Procès-verbaux des séances publiques tenues au Palais de la Paix, La Haye, du 16 au 23 mai et le 11 juillet 1950 sous la présidence de M. Basdevant, président

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

STATUT INTERNATIONAL

DU SUD-OUEST AFRICAIN

AVIS CONSULTATIIJUILL1950 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

INTERNATIONAL STATUS

OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA

ADVISORY OPOF JU11t1950 SÉANCE PUBLIQUE TENUE LE 16 MAI 1950 A 11 HEURES

Présents: MM. BASDEVANT P,résiden; GUERREROV , ice-Présdent;
ALVAREZ H,ACKWORTH W ,INIARSKIZ , ORIZIC, E VISSCHERs,ir ARNOLD
MCNAIK,M. KLAESTAI)B , ADAWIPACHA,MM. KRYLOV,READ,HSU
Mo, A~E~EDOj,uges; M. HAMBROG , refier.

Présenlsdgalerneirt '
hl. Ivan KERSO,Secrétaire généraladjoint, représentant du Secrétaire
généraldes Nations Unies, assisté de :
hl. Marc SCHREIBER,

M. B. SLOAN,du Département juridique des Nations Unies.
Les représentants desGozrvernementssnivants :
République des Philippines :hf. le juge JoséINGLES,de la délégation
permanente des Philippines auprès des Nations Unies ;

Union sud-africaine : le Dr L. C. STEYN,K. C., conseiUer juridique
principal du département de la Justice, Prétoria,
assisté du Dr L. WESSELS,conseiller juridique au mêmecléparte-
ment.
Le PRÉSIDENTo,uvrant l'audience, signalc que la Cour se réunit pour
entendre les exposés oraux qui seront présentésdans l'affaire relative
au statut international du Sud-Ouest africain.
Par une résolution datée du 6 décembre 1949. l'Assembléegénérale
des Nations Unies a décidéde demander à la Cour un avis consultatif
sur cette question. Il prie le GREFFIERde donner lecture de cettc
résolution.

Cette lecture faite, le PRÉSIDENTrappelle que la requêteà fin d'avis
a fait l'objet des notifications d'usage.ant donné qu'elle touchait à
l'interprétation d'un chapitre de la Charte en l'espèce lechapitre XII),
elle a été,conformément A l'article 66 d& tatut, communiquée à toiis
les gouvernements des Membres des Nations Unies jugés susceptibles
par la Cour de fournir des renseignements sur la question.

Le délaide la procédure écrite aété,par une ordonnance datée du
30 décembre 1949. fixe au lundi 20 mars 1950.
La Cour areçu du Secrétaire général des NationsUnies la documenta-
tion que celui-ci était chargé delui transmettre.
Elle a reçu, en outre, par ordre de dates, des observatioris écrites
émanant des Gouvernements suivants : Egypte, Union sud-africaine,
Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Inde et Pologne.
La Cour a décidéde tenir, àpartir du 16 mai, c'est-à-dire aujourd'liui,
des audiences au cours desquelles seraient entendus des exposésoraux. YEAR 1950

PUBLIC SITTING HELD OX MAY 16th. rgjo, AT II A.&I.

Present: President BASDEVAN ;TVice-President GUERREK OJudges
ALVAREZ H, r\~~~~~~~ W,INIARSKIZ , ORIEIC, E VISSCHERS ,ir ARNOLD
nlch'a~~,KLAESTAD U,ADAWP IASHAK , RYLOVK ,EAD,HSUMo,AZEVEDO ;
Registrar HAhlBl<o.
Also preseiit:
hf. Ivan KERNO, Assistant Secretary-General, representing the
Secretary-General of the United Xatioiis, assisted b:

Mr. Marc SCHREIBER,
bfr. B. SLOANo ,f the Legal Departmerit of the United Nations.

The represe>zlalivof the following Governments:
Philippine Republic : Judge José IKGLES,member of the permanent
Delegation of the Philippine Republic to the United Nations ;
South-African Union :Dr. L. C.STEYS,K.C., Principal Legal Adviser
of the Department of Justice, Pretoria,

assisted by Dr. L. ~VESSELS L,egal Adviser to the same Department.

The PRESIDENTa,fter declaring the sitting open, said tliat the Court
had met to hear the oral statements which would be submitted in the
case concerning tlie interriational status of South-M'est Africa.
By a Resolution dated December 6th, 1949, the General Assembly of
the United Nations had decided to request the Court to give an ûdvisory
opinion on this subject. He asked the REGISTRAR to read the resolution
in question.

When the resolution had been read, the PRESIDENTobserved that
the request for advisory opinion had been notified in the customary
manner. As it was concerned with the interpretation of a chapter of
the Charter (namelyChapter XII), it has been communicated, as pres-
cribed in Article6of the Statute, to al1the governments of the Members
of the United Nations considered by the Court as likely to be able to
furnish information on the question.
The time-limit for the written procedure \'as fixed for Xonday,
hIThe Court had received from the Secretary-General of the United
Nations the documents which he had been requested to transmit to it.
In addition. the Court had received written statemeiits from the
following Governments. in order of dates: Egypt, Union of South
. Africa, United States of America, India and Poland.
The Court had decided to hold public sittings for the hearing of the
oral statements, beginning with that day, May 16th.

13 Le Secrétaire général desNations Unies s'est fait représenter par
M. Ivan Kerno, Secrétaire généraladjoint chargé du Département
juridique, assisté du Dr Marc Schreiber, conseiller juridique au Secréta-
riat, ainsi que deM. Blaine Sloan. M. Kerno présentera un exposé oral.

Les Gouvernements de l'Union sud-africaine et des Philippines ont
fait savoir qu'un exposéoral serait présenté en leur nom.

