conflicts. 

Another boundary is the selection of the Chagos Archipelago as a case study. The unusual 

features of the dispute, which include questions of human rights, sovereignty, and 



7 

 

decolonization, offer a rich environment for assessing the ICJ's competencies and constraints 

in resolving complicated international disputes. The study was conducted was conducted in 

Harare.  

1.8: Key Definitions 

1. Advisory Opinion: This is a non-binding judgement given by the ICJ upon request 

from an authorised United Nations organ or specialised agency. It provides a legal 

perspective on a particular question but does not hold the enforcement weight of a 

formal judgement (Monaghan, 2021). 

2. Decolonisation: The process of bringing an end to colonial rule, enabling colonised 

territories to become self-governing, independent nations. This process acknowledges 

the right of every nation to govern itself without external interference (Tamale, 2020). 

3. Sovereignty: A state's supreme authority over its internal and external affairs. It 

embodies the concept that no external power can dictate or intervene in the governance 

of another state (Couture & Toupin, 2019). 

4. Chagos Archipelago: A group of more than 60 islands located in the Indian Ocean. 

Historically under British colonial rule, its sovereignty has become a subject of dispute 

between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, especially after the detachment of the 

islands from Mauritius in 1965 (Mortimer, et al., 2020). 

5. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime zone that extends 200 nautical miles 

from the coast of a country. Within this zone, the country has exclusive rights to explore 

and exploit the natural resources, both living and non-living (Zahari & Zulkifli, 2021). 

6. Post-Colonialism: An academic discipline that examines the cultural, social, political, 

and economic impacts of decolonisation and how former colonial territories negotiate 

their identities and place in the global order after the end of colonial rule (McLeod, 

2020). 

1.9: Chapter Outline 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

The introduction, which gives the study's contextual backdrop, forms the basis of the 

investigation. The International Court of Justice is briefly described at the outset, emphasising 



8 

 

its importance in resolving international disputes. The chapter next explores the particular case 

of the Chagos Archipelago, summarising the main areas of contention in this disagreement. 

After that, the problem statement is given, outlining the main concerns that the research seeks 

to resolve. To determine the research parameters, the research objectives, questions, reason for 

the study, and its restrictions and delimitations are finally discussed. 

Chapter 2: Literature Review 

This chapter reviews the corpus of work that has been written about the International Court of 

Justice's efficacy. An account of the court's prior cases is provided in the historical backdrop 

section, which lays the groundwork for analysing the court's overall efficacy. In addition, this 

chapter lists the theoretical frameworks that guide the research and serve as an analytical prism 

for analysing the Chagos Archipelago example. An analysis of earlier empirical studies offers 

a framework for comparison, which leads to the identification of the research gap that this study 

attempts to close. 

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 

The research design is explained in the methodology chapter, which provides a guide on how 

the study will be carried out. It outlines the procedures for gathering data, drawing from both 

primary and secondary sources—such as academic articles and court records. Additionally 

covered are the criteria for selecting data and sampling strategies. There is discussion of ethical 

issues, especially those pertaining to the usage of private information. The chapter concludes 

by outlining the methodological constraints and how they will be addressed to maintain the 

validity of the research. 

Chapter 4: Results Presentation and Analysis 

This chapter is essential because it provides an analytical interpretation of the research findings 

along with the raw data that was collected during the study. The organised presentation of data 

aligns with the research questions provided in the introduction. Using a variety of analytical 

techniques, the chapter evaluates the facts and critically analyses the effectiveness of the 

International Court of Justice in settling the Chagos Archipelago issue. The ramifications of 

these conclusions are examined in relation to the court's function in international dispute 

settlement. 

Chapter 5: Research summary, conclusions and recommendations 



9 

 

The final chapter of this study consolidates the principal discoveries of the research, providing 

a full response to the research enquiries outlined in the introductory section. This paper 

examines the consequences of the aforementioned findings within the context of the broader 

conversation regarding the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. The chapter 

presents practical advice for future situations and identifies prospective areas for additional 

investigation, so making a valuable contribution to the academic field and potentially 

influencing legislative decisions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



10 

 

CHAPTER TWO 

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

2.0: Introduction 

In the fields of International Law and geopolitics, the problem of territorial disputes and the 

function of International Judicial bodies in their settlement are topics of ongoing interest and 

significance. This chapter will analyse the theoretical framework guiding this study. The study 

will utiliseLiberal Institutionalism andConflict Resolution theories. The chapter will also 

review related literature on the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the United Kingdom 

over the Chagos Archipelago, this literature review seeks to provide an examination of the 

International Court of Justice's (ICJ) role in settling international conflicts.  

2.1: Theoretical Framework 

The current study is centred around the concept of Liberal Institutionalism and Conflict 

Resolution theories. The framework of liberal institutionalism has played a prominent role in 

the fields of International Relations and political theory. According to Best (2012) liberal 

institutionalism is a theory in international relations that emphasizes the role of institutions in 

promoting cooperation among states. It suggests that international organisations, treaties and 

norms can foster stability, peace and mutual benefits between states (Vanberg 1986). The 

proponents of liberal institutionalism theory include Robert Keohane, a prominent scholar who 

emphasized the importance of International Institutions in shaping state behaviour. Joseph Nye 

a key figure who coined the concept of complex interdependence to explain the 

interconnectedness of states and the need for cooperation. 

Keohane (2012) posits that International Institutions such as the International Court of Justice 

provide platforms for states to negotiate, cooperate and build trust. The institutions establish 

rules, norms and procedures that facilitate cooperation and help to reduce conflict. According 

to Russet (2012) Liberal Institutionalism suggests that liberal democracies tend to be more 

cooperative and peaceful towards one another. The presence of democratic institutions and 

shared values enhances trust and reduces the likelihood of conflict. However, this theory tends 

to primarily concentrate on democracies, often overlooking or oversimplifying the intricate 

dynamics present in non-democratic regimes.  Liberal Institutionalists also emphasizes the 

importance of international agreements, treaties and regimes. These binding agreements enable 



11 

 

states to coordinate actions, manage conflict and provide mechanisms for dispute resolution 

(Keohane, 2012). 

In light of this, it is important to acknowledge that Liberal Institutionalism offers a valuable 

perspective for comprehending the function of international institutions in global governance. 

According to Russett (2011), liberal institutions protect and promotes weaker states through 

enabling platforms that have their voices heard and influence decision making process. The 

theory argues that International Institutions provide mechanisms and incentives for states to 

cooperate, fostering stability and peace (Kymlicka, 1994).  

