Understanding the Ongoing France-Vanuatu Negotiations About Matthew and Hunter Islands

Unpacking the longstanding territorial dispute between Vanuatu and France’s New Caledonia involves untangling complexity, nuance, and sensitivities.

In November 2025, France and Vanuatu concluded their first round of new formal negotiations, a bid to solve their longstanding territorial dispute over Umaenupne (Matthew) and Umaeneg/Leka (Hunter) islands (collectively “the MHIs”), two islets located near Vanuatu and New Caledonia, a French territory. A second round of discussions is scheduled for the first half of 2026. 

According to the Vanuatu and French government press releases, the negotiations were on the sovereignty of the MHIs and permanent maritime boundaries between Vanuatu and New Caledonia. The latest developments surrounding the dispute have sparked controversy in France, with some politicians expressing concern about a “possible transfer” of the MHIs to Port Vila, in response to which French authorities stated that “no cession of territory or renunciation of our sovereignty was discussed” with Vanuatu. 

The MHIs are two small, uninhabited volcanic islets. From a pragmatic perspective, their value mostly lies in their potential to generate vast exclusive economic zones (EEZs) around them. Vanuatu and France both claim sovereignty over the MHIs and have also declared a 200-nm EEZ around them, (although such a declaration may not be merited under UNCLOS article 121, which we have discussed elsewhere).

For the Indigenous people of Vanuatu, known as the Ni-Van, the MHIs also carry significant spiritual, cultural, and emotional value. It is commonly believed that the Ni-Van had traditional connections with the MHIs before Europeans discovered them in the 18th century.

The competing French and Vanuatu sovereignty claims over the MHIs have long been a constant strain on bilateral relations. For example, in 2005 and again 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 local customary leaders vocally urged him to address the MHIs dispute. Macron’s visit was the first time a French presidential trip passed through non-French islands in the South Pacific region. The fact that the MHI issue came up during his visit clearly signals the issue’s political significance in France-Vanuatu relations. 

The dispute has also had a bearing on Vanuatu’s relations with other countries in the South Pacific region. In August 2017, Vanuatu made an official complaint to New Zealand after a New Zealand research ship sought permission from New Caledonia to conduct marine research near the MHIs. When Fiji signed a boundary delimitation agreement with France in 1983 assuming French sovereignty over the MHIs, Vanuatu protested. As recently as 2019, Vanuatu leaders questioned why Fiji signed the 1983 agreement with France.

Historical Background

To fully understand the French-Vanuatu MHIs dispute, it is necessary to examine the historical events that led to the dispute. Vanuatu was formerly an Anglo-French condominium known as the New Hebrides before gaining independence in 1980. Europeans had little interest in the MHIs until 1962, when an Australian living in the New Hebrides, Bob Paul, and a Frenchman living in New Caledonia, Henri Martinet, declared themselves the joint owners of Matthew Island, believing it had not been annexed by any country. They sought to register their ownership via a New Hebridean Court. The court then asked the British and French Resident Commissioners in the New Hebrides to advise whether Matthew Island was part of the New Hebrides. 

The Commissioners submitted the matter to London and Paris. The British and French governments conducted extensive research for three years and found no definitive evidence as to whether Matthew or Hunter had been annexed by France, Britain, or any other sovereign state. The British also consulted Australia, which assured that it had no intent to claim either islet. No evidence, though, shows that Britain or France consulted the Indigenous peoples of the New Hebrides or New Caledonia.

In 1965, Britain and France reached an agreement and advised the court accordingly in a letter. Effectively, they agreed on two things:

The MHIs were part of the French colony of New Caledonia.

The MHIs were not part of the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides. 

The 1965 Agreement is important because, if it were lawful and binding, it arguably had the effect of renouncing the title or claims to title of the MHIs on behalf of the New Hebrides. In that case, even if the MHIs were administered under the New Hebrides before 1965, they were not part of its territory as a result of the 1965 Agreement. Vanuatu is thus unlikely to be able to claim the MHIs on the basis of succession.