Les représentants qui ont étédésignésdans cette affaire sont :pour
l'Union sud-africaine :M. le Dr L. C. Steyn, K. C., conseiller juridique
principal du département de la Justice à Prétoria, assisté par M. le
Dr L. \\'essels, conseiller juridique an mêmedépartement ; pour les
Philippines :hl. le juge JoséIngles, membre de la délegationpermanente
des Philippines auprès des Nations Unies.
Le Président constate la présencedevant la Cour du représentant du
Secrétairegénérad les Nations Unies et de ceux des Etats susmentionnés.

Il annonce qu'il donnera en premier lieu la paroleà M. Kerrio, repré-
sentant du Secrétaire général des NationsUnies, et erisuite aux repré-
sentants de la République des Philippines et à ceux de l'Union sud-
africaine; à cette occasion, il rappelle au représentant du Secrétaire
généraldes Nations Unies que la Cour n'est pas saisie de questions de
fait, et qu'il convient par conséquent que les orateurs se limitent dans.
leurs exposés à l'examen des questions d'ordre juridique.
11. Ivan KERNOprésente l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.

(L'audience, interrompue à 13 heures, est reprise A 16heures.)

Le PRESIDENT donne la parole au représentant du Secrétaire général;
des Nations Unies.
M. Ivan KERNOreprend son exposé dont la suite, interrompue par
la clôturede l'audience. est renvoyéepar lePrésidentau mercredi 17mai
à IO h. 30.

L'audience est levéeà 18 h. 30.

Le Président de la Cour,
(Signé BASDEVANT..

Le Greffier de la Cour,
(Signé E. HAMBRO..

~ÉANCE PUBLIQUE TENUE LE 17 MAI 1950, A IO K. 30

Préserts :[Voir séance du 16 mai.]
Le PRESIDENTo ,uvrant l'audience, donne la parole au représentant
du Secrétaire général dei Nations Unies.

1Voir pp. 160 el sgg.
2 B r176i.. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was represented by
Dr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of theLega1
Department. assisted hy Dr. Marc Schreiber, Legal Adviser to the
Secretariat, and by MI. Blaine Sloan. Mr. Kemo would make an oral
statement.
The Governments of the South-African Union and of the Philippine
Repuhlic had announced that an oral statement would be submitted
on The representatives appointed in this case were: for the South-Afncan
Union :Dr. L. C. Steyn, K. C.,Principal Legal Adviser of the Department
of Justice, Pretoria. assisted by Dr. L. \\'essels, Legal Adviser to the
same Department; for the Philippine Republic: Judge José Ingles,
member of the permanent Delegation of the Philippine Kepuhlic to the
United Nations.
The President noted that the represeiitative of the Secretary-General
o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ted Nations and the re~resentatives of the above-mentioned
States were present in Court.
He added that he would first cal1 on MI. Kerno, representative of
the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, and subsequently upon
the representatives of the Philippine Republic and the South-African
Union ; he took this opportunity of reminding the representative of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations that the Court was not dealing
with questions of fnct, and it was thcrefore desirable that speakers
should confine their statements to the examination of le-al Auestions.

hlr. Ivan KERNOpresented the statement which is reproduced in the
annex '.
(Thesitting was suspended at I p.m. and resumed 4 p.m.)

The PRESIDENT called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. Ivan KERNOcontinued his statement2. Before adjourning the
stiting, the President stated that the Court would meet again on Wednes-
day, 17th May,at ro,3oa.m., whenMr. Kernowould resumehisstatement.

The Court rose at 6.30 p.m.
(Signed) BASDEVANT,

President.
(Signed) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar.

PUBLIC SITTING HELD ON MAY 17th. 1950, AT 10.30 A.M.

Present .'[See sitting of May 16th.l

The PRESIDENT declared the sitting open and called on the represen-
tative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

S., p.. 176.,l ,.p M. Ivan KERNOreprend la suite de son exposé L.

(L'audience, interrompue à 13heures, est repriseà 16heures.)
Le PRÉSIDENT donne la parole au représentant du Secrétairegénéral.

M. Ivan KERNOreprend son exposéoral, qu'il achkve'.
Le PRESIDEKTremercie le représentant du Secrétaire généraldes
renseignements qu'il a fournis à la Cour et demande au représentant
des Philippines s'il désireprendre la parole immédiatement.

hl. le juge IKGLESse déclare disposé à commencer son esposélors de
l'audience suivante.
L'audience est levée à 18 heures.
[Signatirres.]
--

SÉANCE PUBLIQUE TENUE LE 19 MAI 1950 A IO HEURES

Présents : [Voir séancedu IGmai.]
Le PRÉSIDENTa ,prb avoir déclaré la séanceouverte, invite le repré-
sentant du Gouvernement des Philippines à présenter son exposéoral.

L'exposédu juge INGLEe Sst reproduit en annexe 3.
Avant de clore la séance,le PRESIDENT annonce que la Cour se réunira
de nouveau samedi 20 mai 1950, à IO heures, pour entendre la suite
de I'exposédu juge Ingles.

L'audience est levée à I h. 5.
[Sigiatures.]

SÉANCE PUBLIQUE TENUE LE 20 MAI 1950, A IO HEURES

Présents: [Voir séance du 16 mai.]
Le PRÉSIDENTa,près avoir déclaré la séanceouverte, invite le.repré-
sentant du Gouvernement des Philippines à continuer son exposé.
La fin de I'exposédu juge INCLESest reproduite en annexe*.

Le PRÉSIDENTc,onstatant que le représentant du Gouvernement des
Philippines en a terminé avec son exposé, invite le représentant de
i'Union sud-africaine à prendre la parole.
L'exposédu Dr L. C. STEYN,K. C., est reproduit en annexe '.

