In November 2025, France and Vanuatu concluded their first spherical of recent formal negotiations, a bid to unravel their longstanding territorial dispute over Umaenupne (Matthew) and Umaeneg/Leka (Hunter) islands (collectively “the MHIs”), two islets situated close to Vanuatu and New Caledonia, a French territory. A second spherical of discussions is scheduled for the primary half of 2026.
In accordance with the Vanuatu and French authorities press releases, the negotiations have been on the sovereignty of the MHIs and everlasting maritime boundaries between Vanuatu and New Caledonia. The most recent developments surrounding the dispute have sparked controversy in France, with some politicians expressing concern a couple of “doable switch” of the MHIs to Port Vila, in response to which French authorities acknowledged that “no cession of territory or renunciation of our sovereignty was mentioned” with Vanuatu.
The MHIs are two small, uninhabited volcanic islets. From a realistic perspective, their worth largely lies of their potential to generate huge unique financial zones (EEZs) round them. Vanuatu and France each declare sovereignty over the MHIs and have additionally declared a 200-nm EEZ round them, (though such a declaration will not be merited beneath UNCLOS article 121, which we’ve mentioned elsewhere).
For the Indigenous individuals of Vanuatu, generally known as the Ni-Van, the MHIs additionally carry important religious, cultural, and emotional worth. It’s generally believed that the Ni-Van had conventional connections with the MHIs earlier than Europeans found them within the 18th century.
The competing French and Vanuatu sovereignty claims over the MHIs have lengthy been a continuing pressure on bilateral relations. For instance, in 2005 and once more in 2014, Vanuatu threatened to take the dispute to the United Nations. In June 2023, when French President Emmanuel Macron visited Vanuatu, members of the Vanuatu Parliament and native customary leaders vocally urged him to handle the MHIs dispute. Macron’s go to was the first time a French presidential journey handed by non-French islands within the South Pacific area. The truth that the MHI subject got here up throughout his go to clearly indicators the difficulty’s political significance in France-Vanuatu relations.
The dispute has additionally had a bearing on Vanuatu’s relations with different nations within the South Pacific area. In August 2017, Vanuatu made an official grievance to New Zealand after a New Zealand analysis ship sought permission from New Caledonia to conduct marine analysis close to the MHIs. When Fiji signed a boundary delimitation settlement with France in 1983 assuming French sovereignty over the MHIs, Vanuatu protested. As not too long ago as 2019, Vanuatu leaders questioned why Fiji signed the 1983 settlement with France.
Historic Background
To totally perceive the French-Vanuatu MHIs dispute, it’s needed to look at the historic occasions that led to the dispute. Vanuatu was previously an Anglo-French condominium generally known as the New Hebrides earlier than gaining independence in 1980. Europeans had little curiosity within the MHIs till 1962, when an Australian residing within the New Hebrides, Bob Paul, and a Frenchman residing in New Caledonia, Henri Martinet, declared themselves the joint house owners of Matthew Island, believing it had not been annexed by any nation. They sought to register their possession by way of a New Hebridean Court docket. The courtroom then requested the British and French Resident Commissioners within the New Hebrides to advise whether or not Matthew Island was a part of the New Hebrides.
The Commissioners submitted the matter to London and Paris. The British and French governments carried out intensive analysis for 3 years and located no definitive proof as as to whether Matthew or Hunter had been annexed by France, Britain, or another sovereign state. The British additionally consulted Australia, which assured that it had no intent to assert both islet. No proof, although, exhibits that Britain or France consulted the Indigenous peoples of the New Hebrides or New Caledonia.
In 1965, Britain and France reached an settlement and suggested the courtroom accordingly in a letter. Successfully, they agreed on two issues:
The MHIs have been a part of the French colony of New Caledonia.
The MHIs weren’t a part of the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides.
The 1965 Settlement is necessary as a result of, if it have been lawful and binding, it arguably had the impact of renouncing the title or claims to title of the MHIs on behalf of the New Hebrides. In that case, even when the MHIs have been administered beneath the New Hebrides earlier than 1965, they weren’t a part of its territory on account of the 1965 Settlement. Vanuatu is thus unlikely to have the ability to declare the MHIs on the premise of succession.