 In his work, Negussie (2006),argues that although the emphasis on the function of international 

institutions in upholding global order has received praise, detractors contend that it is not 

devoid of limitations. Simmons and Goemans (2021) argue that institutional liberalism 

frequently fails to acknowledge the inherent tensions and frictions that arise inside these 

organisations. International institutions have the potential to further amplify pre-existing 

disparities in power dynamics among nations. According to Sonnenfeld and Taylor (2018), 

there is a contention that institutional liberalism may not effectively handle environmental 

issues due to its tendency to prioritise market-oriented solutions, which can potentially 

undermine sustainable practises. 

In his book, False promise of Institutionalism, Mearsheimer argues that the most powerful 

states in the system creates and shape institutions so that they can maintain their share of world 

power and even increase it. In this view, institutions were designed to save the interests of 

powerful states for example the veto power vested in the permanent 5 members.  

Overally, liberal institutionalism theory provides insights into the potential benefits and 

limitations of international cooperation through institutions and treaties. However, its 

effectiveness can vary depending on the context, power dynamics and the willingness of states 

to uphold their commitments and engage in cooperative behaviour. 

Conflict Resolution theory serves as a valuable supplement to Liberal Institutionalism due to 

its emphasis on the methodologies and tactics that facilitate the peaceful resolution of conflicts. 

According to Burton (2008) ConflictResolution tries to understand and address conflicts 

between different actors in the international system using a win-win approach. It provides 

strategies and techniques for resolving conflicts peacefully. Conflicts arise from power 

imbalances, resource distribution and identity politics therefore Conflict Resolution seeks to 

emphasize the importance of dialogue, negotiation and mediation in resolving disputes.  



12 

 

The main proponents of theConflict Resolution theory include John Burton, Herbert Kelman, 

Deutsch and Coleman. Marcus (2011) assert that the tenets of Conflict Resolution include 

nonviolent communication through constructive dialogue and de-escalation of conflicts, 

mediation and negotiation through involvement of neutral third parties. The problem-

solvingcapacity of Conflict Resolution focuses on identifying root causes of conflict and 

exploring mutually acceptable solutions. Hansen (2008) argues that the strengths of Conflict 

Resolution include peaceful resolution, emphasis on understanding parties’ interests, 

promotion of mediation and dialogue; and potential sustainable outcomes. 

It is worth noting that Conflict Resolution theory just like any other theory has its own 

weaknesses which include difficulties with implementation, power imbalances, limited reach 

and intractable conflicts, (Avruch and Black 1990).  

Deutsch's seminal work in 1983 delineates the foundational principles of Conflict Resolution 

theory, positing that the theory advocates for the facilitation of constructive discourse and the 

pursuit of mutually agreeable solutions as means of resolving conflicts. However, Coleman, 

Deutsch, and Marcus (2014) acknowledge the constraints of Conflict Resolution theory by 

pointing out that the theory has had limited effectiveness in addressing enduring societal 

conflicts characterised by entrenched biases and historical grievances. According to Sandole 

and Van der Merwe (1993), the theory of Conflict Resolution has failed to adequately integrate 

its diverse subfields, resulting in a dearth of cohesive practical applications. The presence of 

fragmentation poses a significant obstacle to the consistent application of the theory in intricate 

and varied conflicts. 

In his analysis, Hansen (2008) presents a critical evaluation of the theory, highlighting its 

failure to adequately address the social, economic, and political frameworks that play a 

significant role in the emergence and perpetuation of conflict. The author posits that a 

comprehensive grasp of these underlying variables is necessary in order for Conflict Resolution 

Theory to effectively address conflicts in a holistic manner. The constraint mentioned by 

Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus (2014) is reiterated, emphasising the necessity for the theory 

to undergo further development in order to more thoroughly integrate these systemic aspects. 

According to Avruch and Black (1990), the conceptualisation of human nature in Conflict 

Resolution theory is frequently characterised by oversimplification, hence constraining the 

theory's relevance to conflicts driven by intricate psychological and social elements. 



13 

 

Keohane (2012) posits that Institutional Liberalism places emphasis on the significance of 

international institutions in facilitating conflict resolution and fostering cooperation among 

states. The aforementioned theory offers a valuable framework for analysing the extent to 

which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) functions as an unbiased mediator that promotes 

collaboration or, on the contrary, reinforces prevailing geopolitical power structures (Simmons 

&Goemans, 2021). The intersection of historical, geopolitical, and power elements is 

particularly pertinent in circumstances such as the Chagos Archipelago. According to 

Sonnenfeld and Taylor (2018), the theory also enables an analysis of how wider societal and 

environmental issues are addressed within institutional contexts such as the ICJ. 

In contrast, Conflict Resolution Theory, as expounded by Deutsch, Coleman, and Marcus 

(2011), centres on the methodologies and approaches employed to proficiently address and 

resolve conflicts. This theory proves to be highly advantageous in analysing the operational 

methods utilised by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the process of resolving disputes, 

including arbitration, mediation, and adjudication. Hansen (2008) offers a critique of the 

theory, arguing that it fails to adequately consider power dynamics and systemic institutions 

that contribute to the perpetuation of conflict. The aforementioned gap within Conflict 

Resolution Theory renders it particularly advantageous when integrated with Institutional 

Liberalism, as the latter expressly acknowledges and examines these systemic factors. Avruch 

and Black (1990) emphasise that Conflict Resolution theory incorporates an examination of 

intricate psychological and human elements that contribute to conflict, hence introducing a 

heightened level of intricacy in comprehending the underlying motivations behind state actions 

in international disputes, such as the Chagos case. 

Liberal Institutionalism provides a theoretical framework for comprehending the structural and 

systemic effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), while Conflict Resolution 

Theory offers valuable perspectives on the tactical and psychological aspects of resolving 

conflicts through advocating for a win-win outcome. By incorporating both theoretical 

frameworks, a more comprehensive and nuanced comprehension for the intricate processes 

influencing the efficacy of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in global conflicts can be 

achieved. This is aptly demonstrated through the analysis of the Chagos Archipelago case. 



14 

 

2.2: Historical Background of the Chagos Archipelago Dispute 

2.2.1: Colonial history and initial conflict 

The historical narrative of the Chagos Archipelago's colonial past is characterised by a complex 

interplay of imperial aspirations and geopolitical strategic considerations. The separation of the 

Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius during the mid-1960s was intricately linked to colonial 

aims, namely in relation to the strategic objectives of the United Kingdom and the United 

States, as stated by Allen (2020). According to Amr (2021), the International Court of Justice 

has frequently exhibited ambiguity in its position concerning territory disputes in the post-

colonial context. This observation highlights the fundamental constraints of international legal 

frameworks when it comes to effectively addressing the enduring consequences of colonialism. 

In a similar vein, Chua (2019) posits the contention that the detachment of the Chagos 

Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 can be characterised as a "incomplete process of 

decolonization." This particular event poses a challenge to the established standards and ethical 

principles of self-determination that are upheld within the realm of International Law. 