Avant de clore la séance,le PRÉSIDENT annonce que la Cour se réunira
de nouveau le lundi 22 mai, à IO h. 30, pour entendre la suitede l'exposé
du Dr Steyn.
L'audience est levée I h. 5.

[Signatures.]
-.
Vair pp. 198 el sqq.
" i 223. D .
n 239' 8 .
n B 259DX.
8 D 273' O. siTTiscS OF XAY 19th AND ~oth, 1950 157

Mr. Ivan I<ERNO continued his oral statement '.
(Thesitting was suspended at I p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.)

The PRESIDENT called on the representative of the Secretary-General.
Mr. Ivan KERSOcontinued and concluded his oral statement '.
The PRESIDENT thanked the representative of the Secretary-General
for the information that he had given to the Court, and asked the repre-
sentative of the Philippine Republic if he wished to speak at once.

Judge 'NGI.ES said he would be ready to begin his statement at the
iiext sitting.
The Court rose at 6 p.m. -
[Signatrcres.]

PUBLIC SITTING HELD ON MAY 19th. 1950, AT IO A.M.

Present : [See sitting of May r6th.l

The PHESIDENTa ,fter declaring the sitting open, called upon the
representatiuc of the Phiippiiie Go\rernment to present his statement.
Judge José 1h.c~~~s 'tatement is reproduced in the annex B.
Before closing the sitting, the PRESIDEST stated that the Court would
meet again on Saturday, May 20th. 1950,at 10 a.m.. when Judge IngIes
would resume his statement.

The Court rose at ~.oj p.m.
[Signatz~res.]

PUBLIC SITTING HELD 03 hlAY 20th. 1950, AT IO A.M.

Prese~it: [See sitting of hlay 16th.I
The PRESIDENTa ,fter declaring the sitting open, called upon the
representative of the Philippine Goveriiment to continue his statement.

The conclusioii of Judge INCLES'statement is given in the annex
The PRE~I~ENTt,aking note that tlic representative ofthe Government
ofthe Philippines had completed his statement, asked the representative
of the Union of South Africa to speak.
The statemeiit of Dr. L. C. STEYN,K.C., is given in the annexS.

Before adjourning the sitting, the PKESIDEXT stated that the Court
would meet again on hlonday, May zznd, at 10.30 a.m., when Dr. Steyn
would resume his statement.
The Court rose at 1.05 p.m.
[Signatures.]

' See pp. rqS el sqq.
' .. ,. 223 ,, ,,.
' .. .. 239,. .,.
' ,. ,. 259 .. .,.
,. ., 273 ,. .,. ~ÉANCE PUBLIQUE TENUE LE 22 MAI 1950, A IO H. 30

Présents : [Voir séance du 16 mai.]

Le PRÉSIDENTo ,uvrant l'audience, donne la parole au représentant
de l'union sud-africaine.
Le Dr STEYNprononce l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.
(L'audience, interrompue à13heures, est repriseà 16heures.)

Le Dr STEYNreprend son exposé, qu'il termine '.
Le PRÉSIDENTremercie le représentant du Secrétaire général des
Nations Unies, le représentant du Gouvernement des Philippines et le
représentant du Gouvernement de l'union sud-africaine des informa-
tions dont ils ont fait part i la Cour. Il leur est particulièrement recon-
naissant d'avoir bien voulu s'en tenir strictement, au cours de leurs
exposés, à la question posée.Il ajoute que la Cour se retire en Chambre
du Conseil pour délibéreret décidersi elle désire recevoir deplus amples
informations sur certains points.

Le Président prononce la clôture de la procédure orale et préciseque
le Secrétaire général des NationsUnies et les gouvernements intéressés
seront informés ultérieurement de la date à laquelle la Cour compte
rendre son avis en audience publique.
L'audience est levée à 17 b. 45.
[Signatures.]
--

SÉANCE PUBLIQUE TENUE LE 23 MAI 1950, A IO ir.30

Présents: [Voir séance du 16 mai.]

Le PRÉSIDENTa ,pr&savoir déclaré l'audieiiceouverte, annonce que
la Cour ii'a pas d'autres explications à demander aux représentants
du Secrétaire général, des Philippines et de l'Union sud-africaine.

Le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine s'étant déclarédisposé
compléter les observations qu'il avait présentéesla veille au sujet du
chapitre XI de la Charte et de l'engagement qu'aurait pris son Gouver-
nement de préseriter des rapports au sujet du Sud-Ouest africain, le
Président, sans entendre exprimer une opinion quant à la pertinence
de ces questions, l'invite à compléter sur ces points ses explicat'ions
antérieures et lui donne la parole.
L'exposé du Dr STEYNest reproduit en annexe
Le PRÉSIDEXTdonne ensuite la parole au représentant du Gouver-
nement des Philippiiies, qui a demandé de faire une brève déclaration.

Le juge José INCLESdéclare qu'après avoir entendu l'exposé du
représentant de l'Union sud-africaine, il n'estime iiécessaireni d'ajouter
ni de retirer quoi que ce soit à l'exposé qu'il a lui-meme prisenté. II
exprime à nouveau sa confiance que la Cour sera en mesure de trouver

Voir pp. 278 csyq.
a n U,304" " U . SITTISG~ OF MAY ~2nd ;\SD 23rd, 1950 IjS

PUBLIC SITTING HELD ON MAY zznd, 1950, AT 10.30 A.>%.
Presenl: [See sitting of May 16th.l

The PRESIDENT declared the sitting open and called on the represent-
ative of the South-African Union.
Dr. STEYNmade the statement given in the annex '.

