Here is the converted article in markdown format:

Imperialism Lurks Beneath the Surface: The Selective Application of International Norms

The ongoing dispute between the United Kingdom and Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago has raised important questions about the authority of international law and its proclaimed principles of state equality and sovereignty. A closer examination reveals that the selective application of international norms and the ability of powerful states to disregard their international obligations when national interests dictate, perpetuate the injustices of colonialism.

The Asymmetrical Nature of International Law

The asymmetrical nature of international law, where power and colonialism continue to influence inter-state relations, has led to a system that exacerbates problems rather than resolving them. The principles that underpin international law are themselves the product of empires and colonial projects, and as such, perpetuate “imperialist thinking” that dominates both the rules-based order and international law.

Environmental Concerns and Imperialistic Thinking

The use of environmental concerns to justify denial of the right of the Chagossians to return is a prime example of this imperialistic thinking. The rule of law has been used as a tool of subjugation and marginalization, reflecting the ideals of Western liberal democracies. Furthermore, human rights are often accused of being a tool of neo-colonialism, serving the interests of their creators.

Limitations and Potential for Change

Despite these limitations, international law offers potential for real change and transformation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has acknowledged the influence of asymmetrical relations of power on inter-state agreements, including the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. However, it is crucial to recognize that states find themselves obeying international rules not only because of self-interest but also because they provide a framework for continuing interactions and proactive collaborations.

Consequences of Violating International Law

The violation of international law has significant consequences, leading to social outcasting and inviting further violations by other states. The annexation of Crimea by Russia and the lack of consensus at the United Nations Security Council on the bloodshed in Syria are examples of this. States do not take lightly non-adherence to international law, as its creation is built upon state consent.

Balancing National Interests

The balancing of national interests through the rules-based order and international law rectifies pragmatic inequalities and limits state power. However, states cannot pick and choose which norms to apply, as this undermines predictability and peaceful coexistence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while international law is one component of the current rules-based order, both concepts share common elements, including power asymmetry and the potential to check power and tyranny. Breaching international law weakens its credibility and affects the rules-based order, highlighting the need for a more equitable and just approach to resolving disputes between states.

A Brief History of the British Indian Territory

The Chagos Archipelago has a complex history dating back to the 18th century when it was a British colony. After 1945, as Britain decolonized its former territories, the Chagos Islands were separated from Mauritius and became a British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). The BIOT was created in response to US pressure for a strategic military base in the region, leading to the forced relocation of thousands of Chagossians from their homeland. This historical event has had far-reaching consequences, with the UK and Mauritius engaging in a long-standing dispute over the archipelago’s sovereignty.