​US Proposal to Purchase Chagos Islands: Pro, Con and Inter Law Flaws

By: Tri Lukman Hakim, S.H.

Founder of KunciPro Research | Globally Indexed Cyber Law Researcher (ORCID ID: 0009-0003-4829-1185)

​Developed, large, and powerful nations often act without long-term thinking; the US plan to purchase the Chagos Islands so that they do not fall back into the hands of the UK is not a wise move.

Sovereign nations, no matter how small, must still receive equal treatment. The interests of superpower nations can disrupt the international order that has been orderly established.

This action has sparked pros and cons in the eyes of the global public. And it closely approaches a profound violation of international law.

​The Pro Side: The Pretext of Geopolitical Realism and Global Security

​From a global perspective that supports this policy, the United States' plan is rooted in pragmatic geopolitical realism.

Washington views the Diego Garcia military base in the Chagos Archipelago as an absolute, non-negotiable defense asset.

The air and naval base on the island serves as the literal heart of US power projection across the Indian Ocean, functioning as a vital checkpoint to monitor activities in South Asia, the Middle East, and the critical maritime trade routes of Southeast Asia.

​Proponents of this aggressive strategy argue that the diplomatic uncertainty surrounding the UK—which had previously considered handing sovereignty back to Mauritius—poses a direct threat to the future of the military base.

Furthermore, there is deep concern in Washington that if Mauritius gains full control over Chagos, China's heavy economic and diplomatic leverage over Mauritius could jeopardize the exclusivity of Diego Garcia.

Consequently, purchasing the islands outright is viewed as an instant, permanent solution to secure global stability against rising adversarial hegemonies.

​The Con Side: International Law is Not an Imperial Real Estate Transaction

​However, the wave of opposition coming from international law experts is far more massive and legally grounded.

The core argument against the proposal is that the UK lacks any legal authority to sell the Chagos Islands to anyone.

De jure, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), through its landmark 2019 Advisory Opinion, explicitly ruled that the UK's separation of Chagos from Mauritius in 1965 was illegal and directly violated UN decolonization laws.

​In global jurisprudence, the universal maxim nemo dat quod non habet applies—meaning, a person or a state cannot sell or transfer rights over an object if they themselves do not hold a valid, lawful title to it.

Because the UK's status in Chagos is merely that of an illegal colonial administrator under UN mandates, any bilateral real estate transaction with the US is automatically null and void (void ab initio) and stands as a blatant, unmitigated flaw under international law.

​The Socio-Legal Dimension: Trampling Upon Chagosian Human Rights

​Beyond the state-centric administrative debates, the socio-legal dimension of this conflict harbors a profound humanitarian tragedy.

Between 1965 and 1973, driven by the ambition to construct the Diego Garcia military facility, the British government forcibly expelled the entire indigenous population (the Chagosians) from their homeland.

They were systematically dumped into Mauritius and Seychelles, left impoverished without proper compensation or basic rights.

​The US plan to buy the islands from the UK mirrors 19th-century colonialism, where sovereign lands and human beings are treated as mere commercial commodities for a superpower's portfolio.

This move openly violates the right to self-determination guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Ignoring human rights for military logistics represents a severe moral degradation of the global legal framework.

​Conclusion: Upholding Maritime Law and the UN Charter

​The United States' proposal to purchase the Chagos Islands is a stark reminder of how the military interests of dominant powers often attempt to override the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN Charter

Frameworks that took decades to build. If this action is normalized and accepted, the global arena will regress into a geopolitical jungle where strong states are free to buy out the sovereignty of smaller ones.

​International law must stand equal for all nations, regardless of their territorial size or military might.

If the US wants its presence in Diego Garcia to be lawfully recognized by the global community, it must abandon this illegal transaction.

The US is obligated to comply with the ICJ ruling, respect the full sovereignty of Mauritius, and sit down at a dignified negotiating table that includes the legal rights of the native Chagosians to return to their ancestral home.