(The sitting was suspended at I p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.)
Dr. STEYNcontinued and concluded his statement I.
The PRESIDENT thanked the representative of the Secretary-General
of the United Nations, the representative of the Philippine Goremment,
and the representative of the Sonth-African Union Government for the
information that they had given to the Court. He was specially grateful
to them for having confined their observations strictly to the question
which was before the Court. He added that the Court would now
deliberate in private, and would decide wliether it wished for any
further information on certain points.
The President declared the oral proceedings to be closed, and added
that the Secretary-General of the United Kations and the governments
concerned would be informed, in due course, of the date on which the
Court expected to deliver its Opinion at a public sitting.

The Court rose at 5.45 p.m.
[Sigi~attrres.]

PUBLIC SITTING HELD ON MAY ~3rd. rgjo AT 10.30 ~.bi

Present: [See sitting of May 16th.I

The PI<ESIDENa Tf,ter having opened the sitting, declared that the
Court had no further expianations to açk of the representatives of the
Secretarv-General. of the Government of the Phili~nA.es or of the Union
of The South-African representative having declared himself ready to
supplement the observations which he presented the day before on
Chapter XI of the Charter, and the undertaking alleged to have been
taken by his Government to present reports on South-West Africa. the
President, without expressing an opinion on the relevance of these
questions, invited him to supplement his former statements on these
points.

The state~neiitof Dr. STEYN is annexed hereto
The PIIESIDI~N ten called upon the representative of the Philippine
Government, who had expressed the wish to make a short declaration.
Judge José INCLESdeclared that, having heard the statement made
by the distinguislied representative of the Union of South Africa, he
did not find it necessary to add or subtract in any way from his own
prerious statement. Furthermore, he expressed his confidence that the

See pp. 27.3 erqq.
' ,, .. 293 ,. ...
a .. *. 304 .....une solution équitable, fondéesur les principes de la justice et du droit
international.
Le PR~SIUENTa ,près avoir remercié les orateurs et avant de lever
l'audience, demande au représentant du Secrétaire généraldes Natioiis
Unies de transmettre à la Cour, par la voie du Greffe, l'indication des
Et;its qui oiit transmis au Secrétaire généralles renseignements auxquels
il est fait allusioà l'article 73 de la Charte et des territoires auxquels
se réfèrentces renseignements. Ces informations devront êtreadressées
à la Cour aussitbt que possible, sans toutefois que le Président demande
qu'elles lui soient présentées sur-le-champ.

AI.KERNOse déclareprêt àadresser à la Cour les informations qu'elle
demande.
L'audience est levée à midi 50.
[Signatures.]

SÉANCE PUBLIQUE TEXUE LE II JUILLET 1950, A IO H. 30

Préseirt: [Voir séance du 16 mai.]
Le PRÉSIDENT,ouvrant l'audience, annonce que la Cour se réunit
pour prononcer l'avis consultatif qui lui a étédemandé,par l'Assemblée
généraledes Nations Unies, sur le statut international du Sud-Ouest
africain.
Il prie le GREFFIERde donner lecture de la résolution du 6 décembre
1949,où est formulée la demande d'avis.
Cette lecture faite, le PRÉSIDENTrappelle que, conformément à
l'article 67 du Statut, le Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies et les
représentants des Uembres des Nations Unies directement intéressés

ont étédùment prévenus.
Le Président signale qu'il \,a donner lecture du texte français de
I'a\.is', qui est égalementun texte original, mais la Cour a décidé, confor-
mément à l'article 39 de son Statut, que c'est le texte anglais qui fera foi.

Le Président prie ensuite le GREFFIERde donner lecture, en anglais,
du dispositif de l'avis, après quoi il donne lui-mêmelecture des décla-
rations jointes i l'arrêt et faites par MAI.Guerrero, Vice-Président,
ZoririCet Badawi Pacha, jugesa.
11signale, en outre, que AIAIA. lvarez, De Visscher, sir Arnold McXair,
AIi\lKrylov et Read, juges, se prévalant du droit que leur confère l'ar-
ticle57 du Statut. ont jointà l'avis de laCour des exposésde leur opinion
individuelle ou dissidente
Lc Présidentajouteque MM.Alvarez, De Vischer, sir Arnold McNair,
MM. Read et Krylov l'ont informé qu'ils ne désiraient pas donner
lecture à l'audience de leurs opinions individuelles ou dissidentes.
Il prononce ensuite la clôture de l'audience.

L'audience est levée à II h. 30.
[Signntares.]
1 \'airpublications de la CourItecrtcil des .4rrAuir consrrllati/sOrdm-
,znrrres rgp,pp. 128.144.
2 Voir ibid.pp. 144-1.45.
n n , u 146.~92.
-- SITTIXG OF JULY 11th, 1950 '59
Court would find an equitable solution, based on the principles of justice
and international law.

The PRESIDENTa ,fter having thanked the orators and before closing
the United Nations to be kind enough to cominunicate to the Court, of
through the Registry, the list of States that have communicated to the
Secretary-General the information referred to under Article 73 of the
Charter, and the territories to which this information refers. \Vithout
requesting that the information be supplied immediately, the President
asked that it be sent to the Court,in writing, as soon as possible.

Dr. KERNOdeclared himself ready to send to the Court the requested
information.
The Court rose at 1z.50 p.m.
- [Sig~tatures.]

PUBLIC SITTING HELD O-: JU1.Y ~~tli, 1950, AT 10.30 n.hr.

Present : [Sec sitting of May 16th.I
The PRESIDENT ouened the meeting and announced that the Court
had met to give the ridvisory Opinion Gquested by the General Assembly
of the United Nations on the international statos of South-West Africa.

