{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014734774066797643, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003929273084479371, 'mean_word_length': 4.95906432748538, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Chagos Islands and international orders: human rights, rule of law, and foreign rule

This article uses the Chagos Archipelago that is administered by the United Kingdom, used as a military base by the US, and claimed by Mauritius, as a case study to explore competing international orders and move the theorization of international orders forward. Considering international orders as functionally and geographically limited sets of rules, I focus on those three sets of orders that functionally relate to human rights, the rule of law, and foreign rule. I show that those orders that promote human rights and the rule of law more consistently and reject foreign rule have extended their geographic scope. The Chagos Islands dispute is an intriguing case study to probe shifts of and attempts to protect these orders as a vote in 2019 at the United National General Assembly forced states to take sides. At the same time, my analysis highlights that realpolitik prevents the full overturn of the challenged orders.