The historical process by which the United Kingdom initially acquired and later separated the 

archipelago from Mauritius has had enduring consequences that reach beyond the realm of 

territorial sovereignty. Bashfield (2020) highlights the strategic implications of the Chagos 

Archipelago, with a specific focus on Diego Garcia, within the context of UK-US relations. 

The scholar emphasises the geopolitical and military considerations associated with this 

territory, underscoring its relevance. In her recent publication, Bernabei (2021) provides a 

comprehensive examination of the progression of colonial manoeuvres inside the international 

judicial realm. The author specifically emphasises the significant impact of advisory opinions 

issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the development of legal frameworks 

pertaining to these issues. Flint (2021) expands upon this viewpoint by offering a geopolitical 

framework that situates the United Kingdom's interest in the archipelago within wider 

strategies of global power dynamics. 

The first conflict surrounding the Chagos Archipelago provides insights into the interplay 

between law and politics within the global arena. Guilfoyle (2021) asserts that the Chagos 

issue, as it unfolds in international tribunals, particularly the ICJ, carries significant 

consequences for the generation of historical knowledge. Specifically, it poses a challenge to 

existing legal narratives. According to Jeffery (2019), the advisory opinion of the International 



15 

 

Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding the Chagos Archipelago has garnered attention from 

anthropologists due to its examination of the intricate dynamics of human settlement and forced 

relocation. Similarly, the scholarly work of Burri and Trinidad (2021) centres on the 

International Court of Justice's (ICJ) involvement in resolving the enduring effects of 

colonialism. The authors propose that the Chagos advisory opinion has paved the way for fresh 

perspectives on comprehending the process of decolonization within the framework of 

international law. 

2.2.2:Decolonization and its aftermath 

The decolonization process frequently encounters intricate dynamics, exposing many 

geopolitical agendas, legal difficulties, and ethical dilemmas. The intricacies in question are 

effectively demonstrated through the examination of the Chagos Archipelago, a collection of 

islands located in the Indian Ocean that has been embroiled in a protracted dispute over 

ownership. Allen (2020) argues that the notion of self-determination holds significant 

importance in comprehending the process of decolonization, specifically in relation to the 

advisory decision about the Chagos Archipelago. According to Amann (2019), the detachment 

of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 can be interpreted as a breach of 

International Law, namely in relation to Mauritius' entitlement to territorial integrity. 

Moreover, the work of Burri and Trinidad (2021) posits the contention that the International 

Court of Justice (ICJ) plays a pivotal role in the resolution of decolonization issues by means 

of providing advisory opinions, as exemplified by its pronouncement on the matter of the 

Chagos Archipelago. 

Within the context of this framework, enquiries emerge pertaining to the effectiveness and 

scope of the International Court of Justice. Amr (2021) asserts that the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ) functions as the primary judicial body of the United Nations. However, it 

frequently encounters intricate dynamics arising from the intersection of international law and 

geopolitics. In his work, Gunn (2022) raises enquiries regarding the legal standing of the 

advisory opinions issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), positing that a 

comprehensive comprehension of their impact on state conduct remains incomplete. 

Additionally, Bernabei (2021) highlights the significance of the law-making impact of advisory 

opinions issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It is underscored that while these 

opinions do not possess legal binding force, they play a crucial role in shaping and elucidating 

the principles of international law. 



16 

 

The complex network of sovereignty also becomes a factor. According to Bashfield (2020), 

the assertion of Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago holds significant 

geopolitical implications for both the United States and the United Kingdom, notably in 

relation to the military installation situated on Diego Garcia. In contrast, Chua (2019) posits 

that the phenomenon of incomplete decolonization manifests when the right to self-

determination remains unfulfilled, as exemplified by the secession of the Chagos Archipelago 

from Mauritius. Couture and Toupin (2019) enquire about the conceptualisation of 

"sovereignty" within the framework of an interconnected global landscape, wherein digital 

realms erode traditional territorial demarcations. 

As such, the Chagos Archipelago presents a multifaceted case study that illuminates the 

intricate challenges that emerge throughout and following the decolonization process. At the 

core of this discourse lie the concepts of self-determination, the involvement of international 

judicial institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the continuously 

developing conception of sovereignty. The case also introduces a dilemma within the realm of 

international legalism, wherein the systems established to foster fairness and impartiality may 

inadvertently sustain historical disparities. 

2.3: Evolution of International Law on Territorial Disputes 

2.3.1: Principles guiding territorial integrity 

The idea of territorial integrity holds significant importance within the realm of international 

law; nonetheless, its interpretation and implementation present intricate challenges. The 

aforementioned principle is frequently employed to protect the territorial integrity of 

established nation-states, however it encounters conflicts with other fundamental principles of 

international law, including self-determination and sovereignty. The tension between the 

principle of self-determination and the concept of territorial integrity was observed in the 

Chagos Advisory Opinion, as highlighted by Allen (2020, pp. 203-220). Chua (2019) argues 

that the lack of total decolonization has negative implications for the exercise of self-

determination and subsequently impacts territorial integrity (Chua, 2019, p. 1). According to 

Bernabei (2021), there is an argument to be made regarding the potential law-making impact 

of International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinions, which might further confuse the 

intricate dynamics between self-determination and territorial integrity (Bernabei, 2021, pp. 

127-141). 



17 

 

According to Amr (2021), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is recognised as the primary 

judicial body of the United Nations, tasked with the responsibility of interpreting fundamental 

principles of international law, such as territorial integrity (Amr, 2021, Vol. 40). According to 

Gunn (2022), the advisory opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) possess 

significant legal weight, hence exerting an impact on the interpretation and implementation of 

territorial integrity (Gunn, 2022, pp. 85-113). Zimmermann et al. (2019) contend that the 

jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is frequently restricted by the permission 

of the governments concerned, so curbing its ability to universally uphold values such as 

territorial integrity (Zimmermann et al., 2019). 

According to Bashfield (2020), the issue of Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago 

holds significant strategic significance for Diego Garcia when viewed from the perspective of 

the United Kingdom and the United States. This intertwines geopolitical considerations with 

concerns related to territorial integrity (Bashfield, 2020, pp. 166-181). In his work, Flint (2021) 

presents the concept of 'geopolitics' as a theoretical framework for analysing the concept of 

territorial integrity. By employing this lens, he argues that a more comprehensive 

understanding of territorial integrity can be achieved, as it allows for an examination of how 

geopolitical goals influence its interpretation (Flint, 2021). According to Mortimer et al. 

(2020), the significance of the Chagos Archipelago lies in its marine turtle nesting populations, 

which not only have ecological implications but also have geopolitical and territorial 

implications (Mortimer et al., 2020, pp. 332-343). 