He called upon the ~IEGISTRA tRread the Resolution ofDecember 6th.
1949s ,tating the request.
After the Registrar had done so, the PR'SIDENTrecalled that, under
Article 67 of the Statute, the Secretary-General of the United Xations
and the representatives of the Members of the United Xations dirrctly
concerned had been duly informed.
The President stated that he would read the French text of the
Opinion', ~vhich++.as also the original text. but that, iinderArticle39 of
its Statute, the Court had determined that thc English text shoiild be
authoritative.
The President then called on the REGISTI<AtR o read in Englisli the
operative part of the Opinion, after which lie himself read the declara-
tions made by Vice-President Guerrero, Judges ZoriEii: and Badawi
Pasha', annexed to the Opinion.
He stated that Judges Alvarez, De Visscher, Sir Arnold McXair,
Krylov and Read, availing themselres of the right conferred upon them
by Article 57 of the Statute, had appended to the Opinion statements
of their separate or dissenting opinions
McNair, Read and Krylov had informed him that they did not wishold
to read in Court theirseparate or dissenting opinions.
He then declared that the meeting usasclosed.

The Court rose at 11.30 am.
[Signatr<res.]
' See Court's publications,Repuris 01 Judgmenfs. Advisory Opinias atid
Orders 1950.pp. 128-146
' See ibid., pprd+-Iqg
.. ... .. 146-192. ANNEXE AUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX

ANNEX TO THE MINUTES

1. EXPOSZ DE i\I. IVAX S. KERNO

(REPRÉSENTAN DTU SECRÉTAIKE GÉNÉRAL DES NATIOXS UNIES)
AU..< SÉANCES PUBLIQUES DES 16 ET 17 AIAIIg50

[Séancepzlbliquedu 16 mai 1950, matitz]

BIonsieur le Président, Messieurs les hlembres de la Cour,
C'est Dour la troisième fois demis le début de Vannéeroi0 que vous
entamez' aujourd'hui la procéd;re orale relative ailx qiësti6ns pour
lesquelles l'Assembléegénéralea décidéde demander un avis consultatif
au cours de sa ciuatrièmesession ordinaire. De tous les Droblèmesdont
cette Cour, ainsi'que sa devancière, la Courpermanente de Justice inter-
nationale, a eu& s'occuper, le statut juridique du Territoire du Sud-Ouest
africain est certainement un des plus difficiles et des plus discutés. La
documentation volumineuse que le Secrétairegénéral aeu l'honneur de
transmettre à la Courà la date du 17mars dernier est en elle-mémeune
induction suffisante de la complexitéde cetteaffaireet dei'intérétsoutenu
que tous les Membresdes 'JaGons Unies attachentA son règlement selori
les méthodesde la Charte et eii conformitéavec les priiicipes sur lesquels
est baséenotre Oraanisation.
Vous comprend;ez donc combien pleinement je sens ma responsabilité.
en me présentant devant vous, au nom du Secrétaire général.es
Nationseunies.
Dans la première partie de mon exposé,j'essaierai de vous dire aussi
objectivement et aussi clairement que possible comment l'affaire est née
et quel a étéson développementhistorique devant les organes desNations
Unies. Je procéderai ensuite, dans la deuxième partie, une analyse de
quelques-unes des principales questions juridiques que soulève la
demande de l'Assemblée.Je le ferai dans le but de faire ressortir plus
nettement les préoccupations et les motifs qui ont amenél'Assemblée
générale à rechercher l'avis de la Cour.

PREMIÈRE PARTIE

Dans cette première partie historique de mon exposb, je me propose de
voiis présenter un tableau d'ensemble des discussions qui ont eu lieu et
des décisionsqui ont étéprisesà la Commission préparatoire desNations
Unies, à la dernière Assembléede la Sociétédes Nations, aux quatre
premièressessions de l'Assembléegénérale desNations Unies, ainsi qu'au
cours de certaines sessioiis du Conseil de Tutelle.

1. La Coiiiinissioi~préparatoiredes Nations U~iies
La question de la liquidation éventuelle du régimedes mandats fut
l'objet d'un échangede vuesdèsla réuniondu Comitéexécutifde la Com-
mission préparatoire à Londres, en 1945, peu de semaines après la
conclusion delaConférencedeSan-Fraucisco. La Commission~réparatoire
- cr.':itiCIiiiprutucolt, ~11L:cil nc cii iiiCiiier~mjis13c'hartc;!es
S:ttii,iis CII~~. .-~\.pour mission [le prcritlre les inejurcs provissires EXPOSÉ DE 31. KERNO (NATIOSS USIES) - 16 V 50 161

pour la première session des principaux organes de la nouvelle Organisa-
tion. Le désirgénéral des gouvernementsreprésentesau Comité exécutif
était de voir ces organes principaux, y compris le Conseil de Tutelle.
exercer leurs fonctions le plus rapidement possible. En raison des dis-
positions de l'article 86 de la Charte des Nations Unies, qui prescrit la
composition du Conseil de Tutelle, celui-ci ne pouvait êtreétabli avant
qu'un certain nombre de territoires n'eussent étéplacéssous le régimede

