ARTICLE TEXT

On 1 September 2026, the International Court of Justice announced that the Republic of Vanuatu had filed an application against the French Republic. Vanuatu is asking the Court to decide who has sovereignty over two small, uninhabited volcanic islands in the South Pacific. France calls them Matthew and Hunter. In Vanuatu they are known as Umaenupne and Umaeneg (or Leka). Vanuatu also wants the Court to draw the boundary between its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and those of New Caledonia. The islands lie roughly 300 kilometres east of New Caledonia, which is still a French territory. The case raises old questions of decolonisation, but its most immediate lesson concerns something more basic: consent.

A Case That May Never Begin

The ICJ can only hear a contentious case if both States have consented to its jurisdiction. States can consent through a special agreement, through a clause in a treaty, or by a declaration under the optional clause in Article 36(2) of the Court’s Statute. France withdrew its optional clause declaration in 1974, during the Nuclear Tests cases, and has not made a new one. So Vanuatu relied on Article 38(5) of the Rules of Court. This procedure, known as forum prorogatum, allows a State to file an application against another State that has not yet accepted jurisdiction, in the hope that it will. Under the rule, the application is sent to France but is not entered in the Court’s General List of cases. The Court has said that no step will be taken in the proceedings unless and until France consents.

This is not purely symbolic. France has accepted jurisdiction under Article 38(5) twice before: in Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v France), filed in 2003, and in Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France), filed in 2006. Paris has therefore shown before that it is willing to litigate once invited.

Vanuatu’s Arguments

Vanuatu presents its claim as a matter of self-determination and unfinished decolonisation. It argues that France attached the islands to New Caledonia while the New Hebrides, as Vanuatu then was, were under joint Anglo-French rule, and that the people of the archipelago were never consulted. Vanuatu became independent in 1980. It also relies on long-standing customary and cultural ties between the islands and the people of Aneityum, Futuna and Tanna, and on the 2009 Keamu Accord signed with Kanak customary leaders in New Caledonia. The two States held talks in 2018, 2019 and 2025. In July 2023, during his Pacific visit, President Emmanuel Macron promised progress on the question. Deputy Prime Minister Johnny Koanapo, who leads Vanuatu’s negotiations on maritime boundaries and decolonisation, said that after decades without an outcome, “judicial determination offers the clearest pathway.”

France’s Response

France says it has exercised continuous and effective control over the islands, which lie within New Caledonia’s Coral Sea Natural Park. French minister Éléonore Caroit described the filing as “a unilateral decision by Vanuatu, while we were engaged in a process that was going very well,” and added that France “is attached to international law.” Kanak pro-independence leaders have publicly backed Vanuatu’s position.

What Happens Next

For now the case is in limbo. If France declines to consent, Vanuatu has signalled another route. Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu has said Vanuatu could ask the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion instead: “We’ve done that with the climate change case.” That is a reference to the Court’s 2025 advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, a campaign Vanuatu led. The strategy echoes the Chagos proceedings, where Mauritius obtained a 2019 advisory opinion on incomplete decolonisation after the United Kingdom refused to go to court.

Why It Matters

For students of public international law, this is a live example of the rule that consent is the foundation of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, and of the tactical choices small States make when that consent is missing. For readers in Bangladesh, the maritime side will sound familiar. Bangladesh settled its own maritime boundaries through international adjudication: with Myanmar before ITLOS in 2012 and with India before an Annex VII arbitral tribunal in 2014. Also at the ICJ, the Court has not yet fixed a date for its judgment in The Gambia v Myanmar, the Rohingya genocide case, following merits hearings held from 12 to 29 January 2026.

Sources

1. Al Jazeera, Vanuatu pushes France to accept ICJ jurisdiction in Pacific islands dispute (1 September 2026): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/1/vanuatu-pushes-france-to-accept-icj-jurisdiction-in-pacific-islands-dispute
2. Office of the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, press release: https://pmo.gov.vu/en/public-information/press-release/1168-vanuatu-takes-france-to-the-icj-over-sovereignty-of-umaenupne-matthew-and-umaeneg-leka-hunter-islands-and-maritime-boundary-delimitation.html
3. Islands Business, Vanuatu takes Matthew and Hunter dispute to ICJ: https://islandsbusiness.com/news-break/vanuatu-takes-matthew-and-hunter-dispute-to-icj/
4. East Asia Forum, Vanuatu turns to international law in fight for sovereignty (12 September 2026): https://eastasiaforum.org/2026/09/12/vanuatu-turns-to-international-law-in-fight-for-sovereignty/
5. ICJ press releases (No. 2026/22): https://www.icj-cij.org/press-releases