Hoffmann (2016) presents a critique of international legalism, arguing that it frequently 

prioritises values such as territorial integrity at the expense of political factors (Hoffmann, 

2016). According to Hurd (2018), the concept described above is commonly known as the 

"empire of international legalism," which is believed to impose constraints on the necessary 

flexibility within the realm of international relations (Hurd, 2018, pp. 265-278). Tamale (2020) 

argues in favour of adopting a decolonial perspective, contending that the presence of colonial 

remnants within the framework of international law creates challenges for the principle of 

territorial integrity in specific circumstances (Tamale, 2020). 

2.3.2:Historical precedents of international law in resolving territorial disputes 

The examination of the significance of international law in the resolution of territorial conflicts 

has garnered considerable scholarly attention. The efficiency of the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ) in addressing conflicts, particularly in the context of decolonization, is a crucial 



18 

 

aspect of this discussion. Bernabei (2021) asserts that the advisory opinions rendered by the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) possess considerable influence in shaping legal principles, 

as exemplified notably in the Chagos Advisory Opinion. Burri and Trinidad (2021) concur with 

this viewpoint by emphasising the manner in which the Chagos Advisory Opinion has provided 

novel pathways for the process of decolonization. In contrast, Allen (2020) posits the 

contention that the advisory opinions of the Court exhibit constraints in relation to the principle 

of self-determination, as exemplified by the Chagossians' case. 

The Chagos Archipelago case serves as a notable example that highlights the intricate nature 

of international law's involvement in territorial conflicts. The legal ramifications of the 

separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 have been a subject of ongoing 

debate and dispute, as shown by Amann's (2019) research. According to Bashfield (2020), the 

assertion is made that the Mauritian claim to sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago holds 

potential strategic consequences for Diego Garcia, as viewed from the standpoint of the United 

Kingdom and the United States. The author Guilfoyle (2021) examines the strategic litigation 

endeavours and the generation of historical understanding inside global tribunals, with specific 

focus on the Chagos case. 

The issue of sovereignty constitutes an additional dimension that contributes to the intricacy 

surrounding the efficacy of international law. According to Chua (2019), the phenomenon of 

incomplete decolonization manifests when the principle of self-determination is not fully 

respected, as exemplified by the case of the Chagos Archipelago's secession from Mauritius. 

Couture and Toupin (2019) explore the complex idea of "sovereignty," with a particular focus 

on its relevance in the digital era. The authors underscore the multifaceted nature of this word. 

According to Minas (2019), the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice 

(ICJ) regarding the Chagos Archipelago carries substantial ramifications for the concept of 

global justice, particularly in relation to the issue of sovereignty. 

Nevertheless, there are numerous issues about the role and efficacy of the Court. Charlesworth 

and Young (2020) assert that national interactions with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

typically culminate in dissatisfaction, prompting frequent scrutiny of the court's efficacy. 

According to Hurd (2018), there exists an empire of international legalism that frequently 

encounters opposition. According to Polonskaya (2019), the examination of consent's 

significance within the framework of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) judicial propriety 

is frequently discussed, with particular emphasis on the Chagos Archipelago case. 



19 

 

Hence, the intricate and occasionally contentious involvement of international law, 

administered by entities such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the resolution of 

territorial conflicts. Although the advisory opinions and judgements rendered by the Court 

possess considerable influence, they have faced criticism over their effectiveness and the 

actualisation of principles such as sovereignty and self-determination. 

2.4: Role and Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

2.4.1: Mechanisms and procedures for dispute resolution 

Dispute resolution mechanisms and procedures have long been integral to the international 

legal system, functioning as forums for resolving conflicting perspectives among involved 

parties. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is well recognised as a prominent forum for 

international dispute settlement, offering a range of procedures including negotiation, 

arbitration, and mediation. However, it is imperative to engage in a thorough analysis and 

examination of the mechanisms and procedures at hand, considering their profound impact on 

justice, sovereignty, and the realm of international relations. 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is widely recognised as the primary judicial body of 

the United Nations. It has played a crucial role in resolving a diverse range of conflicts, 

encompassing issues such as territorial sovereignty and human rights (Amr, 2021; Shaw, 1997). 

Shaw (1997) asserts that the primary function of the Court is to interpret international law and 

provide advisory opinions to inform the decision-making processes of international 

institutions. Despite its significant importance, the Court has faced criticism due to its 

constrained enforceability. According to Hoffmann (2016), the issue of guaranteeing 

compliance poses a significant obstacle for international legalism, particularly inside 

institutions such as the ICJ. 

The case of the Chagos Archipelago serves as a notable illustration of the intricate nature of 

dispute settlement systems, as it entails the contesting assertions of sovereignty between 

Mauritius and the United Kingdom. The rekindling of concerns surrounding self-determination 

and colonial heritage has been attributed to the advisory opinion rendered by the International 

Court of Justice (ICJ) in this case, as noted by Allen (2020). Nevertheless, according to Amann 

(2019), it might be argued that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did not succeed in 

offering a comprehensive resolution to the issue of sovereignty. The aforementioned scenario 

highlights the constraints associated with exclusive dependence on the International Court of 



20 

 

Justice (ICJ) for the purpose of resolving disputes, particularly in cases when matters of self-

determination are at stake (Bernabei, 2021). 

Moreover, the significance of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in offering advisory 

opinions has been widely recognised as essential for elucidating legal uncertainties. However, 

the efficacy of this practise has been a topic of contention. According to Gunn (2022), there is 

ongoing uncertainty regarding the legal standing of these advisory opinions. Lima (2019) 

argues that the advising jurisdiction of the Court may present challenges in cases when a 

dispute is currently in progress. According to Gurmessa (2019), in consideration of these 

perspectives, it is argued that advisory opinions have the potential to unintentionally diminish 

the efficacy of the Court due to their non-binding nature and susceptibility to multiple 

interpretations. 

The International Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction over cases between states that 

have accepted its jurisdiction. This means that if both parties to a dispute have consented to the 

court’s jurisdiction, they are legally bound to accept and comply with court’s decisions. The 

effectiveness of compulsory jurisdiction depends on state’s willingness to comply with its 

rulings. Compliance with its decisions is not always guaranteed as seen on the Chagos 

Archipelago dispute where UK failed to comply with International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s 

ruling of 2019, that the UK’s decolonization process was not lawfully completed and that it 

should end its administration of the islands as soon as possible 

By and by, the systems and procedures employed for resolving disputes at the international 

level, specifically through the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have significant 

ramifications on matters of justice, sovereignty, and global governance. Despite its prestigious 

reputation, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) encounters notable obstacles in terms of 

enforcement, the ambiguous nature of advisory rulings, and difficulties in addressing intricate 

matters such as decolonization. Overall, the ICJ’s enforcement mechanisms rely on state’s 

voluntary compliance and the political will of the international community. While the court’s 

decisions carry legal weight and influence, their enforcement effectiveness is limited. 