tutelle. Plusieurs moyens furent suggérés pourhâter la mise sous le
système international de tutelle de territoires en nombre suffisant pour
que le Conseil de Tutelle puisse êtreconstitué. Le Comité exécutif pro-
posa à la Commissionpréparatoire l'établissementd'un organe prorisoire,
subsidiaire de l'Assembléegénérale,qui serait chargéd'assumer certaines
des fonctions attribuéespar la Charte au Conseilde Tutelle préalablement
à la constitution de celui-ci, et notamment de donnerdes avis à I'Assem-
blée généralesur les questions que pourrait soulever le transfert à
l'organisation des Nations Unies de fonctions ou responsabilités assu-
méesjusqu'alors en vertu du régimedes mandats '.
La Commission préparatoire, où se trouvaient représentéstous les
Membres des Nations Unies, se réunit à Londres, en novembre rgqj, dès
l'entréeen vigueur de la Charte. Elle ne retint pas la proposition tendant
à créerun.cornité temporaire de tutelle en raison des objections d'oydre
constitutionnel exprimées par certains de ses membres et de la crainte
oui fut formuléeoue l'établissement d'uii oreane teinparaire n'ait pour
effL.t.lion p,is dc 1;:iter. m;inii cuiitr:iiic tlc-ret:irt1.icorisiitiiti.i<III
Coiiscil de Tutclle. 1.2Ct,iiiiiii~~ioiirLpar~toircilCcicl;i~loiicdi:prLs~iit?r
ii I'csnmeii dc I':\.~seinbli.e~Ciiirnlcuii i,rnict cl,:rijuliiiioii aiii ioiiii~iiair
les inconvénientsd'un délai3el'entréeeÎnvigueur du régimeinterna6onal

de tutellequel'organisation desNations Unies avait pour tâche d'établir.
Le projet déclarait que. des trois catégories de territoires auxquels le
régimede tutelle pouvait s'appliquer en vertu de I'art~cle77delaCharte.
seuls les territoires sous mandat pouvaient êtredéfinisavec exactitude.
En conséquence,la Commissionpré,rér>arato rieeommandait que i'Assem-
blée générale adresse uii appel aux Etats administrant des territoires en
vertu d'un mandat de la Société des Nations, afinque ceux-ci prennent,
d- -oncert avec les autres Etats directement intéressés.les mesures
nécessairespour la mise rapide en application de l'article 79de la Charte
tendant à la conclusion d'accords de tutelle pour chacun des territoires à
r--~er so~ ~ ~ ~éei-e '.
Le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine àla Commissionpréparatoire
fit allusion au cours des débats à une résolution récentedu corps législatif
du Sud-Ouest africain demandant ouc ce territoire soit idmi5 dans
l'Union cuiiiiiic ciiirluiCiiie pro\iiicc..'II iiidiqii.i que son Guii\~erii~niciir
csti~rinitqu'ilni.;iicoml)ltitciiiciitsntisf;iit nus i,l>li:ÿtions qui lui ;~vniciit
Ctc impodcs p.ir lc I':icic dt: I:iSi,ciet&cles Satioiii et iie d?sir:iit p;i;
marquer suri opl~ositioii ;iiidi.sirs cles1i:ihitants di1tt.rriioir<IWIII~aux
destinkes <le celui-ci. RCsîr\.:iiit lii.~O~IIIUId Ie l'~I~liu~siii~I-:cfri~.~iil.r
jus<lu'.ila rCuiiionde I'hsjciiil>lir.inérniedes Sali,>ns Cilies.qlll ]Jgtr3lt

Rapport du Cornith erc'cutià la Commission préparatoiredes Nations Unies
(PC!EX{II~!R~V. I- 12 novembre rg45)c.hapitreII.'. - Régimede tutelle, pagesgj
et suivantes.
Rapport de la Commission préparatoiredes Sations Unies (PC/m - 23 décem-
bre 19.15).hapitre IV.- Le syatkrne de tutelle. page49 et siii\.antïs.162 EXPOSÉ DE M. KERNO (XATIOSS ÜXIES) - 16 V 50

si les conditioiis existaient pour accéderaux désirsdu Territoire du Sud-
Ouest africain, il s'abstint sur le vote du projet de résolution '.

II. La premièrepartie de la premièresessionde L'Assemblée générale

Au cours du débat généralsur le rapport de la Commission prépara-
toire, qui inaugura la première partie dela première session de 1'.4ssem-
bléegénhle, successivement le représentant du Royaume-Uni en ce qui
concerne les Territoires du Tanganyika, du Camerouii et du Togo sous
mandat britannique, celui de la Xouvelle-Zélandeen ce <luiconcerne le
Samoa occidental, celui de l'Australie en ce qui concerne les Territoires
sous mandat dela Nouvelle-Guinéeet dc Nauni. celui de la Releioue en u.
CL> <~iiiL.oiiccriicIc.I<iian.ln-Urundi, CI ccliii(le Ici 1:rniiicrii qui
culiccriie les 'l'crriruiics<IIITogo CI du C;iinci~oiiisious mniiil:it frnii~:iij.
dc;cl;irércnrfurnielltinciit I'intentiori de IeiirsGou\~eriiemciits ii;.gocicr
des accurds teri<l:inr :îpl.icer ces tcrritdircj roiisIç régiiiieiiiternntiuiial
de tutelle2. 1.e rci~rL'sciit:iiit(le I'Lnion rii<l-nfriciiiieattira I';irteiitiuri
sur les particularités de la situation géographique du Territoire sous
mandat du Sud-Ouest africain, sur les intérêts desécuritéde son pays.
sur la faible densité de la population du Sud-Ouest africain et sur sa
parenté ethnique avec celle de l'Union sud-africaine. II fit allusion aux
progrèsdans le domaine économiqueet social réaliséspar son Gouverne-
ment dans le Sud-Ouest africain pendant la périodedu mandat, et aux
institutions autonomes qui, y furent établies. II informa l'Assembléedu
désirde son Goiivemement de consulter la population du territoire sous
mandat au sujet de la forme que devait revètirson futur gouvernement.
En attendant le résultat de cette consultation. il réserva la oosition de
l'Union sud-africaine en ce qui concerne l'avenir du mandat, en même
temps que son droit à une entière liberté d'action. comme le prévoit le
paragriphe premier de l'article So de la Charte 3.
Au sein de la Quatrième Commission de YAssemblée, ,2 laquelle fut
renvové lechapitre du rapport dela Commission ~réparatoire relatif au
régimi de tutelle, plusieuÏ~ reprbsentants marquèGeniavec énergieleur

