International law, explained.
Matthew Island, circa 2012 (Wikimedia Commons)
Vanuatu’s bid to settle France’s claim to Matthew and Hunter
Vanuatu wants The Hague to rule on a colonial-era dispute – but France decides if it even hears the case.
International law, explained.
Matthew Island, circa 2012 (Wikimedia Commons)
Vanuatu wants The Hague to rule on a colonial-era dispute – but France decides if it even hears the case.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Vanuatu’s bid to settle France’s claim to Matthew and HunterVanuatu’s bid to settle France’s claim to Matthew and Hunter
A decades long Pacific island territorial dispute with deep colonial roots may be on the brink of being resolved by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
On 31 August, Vanuatu filed an application (Opens in new window) with the court seeking to commence legal proceedings against France with respect to a territorial dispute over Matthew and Hunter Islands (Umaenupne and Leka in the indigenous Vanuatu language), and the associated maritime boundary between France and Vanuatu in the Southwest Pacific. Whether Vanuatu’s case proceeds will rest with Paris as the court will need to first be satisfied it has jurisdiction to even hear Vanuatu’s claim. As France does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, and Vanuatu’s case has not been founded on any treaty obligation requiring peaceful settlement of a land and maritime boundary dispute by the court, France will ultimately decide whether the case as framed by Vanuatu will go forward.
The International Court rarely sees disputes come to it by this legal route.
Matthew and Hunter Islands are two uninhabited islands situated approximately 162 nautical miles southeast of Vanuatu and 241 nautical miles east of French New Caledonia (Opens in new window). The islands have generally been considered to be part of France’s Pacific island territories by way of claims dating back to an 1853 annexation of New Caledonia; however, doubt has been cast over whether France actually perfected those claims or whether various forms of administrative control were exercised without showing a clear intent to possess Matthew and Hunter.
The lack of clarity over the status of the islands partly has its roots in a bespoke 1906 Anglo-French Condominium, under which joint control was exercised over the islands of the New Hebrides (Opens in new window). Vanuatu’s independence in 1980 enlivened debates over the status of the islands, in which it has been argued that Vanuatu as the successor of the United Kingdom became entitled to any rights over the islands that had been acquired by London.
There has also been a strong claim that the indigenous people of Vanuatu have historically had a connection with the island, with visitation for cultural and spiritual purposes and fishing.
Vanuatu and New Caledonia, with Matthew and Hunter Islands on the bottom right (Wikimedia Commons)
The islands are small at approximately 0.7 and 0.6 square kilometres, are physically isolated and uninhabited, and due to volcanic activity unsuited for permanent human habitation. Nevertheless, the geopolitical significance of the islands has grown as a result of developments in the law of the sea.
Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Opens in new window), islands generate the same maritime entitlements as continents. Countries that are solely comprised of islands or parts of islands can also claim the distinctive status of an “Archipelagic State” under the Convention. This gives a special legal entitlement to connect and enclose all of their islands and thereby exercise sovereignty over the islands and the interconnecting waters. Vanuatu is one of only 22 countries – along with Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands – that are entitled to this special status. New Caledonia is also an archipelago but as a French overseas territory it is not a recognised archipelagic State due to its lack of independence.
Vanuatu is seeking to resolve not only the territorial dispute over the islands, but also the related maritime boundary with France, which in itself can only be resolved once the island dispute is settled. This mixed land and maritime element of the dispute is critical as it takes it beyond Law of the Sea Convention forums that would otherwise be available for the resolution of the maritime dispute, such as that utilised by the Philippines in the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration.
How Vanuatu’s claim is responded to by France is difficult to predict. Formal bilateral negotiations had taken place in 2018 and 2019, with recent rounds in November 2025 and July 2026 (Opens in new window). However, it would appear that Port Vila ultimately came to the view that the negotiations had reached an end point and that formally requesting France to agree to allow the dispute to be decided in The Hague was the only way forward to break the impasse.
France is not legally required to accede to Vanuatu’s request, and this is a novel aspect of the dispute. The International Court rarely sees disputes come to it by this legal route. France will be mindful, however, that its status as a founding member of the United Nations and the International Court – and having already been involved in 16 contentious cases before the court (Opens in new window) – will place it under pressure to accede to Vanuatu’s request.
This is not France’s only island territorial dispute. The status of the French Overseas Territory of Mayotte (Opens in new window) in the Indian Ocean is contested between Comoros and France. France would be concerned about any precedent that may be set by how it responds to Vanuatu’s claims, and how that may be received in New Caledonia against the backdrop of the local independence movement (Opens in new window). Vanuatu, however, would appear to be prepared for a French rebuff and has suggested that its fallback option would be to seek an Advisory Opinion (Opens in new window) from the International Court.
Whatever the legal process, Port Vila seems determined to raise the dispute over Matthew and Hunter in The Hague.
About the author
Donald R Rothwell
Donald R Rothwell is Professor of International Law at the ANU College of Law, ANU and one of Australia’s leading experts in International Law with specific focus on the law of the sea, law of the polar regions, use of force and implementation of international law within Australia.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