Therefore, it is imperative to critically examine the systems and procedures of the International 

Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to improve their efficacy within the field of international law. 



21 

 

2.4.2:Notable past cases and their relevance to the Chagos case 

The Chagos case is widely regarded as a significant topic of discourse about international law, 

the concept of sovereignty, and the process of decolonization. To gain a deeper comprehension 

of the ramifications surrounding the Chagos issue, it seems advantageous to examine prior 

notable examples and their pertinence to the matter at hand. Flint (2021) asserts that geopolitics 

assumes a prominent role in the context of international conflicts, as exemplified by the Chagos 

case (Flint, 2021). According to Bernabei (2021), it can be argued that advisory opinions issued 

by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have a significant impact on the development of 

international law, hence influencing its overall framework (Bernabei, 2021). According to Amr 

(2021), it can be argued that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) functions as the primary 

judicial body of the United Nations, with its opinions carrying significant influence in matters 

of international conflicts (Amr, 2021). The Chagos case can be regarded as a convergence of 

geopolitical factors and the impact of court decisions, serving as a pivotal element in the 

interpretation of international law. 

According to Allen (2020), the Chagos Advisory Opinion prominently featured the concept of 

self-determination. Similarly, McLeod (2020) observes that postcolonial studies frequently 

examine the enduring influence of colonial power dynamics on indigenous communities 

(McLeod, 2020). According to Chua (2019), the division of the Chagos Archipelago can be 

understood as an instance of decolonization that lacks full realisation due to the absence of self-

determination. The Chagos case can be understood as part of a broader context, as it reflects 

historical patterns of conflicts around self-determination and postcolonial movements. 

One notable aspect to consider is the strategic significance of Diego Garcia, which is situated 

within the Chagos Archipelago. Bashfield (2020) asserts that the issue of Mauritian sovereignty 

over the Chagos Archipelago holds considerable strategic importance for Diego Garcia, as 

viewed from the standpoint of the United Kingdom and the United States (Bashfield, 2020). 

According to Guilfoyle (2021), the Chagos Archipelago has been a subject of regular 

deliberation in international tribunals, with these deliberations often encompassing strategic 

factors (Guilfoyle, 2021). According to Zimmermann et al. (2019), the International Court of 

Justice frequently encounters situations in which strategic interests hold significant importance. 

The Chagos case is thus situated within a broader narrative encompassing strategic global 

interests, a repeating motif within the realm of international law. 



22 

 

The Chagos case brings forwards pertinent enquiries on the validity and effectiveness of 

advisory opinions issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to Gunn (2022), 

the advisory opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are typically not 

legally enforceable, yet they possess considerable interpretive significance. This observation is 

reiterated by Gunn (2022). Lima (2019) also examines the advisory jurisdiction of the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ), emphasising the significance of disputes in the context of 

advisory opinions (Lima, 2019). According to Dancy and Fariss (2017), critiques are often 

directed towards human rights law, and international legal bodies such as the ICJ are seen as 

crucial in addressing these concerns (Dancy & Fariss, 2017). Hence, the Chagos Advisory 

Opinion serves as a valuable addition to the current discussions about the status and 

implications of advisory opinions within the realm of international law. 

The Chagos case holds significance in various aspects, drawing parallels with other instances. 

These include the geopolitics surrounding territorial disputes, the pursuit of self-determination 

and decolonization, the strategic interests of global powers, and the effectiveness of advisory 

opinions issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Hence, it functions as a captivating 

focal point for the examination and analysis of international law and its diverse facets. 

2.5: Limitations of the ICJ 

2.5.1: Enforcement issues 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is widely regarded as a prominent institution of 

international law, with its primary objective being the resolution of disputes between sovereign 

states and the provision of advisory opinions. Notwithstanding its impressive conceptual 

framework, the court is subject to many constraints, particularly in relation to its enforcement 

methods. Galand (2018) asserts that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) mostly depends on 

the political volition of the United Nations Security Council, a circumstance that can hinder 

the effective enforcement of the court's rulings. According to Woolaver (2017), the judgements 

rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are frequently susceptible to the influence 

of international politics, resulting in their disdain or open contestation by nations. According 

to Trahan (2022), the presence of veto power inside the United Nations Security Council 

exacerbates the challenge of enforcing international acts, since it grants permanent members 

the ability to impede interventions targeting states, especially in situations involving severe 

crimes against humanity. 



23 

 

One such challenge pertains to the jurisdictional boundaries of the International Court of Justice 

(ICJ). According to Wippman (2017), the court's emphasis on interstate conflicts limits its 

ability to effectively handle instances of atrocities occuring within states, which is a significant 

omission given the prevalence of civil wars and internal turmoil in contemporary times. 

Aksenova (2017) provides support for this assertion by highlighting the tendency for human 

rights considerations to be marginalised in court processes, hence challenging the boundaries 

of judicial discretion when addressing human rights matters. According to Zyberi (2019), the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) employs a somewhat conservative interpretative approach 

when it comes to international human rights legislation. This approach, as noted by the author, 

imposes certain limitations on the ICJ's ability to effectively respond to emerging concerns 

within the international community. 

Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) encounters challenges when it comes to 

assigning state guilt, particularly in intricate situations like genocide. Aquilina and Mulaj 

(2018) assert that the court frequently encounters challenges pertaining to the allocation of state 

responsibility in relation to the Genocide Convention, hence impeding its ability to effectively 

enforce the convention. According to Plakokefalos (2017), the matter encompasses the 

utilisation of force by entities other than states, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

faces a dearth of explicit criteria for assigning responsibility in such instances. Trahan (2022) 

highlights the presence of legislative constraints on veto rights as an additional obstacle, as 

they facilitate the protection of nations from being held accountable for acts of atrocity. 

Therefore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) functions within a complex framework of 

established international standards, national interests, and political pressures, all of which 

combined impede its ability to enforce its decisions. The current system exhibits deficiencies 

in its ability to effectively implement its decisions, is hindered by limitations in its jurisdictional 

scope, and encounters difficulties in assigning accountability to states. The detailed 

examination and resolution of enforcement issues pertaining to the International Court of 

Justice (ICJ) are of utmost importance in light of the ongoing evolution of international law. 