opposition toute appropriation de territoires sous mandat par les Puis-
sances mandataires et inSistèrent pour que tous les territoires sous man-
dat qui ne seraient pas devenus indépendants dans un avenir rapproché.
soient placéssous le régimeinternational de tutelle.
Le re~résentant de l'Union sud-africaine. niant au'il. , ait obli..tion,
polir 1:iI'iii3s:inceni:iiidntaire. dc tr:insioriiicr Ici territoires si)lls111a11diit
rn tcrritoir2s sous tiitelle, riph i-lii'n'ci1tr;iit pas dans I'iiiteiitioi(Ili
(;ou\~criiemeiit dc I'lJiiiun siid-iifricaiiic d'clnl)urer uii ;iccori-ldc tiitellc
avant que ne soit librement expriméela volonté des populations euro-

Nations Unies. - Commission préparatoire. - Comité 4.-Tutelle. - Procks-
mission préparatoire5no 27.C-qzQuatrième séanceplénihre,page 7.ur~al de la Com-
Sations Unies. - Documents olficielsde lapremièrepartiedela premiere session
de 1'Assembléeaénérale. - Carn~tes rendus in extenso.- Iimo séancedénière.

gén&ale. - Ç6ancesplénières.-Compterendu in extensode la izinaçéance, pa183
et suivantes (chemise 5). EXPOSE DE 31. KERNO (NATIONS UNIES) - 16 V 50
164
Le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine déclara que son Gonverne-
ment estimait qu'il était de son devoir de consulter les peuples du Sud-
Oiiest africain, iaiit europbens que non europCens, au sujet'dc In forme
que tlevnit rc\.;tir leur futur gouvernement. ,\13 IurniCre(leccsconsulta-
tioris. et teriani conipte dcj r>;~rticul~rit~jui (liH<r<:iicienlte Sud-Oucst
africain des autres tekritoires:l'Union sud-africaine se proposait d'exposer
à l'Assemblée générale deN s ations Unies les raisons pour lesquelles il
conviendrait d'accorder au Sud-Ouest africain un statut aux termes
duquel ce territoire serait reconnu internationalement comme faisant
partie intégrante de l'Union. Dans l'intervalle, l'Union sud-africaine
continuerait à administrer le territoire en seconformant scrupuleusement
aux obligations du mandat afin d'assurer leprogrèset de sauvegarder les
iiitérêts deshabitants. La dissolution des orKanes de la Sociétédes
S;itiuiisi~ii;Cr;iiciit uccii1itliiruiitr~~l(1t.nin;idntc.isavoir en prcmicr
licii I., Coiiii~iiiii~~iilici .\lnn<l:iticr Ic C'12cI:Socir't; - (1bcl:rrnIL'

rcl)r6scrir~iittic I'Knion iiiil-.ifric:i-ii(:inliiilirr.~éii<lcninienr1'l:nion
di se conformer entiérement à la lettre du mandat. Le Gouvernement de
l'Union se fera cependant un devoir de considérerque la dissolution de
la Sociétédes Nations ne diminue en rien les obligations qui découlent
du mandat. 11continuera de s'en acquitter en pleiGeconscience et avec
le juste sentiment de Ses responsabilités, jusqu'au moment où d'autres
arrangements auront étéconclus quant au statut futur du territoire'.
La Preniière Commission de l'Assemblée proposa à l'adoption de
celle-ciun projet de résolution soumispar la délégationde la Chine, et qui,
d'après une déclaration du représentant du Royaume-Uni, avait été
établi en consultation avec tous les pays intéressés à la question des
mandats et d'accord avec eux. La résolution fut adoptée à l'unanimité
en comniission et à 1'.4ssembléeplénière,avec une abstention, ceile de la
délégationde 1'Egypte. qui avait fait des réservesen ce qui concerne la
Palestine.
Cette résolution exprimait la satisfaction de l'Assemblée pour la
manière dorit les organes de laLigue avaient rempli les fonctions qui leur
avaient étéconfiéespar le systèmedes mandats. L'Assembléede la Ligue
se félicitaitde ce que l'Irak. la Swie. le Liban et la Transjordanie fussent
devenus des membres indépendants de la communauté.internationale.
Elle reconnaissait que la dissolution de la Société desNations mettrait
fin à ses fonctions en ce qui concerne les temtoires sous mandat, mais
notait que des principes correspondant à ceux contenus dans l'article zz
du Pacte étaient incorporés dans les chapitres XI, XII et XII1 de la
Charte des Xations Unies. L'Assembléenotait enfin que les hlembres de
la Sociétéadministrant des temtoires sous mandat avaient expriméleur
intention de continuer à les administrer en vue du bien-êtreet du déve-
loppement des peuples, conformément aux obligations contenues dans
les divers mandats, jusqu'à ce que de nouveaux arrangements fussent
pris entre les Xations Unies et les diverses Puissances mandataires '.

