The Vanuatu-France territorial dispute over the uninhabited volcanic islets of Matthew and Hunter has escalated significantly, with the island nation officially referring the long-standing maritime and sovereignty case to the International Court of Justice (CIJ), according to United Nations announcements.
Located roughly 300 kilometers east of New Caledonia and southeast of Vanuatu, the tiny landmasses span only a few square kilometers but carry major strategic and economic weight. The dispute centers on maritime boundary delimitations, exclusive economic zones, and fishing rights across the Pacific. While Port-Vila asserts historical, cultural, and religious ties—contending that precolonial pirogues originaires de l’archipel visited the islets—Paris maintains that the islands belong to New Caledonia, having formally taken possession of Matthew and Hunter in 1929.
The Historical Roots of the Pacific Border Dispute
The friction between Paris and Port-Vila dates back to the colonial era, when the New Hebrides were jointly administered by France and the United Kingdom. According to reports from the online fact-checking outlet Les Surligneurs, France established possession in 1929. Decades later, in 1965, an agreement between London and Paris formally attached Matthew and Hunter to New Caledonia rather than the New Hebrides.
When Vanuatu gained independence in 1980, the status of the islets remained unresolved. Bilateral negotiations between France and Vanuatu took place in 2018 and 2019, followed by an agreement in 2025 to restart formal talks. However, those discussions stalled. In December 2025, the French government firmly rejected claims from domestic political figures that Paris intended to cede its overseas territories, maintaining its hold on the remote outcrops.
Tensions continued to mount into 2026. In May 2026, Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat sharply criticized French policies in the region, threatening to utilize all available international diplomatic and legal avenues to press his country’s claims. With bilateral negotiations at an impasse, the archipelago chose to lodge its application with the United Nations’ highest judicial organ.
High Stakes for Maritime Boundaries and Natural Resources
Though Matthew and Hunter lack permanent human inhabitants, their sovereignty directly impacts surrounding maritime zones. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, coastal states must negotiate in good faith to delimit adjacent or opposing maritime spaces equitably.
Controlling the islets allows the governing nation to claim vast surrounding exclusive economic zones. According to reports from Islands Business, these zones dictate fishing rights and deep-sea mineral exploration across the region. For France, retaining sovereignty over the territories reinforces its standing as the world’s second-largest maritime power, boasting nearly 11 million square kilometers of maritime space.
The controversy also carries domestic political weight within the region. Kanak independence leaders in New Caledonia have voiced support for Vanuatu’s claims, suggesting that if New Caledonia were to achieve independence in the future, the disputed islets should be returned to Port-Vila.
What Lies Ahead at the International Court of Justice
The legal path forward remains uncertain. Filing an application with the International Court of Justice does not guarantee the court will hear the case, as the institution requires a valid jurisdictional basis between the parties involved.
France has not accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the CIJ for disputes with other states, meaning the court cannot unilaterally compel Paris to appear. French authorities received the formal application and must now decide whether to accept the court’s jurisdiction. Speaking at a Pacific islands conference organized by Palau, Éléonore Caroit, state secretary at the French Ministry for Foreign Affairs, reiterated that France’s stance is clear, firm, and rooted in openness and dialogue, while firmly reaffirming French sovereignty over the islands.
If France agrees to participate, both nations can present their historical and legal arguments before the court hands down a legally binding judgment. If France declines, the CIJ cannot impose a ruling, leaving the existing territorial status quo in place.
Keep reading