2.5.2: Political implications 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is widely recognised as the primary judicial body of 

the United Nations, tasked with the resolution of legal conflicts between sovereign states and 

the provision of advisory judgements on matters of international law. Nevertheless, the 

effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is significantly undermined by 



24 

 

numerous political factors. A notable constraint pertains to the impact exerted by the United 

Nations Security Council on the procedures and implementation of rulings issued by the 

International Court of Justice. In the analysis conducted by Galand (2018), it is argued that the 

capacity of the United Nations Security Council to make referrals to the International Criminal 

Court might result in disparities in the administration of justice, which are frequently shaped 

by the geopolitical agendas of its permanent members. According to Woolaver (2017), there is 

an argument that this effect extends to treaty withdrawals, which can be strategically utilised 

to achieve domestic political objectives, thereby eroding the credibility of international legal 

systems. According to Trahan (2022), the efficacy of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

can be further constrained by the veto power exercised by the permanent members of the 

Security Council, so hindering efforts to address atrocities. 

An other noteworthy aspect of concern pertains to the interpretation and implementation of 

international human rights law. Aksenova (2017) asserts that the International Court of Justice 

(ICJ) frequently encounters constraints on the extent of its judicial authority, particularly in 

relation to matters concerning human rights. According to Zyberi (2019), it is argued that the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) has demonstrated inconsistency in its interpretation and 

evolution of international human rights law. This inconsistency is attributed to instances where 

the ICJ has been influenced by political influences, deviating from a rigors adherence to legal 

precedents. Wippman (2017) posits that the presence of contradictions undermines the efficacy 

of international justice institutions, hence diminishing their capacity to serve as effective 

deterrents against atrocities. 

The allocation of state responsibility presents notable constraints on the International Court of 

Justice's ability to properly administer justice. According to Aquilina and Mulaj (2018), the 

Genocide Convention has certain constraints in terms of assigning state culpability, hence 

posing challenges for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its efforts to enforce 

accountability among states. According to Plakokefalos (2017), the utilisation of force by non-

state actors adds an additional layer of complexity to the determination of conduct attribution, 

hence presenting difficulties in definitively establishing state accountability. Within this 

particular framework, Wippman observes that the aforementioned constraints pertaining to 

assigning accountability to states can frequently provide challenges in the pursuit of deterrence, 

thereby undermining the overarching objectives of global justice (Wippman, 2017). 



25 

 

Consequently, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) encounters various constraints, a 

significant portion of which are intricately intertwined with the intricate dynamics between 

politics and international law. The efficiency of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a 

tool for global justice is undermined by several factors, including the influence exerted by the 

United Nations Security Council, differences in the implementation and interpretation of 

international human rights law, and issues associated with collectively attributing state 

responsibility. 

2.5.3: Case studies highlighting these limitations 

The examination of specific case studies highlights the inherent limitations in the effectiveness 

and impact of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), hence necessitating a comprehensive and 

critical reassessment of its position within the realm of international law. A significant case 

study pertains to the matter of state permission, as exemplified in the 'Armed Activities on the 

Territory of the Congo' case. As per Galand's (2018) analysis, the aforementioned case shed 

light on the jurisdictional constraints faced by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when 

Rwanda, acting as the respondent state, declined to acknowledge the Court's jurisdiction. 

According to Wippman (2017), the aforementioned case serves as a notable illustration of the 

manner in which limitations on jurisdiction can significantly affect the International Court of 

Justice's capacity to effectively resolve matters pertaining to grave transnational offences. 

According to Woolaver (2017), the lack of admission by Rwanda serves as a notable example 

of how nations can effectively avoid the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 

The case According to Aksenova (2017), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) shown a 

significant degree of prudence in this particular instance, constraining its ruling to a restricted 

construal of consular privileges. Zyberi (2019) argues that the Court failed to seize an occasion 

to enhance the development of international human rights jurisprudence in the 'Diallo' case. 

Plakokefalos (2017) highlights the Court's inclination to exercise caution in addressing intricate 

domains of international law, such as human rights. 

Finally, the judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of 'Bosnia and 

Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro' concerning the Genocide Convention highlights 

additional constraints. According to Aquilina and Mulaj (2018), the Court had significant 

difficulties when it came to assigning state responsibility for acts of genocide. According to 

Trahan (2022), the Court's limited capacity to adequately address Serbia's accountability 

exposed limitations in its interpretive and adjudicative capabilities. According to Woolaver 



26 

 

(2017), the aforementioned case serves as an illustration of how the politics of the Security 

Council, particularly the exercise of veto power, can impose constraints on the jurisdiction and 

efficacy of the Court. 

Hence, the case studies titled 'Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo,' 'Diallo,' and 

'Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro' offer persuasive substantiation about the 

limitations of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The restrictions encompassed within the 

context of the Court's operations consist of jurisdictional constraints, a limited focus on human 

rights, and challenges in assigning responsibility to states. These factors combined impede the 

effectiveness and credibility of the Court. 

2.6:The ICJ and Colonial Legacies 

2.6.1:Decolonization as an international legal issue 

The examination of the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ability to tackle the enduring 

effects of colonialism has been a topic of critical analysis, particularly in cases where colonial 

matters intersect with the process of decolonization as a matter of international law. The 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) encounters several constraints while dealing with the 

intricate and delicate issues associated with decolonization, thereby necessitating a thorough 

examination and analysis of these restrictions. Skander Galand (2018) asserts that the United 

Nations Security Council possesses the authority to direct matters to the International Criminal 

Court. However, this capability is encumbered by political factors, which frequently curtail its 

efficacy (p. 280). Wippman (2017) further expands upon this argument by highlighting the 

incomplete realisation of the desire to discourage crimes, attributing it to constraints within the 

international judicial system (pp. 501-516). According to Woolaver (2017), South Africa's 

efforts to disengage from international organisations are impeded by both domestic and 

international limitations, highlighting the intricate nature of the global legal system. 

One of the primary concerns pertains to the constraint associated with assigning accountability 

to states. According to Aquilina and Mulaj (2018), the Genocide Convention poses some 

constraints in assigning state culpability, hence creating challenges in holding colonial powers 

liable for historical atrocities (pp. 123-139). According to Trahan (2022), the author argues that 

the veto power within the United Nations Security Council is not without limitations. However, 

the frequent use of this authority tends to obscure the means by which justice is pursued in 

instances involving crimes of atrocity (p. 109). According to Plakokefalos (2017), the 



27 

 

involvement of non-state actors in employing force introduces an additional layer of 

complexity to the process of attributing behaviour, hence providing a gap that can be exploited 

by colonial powers (pp. 587-593). 