However, the principle of self-determination merits discussion in determining if the 1965 Agreement is, in fact, lawful and binding.

The Self-determination Principle

Arguably, the lawfulness of the 1965 Agreement in international law can be assessed based on the principle of self-determination. According to the 2019 Chagos Advisory Opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice, it flows from the right to self-determination that the people of a non-self-governing territory have the right to territorial integrity. That means the integrity of their territory as a whole must be respected by the administering power (even uninhabited parts of that territory). Any detachment by the administering power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.

In that specific opinion, the ICJ found that the United Kingdom’s separation of the Chagos Islands from the rest of Mauritius in 1965 was contrary to the right to self-determination and therefore unlawful, because the agreement between the U.K. and Mauritius separating the Chagos Islands from Mauritius was not the “free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned.”

Applied to the case of the MHIs, this legal principle means that France and Britain, as administering powers of the New Hebrides, were obliged to respect the New Hebrides’ territorial integrity in 1965.

The principle of self-determination requires consultation with the colonized people in relation to any detachment of part of their territory. Multiple U.N. Assembly Resolutions recognize that the expression of the will of the peoples concerned is a cornerstone of the right of peoples to decide on their political status. The International Court of Justice has also recognized that the application of the right of self-determination requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned.

If the colonized people are not even consulted in the lead-up to the detachment of part of their territory, it can hardly be said that they have freely expressed their genuine will.

As mentioned earlier, no evidence shows that France and Britain consulted the Ni-Van or the Kanak (indigenous to New Caledonia) in the process of reaching the 1965 Agreement. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the 1965 Agreement was contrary to the principle of self-determination and therefore unlawful under international law.

On the other hand, it is worth noting Judge Ronny Abraham’s comment on timing and the purpose of the obligation to respect territorial integrity in the 2019 Chagos opinion: 

What this obligation seeks to prevent is amputation of part of the territory under colonial administration by a unilateral decision of the administering power, at the time of or in the period immediately preceding that territory’s accession to independence, for the sake of convenience, for strategic or military interests, or, more generally, because of the political or economic interests of the colonial Power itself.

The detachment of the MHIs took place 15 years before the New Hebrides’ independence. Arguably, that was not in the period immediately preceding that territory’s accession to independence. This is an issue a judge may take into consideration if the dispute goes to court.

If the 1965 Agreement is unlawful, France cannot rely on it to justify its sovereign claim to the MHIs. However, other potentially relevant legal issues would need to be considered to answer the question of who owns the MHIs today, including acquisition of territorial sovereignty through effective control and Indigenous people’s rights. 

For example, Indigenous groups from the southern parts of Vanuatu used to travel to the two islets not only to perform cultural ceremonies, but also for fishing purposes. New Caledonia’s FLNKS, the pro-independence political group that represents the Kanaks, recognized that the MHIs traditionally belong to Vanuatu and not New Caledonia through the Keamu Declaration.

Toward a Possible Solution

France and Vanuatu have strong bilateral relations and are interested in negotiating a solution. In a Joint Communique issued in July 2025, Vanuatu and French leaders agreed to maintain an open and constructive dialogue, aiming for an amicable resolution of the MHIs dispute. 

Beyond the general obligation of states to negotiate in good faith, to what extent is it possible to negotiate solutions that avoid the pitfall of binarity? 

Co-management arrangements could be an option, notably based on environmental considerations. In 2021, the president of the government of New Caledonia proposed the creation of a “park of peace” around the MHIs. The creation of the marine protected area around New Caledonia certainly has strategic implications in terms of asserting French sovereignty. However, it also highlights genuine environmental issues, which can potentially serve as a concrete basis for developing co-management between Vanuatu and France/New Caledonia.

Get to the bottom of the story

Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.

Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.

Unlimited articles and expert analysis

Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights

16-year archive of diplomatic coverage

Ad-free reading on all devices

Support independent journalism

Already have an account? Log in.