Nevertheless, the precept of self-determination deserves dialogue in figuring out if the 1965 Settlement is, in actual fact, lawful and binding.
The Self-determination Precept
Arguably, the lawfulness of the 1965 Settlement in worldwide regulation may be assessed based mostly on the precept of self-determination. In accordance with the 2019 Chagos Advisory Opinion delivered by the Worldwide Court docket of Justice, it flows from the precise to self-determination that the individuals of a non-self-governing territory have the precise to territorial integrity. Meaning the integrity of their territory as an entire should be revered by the administering energy (even uninhabited components of that territory). Any detachment by the administering energy of a part of a non-self-governing territory, until based mostly on the freely expressed and real will of the individuals of the territory involved, is opposite to the precise to self-determination.
In that particular opinion, the ICJ discovered that the UK’s separation of the Chagos Islands from the remainder of Mauritius in 1965 was opposite to the precise to self-determination and subsequently illegal, as a result of the settlement between the U.Ok. and Mauritius separating the Chagos Islands from Mauritius was not the “free and real expression of the need of the individuals involved.”
Utilized to the case of the MHIs, this authorized precept implies that France and Britain, as administering powers of the New Hebrides, have been obliged to respect the New Hebrides’ territorial integrity in 1965.
The precept of self-determination requires session with the colonized individuals in relation to any detachment of a part of their territory. A number of U.N. Meeting Resolutions acknowledge that the expression of the need of the peoples involved is a cornerstone of the precise of peoples to determine on their political standing. The Worldwide Court docket of Justice has additionally acknowledged that the appliance of the precise of self-determination requires a free and real expression of the need of the peoples involved.
If the colonized individuals are not even consulted within the lead-up to the detachment of a part of their territory, it might probably hardly be mentioned that they’ve freely expressed their real will.
As talked about earlier, no proof exhibits that France and Britain consulted the Ni-Van or the Kanak (indigenous to New Caledonia) within the technique of reaching the 1965 Settlement. Due to this fact, it’s doable to argue that the 1965 Settlement was opposite to the precept of self-determination and subsequently illegal beneath worldwide regulation.
However, it’s price noting Decide Ronny Abraham’s touch upon timing and the aim of the duty to respect territorial integrity within the 2019 Chagos opinion:
What this obligation seeks to forestall is amputation of a part of the territory beneath colonial administration by a unilateral resolution of the administering energy, on the time of or within the interval instantly previous that territory’s accession to independence, for the sake of comfort, for strategic or army pursuits, or, extra usually, due to the political or financial pursuits of the colonial Energy itself.
The detachment of the MHIs came about 15 years earlier than the New Hebrides’ independence. Arguably, that was not within the interval instantly previous that territory’s accession to independence. This is a matter a decide might think about if the dispute goes to courtroom.
If the 1965 Settlement is illegal, France can’t depend on it to justify its sovereign declare to the MHIs. Nevertheless, different doubtlessly related authorized points would must be thought of to reply the query of who owns the MHIs at present, together with acquisition of territorial sovereignty by efficient management and Indigenous individuals’s rights.
For instance, Indigenous teams from the southern components of Vanuatu used to journey to the 2 islets not solely to carry out cultural ceremonies, but in addition for fishing functions. New Caledonia’s FLNKS, the pro-independence political group that represents the Kanaks, acknowledged that the MHIs historically belong to Vanuatu and never New Caledonia by the Keamu Declaration.
Towards a Doable Resolution
France and Vanuatu have sturdy bilateral relations and are keen on negotiating an answer. In a Joint Communique issued in July 2025, Vanuatu and French leaders agreed to keep up an open and constructive dialogue, aiming for an amicable decision of the MHIs dispute.
Past the overall obligation of states to barter in good religion, to what extent is it doable to barter options that keep away from the pitfall of binarity?
Co-management preparations might be an choice, notably based mostly on environmental issues. In 2021, the president of the federal government of New Caledonia proposed the creation of a “park of peace” across the MHIs. The creation of the marine protected space round New Caledonia actually has strategic implications by way of asserting French sovereignty. Nevertheless, it additionally highlights real environmental points, which might doubtlessly function a concrete foundation for growing co-management between Vanuatu and France/New Caledonia.