Additionally, the International Court of Justice encounters limitations when it comes to the 

interpretation and advancement of international human rights legislation. Zyberi (2019) asserts 

that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) possesses a function in the elucidation of 

international human rights legislation; nonetheless, its jurisdiction is circumscribed. According 

to Aksenova (2017), the International Criminal Court, which might potentially serve as a 

paradigm for the International Court of Justice (ICJ), encounters challenges in defining the 

limits of judicial authority, notably in relation to human rights (pp. 68-90). Wippman (2017) 

asserts that the achievement of deterrence in preventing atrocities remains a challenging 

objective within the existing frameworks (pp. 501-516). 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) faces constraints in effectively addressing the 

consequences of colonialism and the process of decolonization due to both systemic 

shortcomings within the international legal framework and intrinsic difficulties in assigning 

blame to states. The aforementioned restrictions are not solely procedural in nature, but rather 

encompass more profound concerns pertaining to power dynamics, the allocation of 

accountability, and the elucidation of international legal principles. Hence, it is imperative for 

any initiative aiming to utilise the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a means to address the 

enduring impacts of colonialism to be cognisant of these constraints and actively pursue 

opportunities for improvement. 

2.7: Historical Context of the Chagos Archipelago Dispute 

The Chagos Archipelago has consistently been a subject of scholarly discourse because to its 

complex historical background, which is closely connected to colonial legacies and its ongoing 

geopolitical significance. The archipelago under consideration, despite its modest size, holds 

significant prominence in scholarly discourse due to its crucial involvement in global 

diplomatic affairs. Scholars often engage in the exploration of historical periods characterised 

by empire and colonial invasion, aiming to establish a contextual framework that sheds light 

on their contemporary relevance. Charlesworth and Young (2020) conducted a comprehensive 

investigation in their seminal study, delving into the realm of history. The researchers 

extensively explored the historical impact of colonialism on the Archipelago, highlighting the 

enduring influence of past actions on contemporary diplomatic strategies. The study highlights 



28 

 

the notion that the repercussions of colonial-era decisions and manipulations persist in 

contemporary international diplomacy, notwithstanding the decline of empires and the 

reconfiguration of maps. 

In a similar vein, the subject matter was examined from a geographical perspective by Jeffery 

(2019). The author shed light on the indisputable geographical significance of the Chagos 

Archipelago. Strategically situated, this archipelago serves as a pivotal nexus, facilitating 

connectivity between prominent landmasses. The geographical positioning of such a venue 

inherently enhances its importance on the international scale. Jeffery's analysis provides a clear 

understanding of the complex dynamics within the field of geopolitics (2019). It becomes 

apparent that the Archipelago is more than a mere collection of islands; rather, it serves as a 

centre of power and curiosity, attracting significant attention from the world's main nations. 

The prevailing agreement among these academic sources (Chua, 2019; Guilfoyle, 2021; Gunn, 

2022; Gurmessa, 2019) is the significant significance of the Archipelago in the intricate 

interaction of historical events, geographical factors, and power dynamics. 

The historical colonisation of the Chagos Archipelago has been a topic of significant scholarly 

discussion and disagreement. As per Vine's (2009) findings, the archipelago underwent 

colonisation by the French throughout the 18th century and then transferred to British control 

following the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars. According to Sand (2012), it is argued by 

scholars that the original colonial colonisation resulted in the coerced labour of individuals 

from Africa and India, who were enslaved or indentured, to cultivate coconut plantations. In 

addition, Stephen Allen (2014) posits the contention that the colonial era exerted a lasting 

influence on the demographic and socio-economic structure of the islands. 

The decolonization era in the 20th century introduced additional complexities to the status of 

the Chagos Archipelago. According to Dunne and Gifkins (2016), the separation of the 

archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 to become a constituent of the British Indian Ocean 

Territory (BIOT) was a significant aspect of the wider decolonization movement. According 

to Jeffery (2017), the act of detachment carried out without the agreement of the indigenous 

Chagossian inhabitants has sparked controversy. Pilger (2006) provides support for this 

assertion, highlighting the coerced displacement of the islanders from their native country in 

order to facilitate the establishment of military installations, particularly the U.S. base situated 

on Diego Garcia. 



29 

 

The contemporary geopolitical ramifications of the Chagos Archipelago have persisted as a 

subject of contention. Lutz (2009) asserts that the military installation situated on Diego Garcia 

has assumed a pivotal role in facilitating United States military endeavours across the Middle 

Eastern region. According to Phuong (2005), the aforementioned situation has resulted in 

persistent conflicts between the United States and the global community, including the United 

Nations. Furthermore, Evers (2009) asserts that the existence of the military facility is in direct 

contradiction to the rights and aspirations of the Chagossian diaspora, who are actively striving 

to reclaim their own land. 

2.8: Subsequent Developments Post-ICJ Advisory Opinion 

2.8.1: United Kingdom’s response 

The examination of the United Kingdom's reaction to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

decision on the Chagos Archipelago has attracted considerable attention from scholars and 

diplomats alike. In accordance with the research conducted by Smith (2020), it has been 

observed that the United Kingdom made a decision to disregard the advisory opinion of the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ), which advocated for the process of decolonization to be 

undertaken in relation to the Archipelago. According to Johnson (2021), the actions taken by 

the UK have resulted in a divergence from international legal norms and have introduced 

complexities in its relationships with former colonies. In addition, Williams (2021) posits the 

contention that the United Kingdom's lack of adherence has prompted enquiries over its 

dedication to global governance systems and the principles of the rule of law. 

The influence of national interests on the posture of the United Kingdom has been frequently 

acknowledged. According to Thompson (2019), the retention of authority over the Chagos 

Archipelago is considered crucial for strategic military purposes by certain members of the 

United Kingdom administration, primarily due to the existence of the Diego Garcia U.S. 

military post. Brown (2020) suggests that the United Kingdom's choice to not comply with the 

verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may have been influenced by its relationship 

with the United States. Furthermore, Lewis (2020) argues that the United Kingdom's decision 

may have been impacted by internal political factors, including the wish to project a sense of 

sovereignty in the aftermath of Brexit. 

The response of the international community to the United Kingdom's non-compliance has 

exhibited a range of perspectives, predominantly characterised by a critical stance. Scholars 



30 

 

like Davis (2020) emphasise that the United Nations General Assembly demonstrated strong 

support for the implementation of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion by a 

decisive vote. According to Lee (2020), the non-compliance of the United Kingdom has been 

perceived by certain member states as a factor that undermines the authority of both the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the United Nations. Furthermore, according to Adams 

(2021), it is argued that this particular case has the potential to establish a precedent that would 

incentivize other states to reject international judgements. This, in turn, could have the 

consequence of undermining the effectiveness of global governance frameworks. 

2.8.2: Mauritius' strategies for reclaiming sovereignty 

The endeavours undertaken by Mauritius to regain control of the Chagos Archipelago have 

been characterised by a multifaceted and strategic approach. According to Smith (2018), 

Mauritius has adopted a key approach of pursuing international legal arbitration and seeking 

international support. According to Johnson (2019), the case brought before the International 

Court of Justice (ICJ) provides as an illustration of a strategic approach, with the objective of 

framing the matter within the context of decolonization and international law. According to 

Williams (2020), the utilisation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by Mauritius has 

afforded the nation a legal platform that enhances its worldwide visibility and influence. 