In November 2025, France and Vanuatu concluded their first round of new formal negotiations, a bid to solve their longstanding territorial dispute over Umaenupne (Matthew) and Umaeneg/Leka (Hunter) islands (collectively “the MHIs”), two islets located near Vanuatu and New Caledonia, a French territory. A second round of discussions is scheduled for the first half of 2026. 

According to the Vanuatu and French government press releases, the negotiations were on the sovereignty of the MHIs and permanent maritime boundaries between Vanuatu and New Caledonia. The latest developments surrounding the dispute have sparked controversy in France, with some politicians expressing concern about a “possible transfer” of the MHIs to Port Vila, in response to which French authorities stated that “no cession of territory or renunciation of our sovereignty was discussed” with Vanuatu. 

The MHIs are two small, uninhabited volcanic islets. From a pragmatic perspective, their value mostly lies in their potential to generate vast exclusive economic zones (EEZs) around them. Vanuatu and France both claim sovereignty over the MHIs and have also declared a 200-nm EEZ around them, (although such a declaration may not be merited under UNCLOS article 121, which we have discussed elsewhere).

For the Indigenous people of Vanuatu, known as the Ni-Van, the MHIs also carry significant spiritual, cultural, and emotional value. It is commonly believed that the Ni-Van had traditional connections with the MHIs before Europeans discovered them in the 18th century.

The competing French and Vanuatu sovereignty claims over the MHIs have long been a constant strain on bilateral relations. For example, in 2005 and again 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 local customary leaders vocally urged him to address the MHIs dispute. Macron’s visit was the first time a French presidential trip passed through non-French islands in the South Pacific region. The fact that the MHI issue came up during his visit clearly signals the issue’s political significance in France-Vanuatu relations. 

The dispute has also had a bearing on Vanuatu’s relations with other countries in the South Pacific region. In August 2017, Vanuatu made an official complaint to New Zealand after a New Zealand research ship sought permission from New Caledonia to conduct marine research near the MHIs. When Fiji signed a boundary delimitation agreement with France in 1983 assuming French sovereignty over the MHIs, Vanuatu protested. As recently as 2019, Vanuatu leaders questioned why Fiji signed the 1983 agreement with France.

Historical Background

To fully understand the French-Vanuatu MHIs dispute, it is necessary to examine the historical events that led to the dispute. Vanuatu was formerly an Anglo-French condominium known as the New Hebrides before gaining independence in 1980. Europeans had little interest in the MHIs until 1962, when an Australian living in the New Hebrides, Bob Paul, and a Frenchman living in New Caledonia, Henri Martinet, declared themselves the joint owners of Matthew Island, believing it had not been annexed by any country. They sought to register their ownership via a New Hebridean Court. The court then asked the British and French Resident Commissioners in the New Hebrides to advise whether Matthew Island was part of the New Hebrides. 

The Commissioners submitted the matter to London and Paris. The British and French governments conducted extensive research for three years and found no definitive evidence as to whether Matthew or Hunter had been annexed by France, Britain, or any other sovereign state. The British also consulted Australia, which assured that it had no intent to claim either islet. No evidence, though, shows that Britain or France consulted the Indigenous peoples of the New Hebrides or New Caledonia.

In 1965, Britain and France reached an agreement and advised the court accordingly in a letter. Effectively, they agreed on two things:

The MHIs were part of the French colony of New Caledonia.

The MHIs were not part of the Anglo-French Condominium of the New Hebrides. 

The 1965 Agreement is important because, if it were lawful and binding, it arguably had the effect of renouncing the title or claims to title of the MHIs on behalf of the New Hebrides. In that case, even if the MHIs were administered under the New Hebrides before 1965, they were not part of its territory as a result of the 1965 Agreement. Vanuatu is thus unlikely to be able to claim the MHIs on the basis of succession.

However, the principle of self-determination merits discussion in determining if the 1965 Agreement is, in fact, lawful and binding.

The Self-determination Principle

Arguably, the lawfulness of the 1965 Agreement in international law can be assessed based on the principle of self-determination. According to the 2019 Chagos Advisory Opinion delivered by the International Court of Justice, it flows from the right to self-determination that the people of a non-self-governing territory have the right to territorial integrity. That means the integrity of their territory as a whole must be respected by the administering power (even uninhabited parts of that territory). Any detachment by the administering power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.

