‘Foalhavahi’ Forgotten:

‘Foalhavahi’ Forgotten: The Maldives, Chagos, and

the Colonial Injustice of Selective Sovereignty

Executive Summary

The UK's continued invocation of international law— even while admitting its colonial

wrongdoing in the Chagos Archipelago — highlights the selective and inconsistent

application of legal principles rooted in outdated imperial frameworks. The Treaty of Paris

(1814), often referenced to justify British and later Mauritian claims, never explicitly

mentioned the Chagos Islands.

This legal omission reveals a deeper issue: the international

system's ongoing

reliance on colonial cartography and documentation to define sovereignty,

while disregarding historically rooted, non-European claims.

The Maldives, whose monarchs historically asserted influence over the southern Indian

Ocean and whose people were deeply integrated into the ecology and usage of Chagos

(Foalhavahi), remain excluded from legal and political deliberations on its future. The neglect

of Maldivian claims — based on regional usage, maritime heritage, and ecological presence

— underscores the colonial inertia embedded in modern decolonization. A just resolution for

Chagos requires expanding the legal and moral frame to include all historically connected

actors, particularly those silenced by colonial-era legalism.

I. Introduction: The Colonial Echo in Modern

International Law

Although international law has evolved significantly since the colonial era, its frameworks

for determining territorial sovereignty remain deeply entwined with imperial legacies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the case of the Chagos Archipelago.

Despite multiple international judgments affirming that the UK's separation

of Chagos from Mauritius was unlawful, the UK's persistent reliance on outdated treaties and geopolitical justifications

undermines the legitimacy of international law as a tool for equitable decolonization.

This legal terrain becomes even more problematic when considering who is absent from the

conversation. The Maldives — geographically proximate, historically involved, and

culturally connected to Chagos — remains excluded from both historical treaties and modern

legal processes. This omission reflects a broader systemic failure: international law

continues to privilege the administrative records of colonizers over the lived history of

regional and Indigenous actors.

2

II. Legal Instruments and the Limits of Colonialism

Legitimacy

A. The Treaty of Paris (1814): A Flawed Foundation

Often cited in sovereignty debates, the Treaty of Paris transferred Mauritius from French to

British control but makes no mention of the Chagos Archipelago. Despite this, it has been

used retroactively to define colonial and postcolonial boundaries. Such legal interpretations

reinforce colonial logic — where legitimacy derives from what European empires

documented, regardless of accuracy or local relevance.

B. The ICJ and UN Resolutions: Partial Justice

The 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion and UNGA Resolution

73/295 ruled that the UK must return Chagos to Mauritius. However, these efforts still

operate within colonial boundaries. By affirming Mauritius’s sovereignty based solely on

colonial-era administrative unity, the rulings inadvertently exclude historical actors like the

Maldives, whose claims exist outside European legal codification but within the region’s

lived maritime history.

III. The Maldives and Chagos: A Silenced Relationship

A. Historical Claims and Maritime Usage

The Maldivian Sultans historically claimed influence over southern atolls and surrounding

seas. The name Foalhavahi, used in the Dhivehi language to refer to Chagos, reflects a

cultural recognition of the territory. Maldivians fished seasonally in Chagos waters, offered

their navigational expertise during colonial rule, and maintained spiritual and ecological

knowledge of the reefs — making them longstanding regional stewards.

B. Maldivians in Colonial Chagos

British and French administrators employed Maldivians as seafarers and laborers, exploiting

their marine knowledge to manage plantation economies and inter-island navigation. Yet,

because their presence was not recorded in colonial administrative terms (i.e., not as settlers),

they have been denied recognition in postcolonial sovereignty debates. This is not a matter of

legal technicality — it is historical erasure under the guise of legal order.

IV. Decolonization or Re-Colonization?

Decolonization, as currently practiced in the Chagos context, risks becoming a reallocation

of colonial inheritance rather than a process of regional justice. When sovereignty is

determined purely by which former colony once held a territory — instead of asking who

lived, used, or cared for it — then the international legal system reasserts the same exclusions

it claims to dismantle.

The UK's use of international law to delay or sidestep decolonization — while admitting

colonial wrongdoing — only deepens this contradiction. By continuing to favour colonial-era

boundaries and legal language, the system inadvertently sanctions a form of legal

neocolonialism, excluding communities like the Maldives whose ties to Chagos are not

defined by European documentation but by historical continuity.

V. Toward a Just and Inclusive Resolution

To achieve lasting peace and legitimacy in the Chagos dispute, the following steps must be

considered:

• Recognition of Maldivian Historical Presence:

  Acknowledge Maldivians as traditional users and stewards of the Chagos region, with claims rooted in ecological

usage, cultural knowledge, and historical proximity.

• Expanded Legal Frameworks:

  Move beyond colonial treaties and administrative

records to incorporate regional oral histories, traditional navigation practices, and

ecological knowledge systems.

• Regional Co-Governance Models:

  Explore frameworks that include Mauritius, the

Maldives, and Chagossian communities in joint stewardship of Chagos — focusing on

conservation, sovereignty, and equitable access to resources.

• Reform in International Legal Assumptions:

  Advocate for international legal

reforms that allow recognition of claims not based solely on colonial recordkeeping

but on lived historical and cultural relationships.

Conclusion

The Chagos Archipelago cannot be decolonized through colonial logic. If international law

continues to prioritize imperial documents over regional realities, actors like the Maldives

will remain unjustly silenced. The world must recognize that sovereignty is not only about

what was written in 1814, but also about who lived, worked, and sustained these islands

across generations.

Foalhavahi has not been forgotten by the Maldives — only by the legal systems that

claim to serve justice.