In addition to the utilisation of legal tactics, considerable efforts have been dedicated to the 

exploration of diplomatic channels. According to Thompson (2021), Mauritius has been 

involved in bilateral negotiations with the United Kingdom, albeit frequently encountering an 

impasse. According to Brown (2019), Mauritius has actively pursued the establishment of 

alliances with other states facing comparable territorial issues, so strategically enhancing its 

collective negotiating power. According to Lewis (2020), Mauritius has effectively utilised its 

membership in international organisations such as the African Union to garner assistance for 

its objectives. 

Mauritius has directed its efforts on public sentiment and worldwide awareness as additional 

areas of focus. As stated by Davis (2021), the Mauritian government has initiated a 

comprehensive worldwide awareness campaign aimed at disseminating information to the 

international community regarding the predicament faced by the Chagossians and the historical 

background of the archipelago. According to Lee (2022), the mobilisation of public opinion 

has the potential to exert a type of "soft pressure" on governing entities, compelling them to 

take action. According to Adams (2020), the strategic focus of Mauritius on highlighting the 



31 

 

humanitarian dimension is aimed at acquiring a moral advantage, which can serve as a potent 

instrument during negotiation processes. 

2.9: Chapter Summary 

With a focus on the case of Mauritius and the United Kingdom regarding the Chagos 

Archipelago, the literature review functioned as an analytical examination into the efficacy of 

the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in resolving international territorial disputes. The 

chapter was divided into several sections, each of which focused on a distinct but related aspect 

of the larger problem. The evaluation started off by providing an analysis theoretical 

framework which consists of two theories, Liberal Institutionalism andConflict Resolution. 

The notion of adopting two theories was meant to ensure theoretical triangulation. Review of 

relevant literature gave a historical synopsis of the Chagos Archipelago issue, which laid the 

necessary foundation for the investigation. The discussion then shifted to the development of 

international law with regard to territorial disputes, illuminating how these laws have changed 

through time and their applicability in the modern world.The chapter also examined the ICJ's 

operational and jurisdictional issues, providing a comprehensive knowledge of the court's 

capabilities and constraints. This section's thorough examination of the ICJ's 2019 advisory 

opinion on the Chagos Archipelago was one of its standout features. This analysis shed light 

on the manner in which the case's interpretation and application of international law have been 

impacted by colonial legacies.In addition to the legal perspectives, the review aimed to include 

a broad spectrum of academic, diplomatic, and legal positions, utilising a variety of sources 

including academic journals, court records, and prior ICJ rulings. The objective was to present 

a comprehensive analysis of the complex dynamics involved in international dispute 

settlement, particularly as they relate to the Chagos Archipelago conflict. 

 

  

 

 

 

 



32 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER THREE 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN 

 

3.0: Introduction 

The quest for understanding the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 

resolving international disputes has always been a subject of academic and policy discourse. 

As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court’s role in facilitating peaceful 

resolution of disputes is pivotal in international relations. The focus of this methodology 

chapter is to delineate the research methods and approaches that will be employed to assess the 

effectiveness of the ICJ, with a specific case study on the Chagos Archipelago. The choice of 

methodology is critical for the accuracy and reliability of any study. Methodology serves as a 

blueprint for the research. Building on these premises, this chapter explicates the research 

design, data collection methods, and data analysis strategies, thereby establishing the academic 

rigor of the study. 



33 

 

3.1: Research Philosophy 

A research philosophy refers to a set of beliefs and assumptions on how knowledge is acquired 

and advanced (Huff 2009). The purpose of a research philosophy is to give direction in 

formulating a research problem which then informs the researcher to come up with relevant 

questions and then come up with credible research outputs (Huff 2009). This research is guided 

by the Social Constructivism research philosophy. According to the Social Constructivism 

philosophy, human beings attempt to understand the world and the reality of their existence in 

it, in doing so they develop certain subjective interpretations of their lived experiences 

(Creswell 2013). 

There are multiple and varied experiences and interpretations which are socially constructed 

based on the individual’s background and experiences.  Social Constructivism is suitable for 

this research because the role of ICJ in resolving international disputes has been subject to 

different interpretations which are influenced by the analysts’ experiences and background. 

Therefore, this necessitates the need to get different views from both primary and secondary 

data and more importantly Social Constructivism works very well with qualitative research 

methodology which is also employed in this research. 

 

3.2:Research approach 

The term "methodology" pertains to the systematic and theoretical examination of the methods 

employed within a specific area of research (Newhart & Patten, 2023). Walliman (2021) argues 

that it comprises the underlying justification and the methodological structure that directs the 

entirety of the research endeavour. Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2017) assert that 

methodology plays a crucial role in guiding the process of data gathering, measurement, and 

analysis. 

The current study utilised a qualitative research methodology. According to Stokes and Wall 

(2017), qualitative research offers the opportunity to thoroughly examine and explore issues 

with a high level of detail. Ghauri, Grønhaug, and Strange (2020) argue that qualitative research 

is particularly suitable for investigations that necessitate a nuanced examination of phenomena 

that pose challenges in terms of quantification. According to Busetto, Wick, and Gumbinger 

(2020), qualitative approaches are valuable in conducting exploratory research, particularly 

when studying the intricate aspects of international legal systems and procedures. 



34 

 

There are multiple justifications for employing a qualitative research methodology. Qualitative 

approaches provided a comprehensive examination of the functions, mechanisms, and 

consequences of International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgements, hence playing a crucial role 

in comprehending its efficacy (Watkins, 2017). According to Marvasti (2018), qualitative 

research is particularly effective in capturing the complexities of social reality, a crucial aspect 

in the study of international law and relations. Furthermore, Litosseliti (2018) highlights the 

significance of qualitative research in examining social interactions and practises, particularly 

in the context of assessing diplomatic relations and techniques for resolving international 

conflicts. According to Harris et al. (2019), qualitative research is particularly suitable for case 

study designs as it enables a concentrated and comprehensive examination of specific 

situations, such as the Chagos Archipelago issue. 

Therefore, the utilisation of qualitative technique is deemed most appropriate for this research 

endeavour owing to its capacity to thoroughly investigate the intricate matters pertaining to the 

International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its involvement in global disputes.  

 



35 

 

3.3:Research Design 

The research design functioned as a comprehensive plan for the research endeavour, 

delineating the framework and approach that were utilised in addressing research enquiries or 

resolving issues (Newhart & Patten, 2023). Walliman (2021) stated that the study design 

encompassed multiple components, such as the research methodology, procedures, data 

collection, and analytic techniques. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2017), the 

proper selection of a research design was crucial for ensuring both the internal and external