In that specific opinion, the ICJ found that the United Kingdom’s separation of the Chagos Islands from the rest of Mauritius in 1965 was contrary to the right to self-determination and therefore unlawful, because the agreement between the U.K. and Mauritius separating the Chagos Islands from Mauritius was not the “free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned.”

Applied to the case of the MHIs, this legal principle means that France and Britain, as administering powers of the New Hebrides, were obliged to respect the New Hebrides’ territorial integrity in 1965.

The principle of self-determination requires consultation with the colonized people in relation to any detachment of part of their territory. Multiple U.N. Assembly Resolutions recognize that the expression of the will of the peoples concerned is a cornerstone of the right of peoples to decide on their political status. The International Court of Justice has also recognized that the application of the right of self-determination requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned.

If the colonized people are not even consulted in the lead-up to the detachment of part of their territory, it can hardly be said that they have freely expressed their genuine will.

As mentioned earlier, no evidence shows that France and Britain consulted the Ni-Van or the Kanak (indigenous to New Caledonia) in the process of reaching the 1965 Agreement. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the 1965 Agreement was contrary to the principle of self-determination and therefore unlawful under international law.

On the other hand, it is worth noting Judge Ronny Abraham’s comment on timing and the purpose of the obligation to respect territorial integrity in the 2019 Chagos opinion: 

What this obligation seeks to prevent is amputation of part of the territory under colonial administration by a unilateral decision of the administering power, at the time of or in the period immediately preceding that territory’s accession to independence, for the sake of convenience, for strategic or military interests, or, more generally, because of the political or economic interests of the colonial Power itself.

The detachment of the MHIs took place 15 years before the New Hebrides’ independence. Arguably, that was not in the period immediately preceding that territory’s accession to independence. This is an issue a judge may take into consideration if the dispute goes to court.

If the 1965 Agreement is unlawful, France cannot rely on it to justify its sovereign claim to the MHIs. However, other potentially relevant legal issues would need to be considered to answer the question of who owns the MHIs today, including acquisition of territorial sovereignty through effective control and Indigenous people’s rights. 

For example, Indigenous groups from the southern parts of Vanuatu used to travel to the two islets not only to perform cultural ceremonies, but also for fishing purposes. New Caledonia’s FLNKS, the pro-independence political group that represents the Kanaks, recognized that the MHIs traditionally belong to Vanuatu and not New Caledonia through the Keamu Declaration.

Toward a Possible Solution

France and Vanuatu have strong bilateral relations and are interested in negotiating a solution. In a Joint Communique issued in July 2025, Vanuatu and French leaders agreed to maintain an open and constructive dialogue, aiming for an amicable resolution of the MHIs dispute. 

Beyond the general obligation of states to negotiate in good faith, to what extent is it possible to negotiate solutions that avoid the pitfall of binarity? 

Co-management arrangements could be an option, notably based on environmental considerations. In 2021, the president of the government of New Caledonia proposed the creation of a “park of peace” around the MHIs. The creation of the marine protected area around New Caledonia certainly has strategic implications in terms of asserting French sovereignty. However, it also highlights genuine environmental issues, which can potentially serve as a concrete basis for developing co-management between Vanuatu and France/New Caledonia.

Dr. Lili Song is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Otago, New Zealand. She previously taught at the University of the South Pacific in Vanuatu and was recently a visiting scholar at Harvard University.

Dr. Géraldine Giraudeau is a full professor in law at the University of Paris-Saclay (UVSQ) and a junior member of the Institut universitaire de France. She was recently a visiting scholar at Te Herenga Waka- University of Wellington.

Dr. Morsen Mosses is a senior lecturer in law at the University of the South Pacific. He teaches and conducts research in public international law, human rights law and legal pluralism in the Pacific.

France in the Pacific

France-Vanuatu territorial dispute

Matthew and Hunter Islands

© The Diplomat