عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the jurisdictions of the International Court of Justice is to give advisory opinions on any legal question at the request of the General Assembly, the Security Council, or any other entity qualified under the provisions of Article 96 of the UN Charter. Since nearly eight decades of operation, this institution has given 27 advisory opinions; a petty number, bearing in mind the concurrent evolution and development of international law and institutions. These decisions, though not having a binding nature, their review and analysis can greatly help to clarify and enlighten the minds of the lawyers. The advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 is the newest of these few advisory opinions, which by the way has provisions against the apparent interests of two permanent members of the Security Council (the UK and the US). This article through a descriptive-analytical method and in qualitative research nature, is trying to review and analyse this decision of the court. In the end, it has been concluded that this advisory opinion, though not binding, has shortcomings especially for not paying enough consideration to the consensual nature of the policies carried on by the UK in Mauritius, and the agreement concluded between representatives of the colony of Mauritius and the United Kingdom. However, such an advisory opinion per se indicates the fair mechanism governing the UN and its organs in observing the interests of the weak nations and developing countries.