' Sociétédes Sations. - Jol'vnnl officie-. Supplement spécial no 19.).-
Actes des vingtieme (fin)t vingt et unieme sessions ordinaires de l'Assemblée,
Comptes rendus des séancep slénièreset proces-verbaux des Premièreet Deuxieme
Commissions. pages 32 et 33 (chemise 1).
Sociétédes Sations. - Jotirnal officielSuppl4ment spécialns194. -Actes
des vingtieme (fin)et vingt et unieme sessions ordinaires de l'Assemblée.-
Annexe 24 c) (chemise 1). EXPOSE DE 51. KERNO (NATIONS U'IIES) - 16 1,50
165
IV. Deuxièmefiartie dela 9remièresession de L'Assemblée générale

Pendant la seconde partie de sa première session,l'Assembléegénérale
desNations Uniesapprouva desaccords de tutelle pour les Territoires dela
Nouvelle-Guinée,du Ruanda-Urundi, du Cameroun sous mandat français,
du Togo sous mandat français, du Samoa occidental, du Tangnnyika, do
Cameroun etdu Togo sous mandat britannique. L'Australie, la Belgique,
la France, la Nouvelle-Zélande et le Royaume-Uni ayant été désignés
comme autorités chargéesd'administration, les conditions nécessaires à
la constitution du Conseil de Tutelle se sont trouvées réunies. L'Assem-
bléegénérale procéda donc àl'électiondes membres du Conseilde Tutelle
n'administrant pas des territoires sous tutelle, en iiombre suffisant pour
créer la parité prévuepar l'article 86 de la Charte, et, en mars 1946, le
Conseilde Tutelle put tenir sa première session. liappelons qu'un accord
de tutelle pour Nauru fut approuvé par l'Assembléegénérale au coursde
sa deuxième session, et que, par une résolutiondu z avril 1947.le Conseil
de Sécuritéapprouva, en vertu de l'article 83 de la Charte, un accord de
tutelle pour les îles du,Pacifique qui se trouvaient antérieurement sous
mandat japonais. Les Etats-Unisfurent désignéscommeautoritéchargée
de l'administration de ce temtoire.
Sur la proposition de l'Union sud-africaine, l'Assembléegénéraldeécida
de placer à l'ordre du jour de la deuxième partie de sa session une ques-
tion ainsi libellé:« Déclaration de l'Unionsud-africaine sur les résultats
des conversations poursuivies avec les peuples du Sud-Ouest africain
relativement au statut futur du territoire sous mandat et suite à donner

auDans un mémorandum détailléque la délégation del'Union sud-
africaine avait transmis à l'Assembléegénérale ', le Gouvernement de
l'Union rappelait les déclarations faites par sesreprésentantsà la Confé-

rence de San-Francisco et à la premièrepartie de la premièresession de
de l'Assemblée générale L.e mémorandum sud-africain faisait l'historique
des conditions dans lesquelles il avait étédécidéde placer, à la suite de
la première guerre mondiale, le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain sous le
régimedes mandats du type <C B.Le mémorandum décrivait lasituation
géographique du territoire, traitait des relations stratégiques existant
entre le territoire et l'Union sud-africaine, de la composition et des
origines nationales de la population européenne du Sud-Ouest africain,
des rapports ethnologiques existant entre les habitants non européensdu
territoire sous mandat et la population non européenne de 1'Unionsud-
africaine. II soulignait le degréde fusion entre l'administration du tem-
toire sous mandat et l'administration de l'Union sud-africairie et la
dépendance économiquedans laquelle le Sud-Ouest africain se trouvait
par rapport à l'Union. Le mémorandum rappelait égalementles résultats
obtenus par l'Union sud-africaine au cours de son administration du
territoire et les marques de satisfaction qui avaient étéexprimées à cet
égard par la Commission des Mandats. En conclusion, le Gouverne-
ment de l'union déclarait qu'il était arrivéà la conviction qu'en raison
de trois considérations principales, le système des mandats n'était plus
applicable au Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain : premièrement, parce

1 Documents officiels de la seconde partie de la premihre session de I'Assemùl4c
générale. QuatriémeCommission. - TuteUe.- fiemière partie, Proces-verbaux
des seances, annexe13.pages 199 etsuivantes (chemisII).166 EXPOSE DE hl. KERNO (NATIONS UNIES) - 16 V 50

que le bas potentiel économiquedu territoire et le niveau arriéréde la
grande majorité de la population empêchaient d'atteindre le but prin-
cipal du système des mandats et du régimede tutelle qui lui succédait,
à savoir l'autonomie politique finale et I'indévendance nationale :
dcuxiiinemeiir, p:ircc qui le biir immGJiat dti niandit, qui étaitd'assurer
12 11rvgrCs dii territoirext Je ;;i~,ul)ul:itiun,ne satirait, selon le Gou\,er-
iirriii.iit de I'Ciiii,iiîii~l-;<fricrirrAili;cr dcfiit:~is:itiif:tisante (iu'aux
dépens du mandataire, ce i quoi, de par la na'ture des choses, Celui-ci
ne pouvait consentir; et, troisièmement, parce que, de l'avis du Gouver-
nement de l'Union sud-africaine, l'incertitude en ce qui concerne l'avenir
final du territoire militait inévitablement contre la paix ethnologique et
le développement maximum du pays.
Le Gouvernement de I'Unioiiétait d'avis que le svstème des mandats
iiii1>1iqua1qtu8aucuiichangciiient ne pou\,nit >tic iiitrodiiit <l;<iiIs:ifoniic
<legniii.erncin<:iitJ'un tvrrituirc ioiij rn:indst. s:itif:,\,ccIcconsentenitnt
sp?ciiicliic <leIn ~>opiil.iri~citici~iiforiiiirii:iiscs vieux. La pupul;ition
ctirol>Ceiiiie1111Siid-Oiiest afric.,iii a!,aiit dcj;i cxpririi;, Je iiuinbrctisc,
iiinnii!res. notaiiinieiit 11; des ri.u>liitioiis iiii;iiiirnïl 1':lsseinblt:t
législativedu territoire, en 1943et 1946, son désirque le mandat prenne
fin et que le temtoire soit incorporé à l'Union sud-africaine, le Gouverne-
mentde l'Union avait décidé de procéder à une consultation des éléments
non européens.Cettetâche avait étéconfiée à desfonctionnaires possédant
l'expérience des affaires indigènes qui, eu égard à la coutume et aux
susceptibilités des populatioiis africaines, avaient procédédans les
différentes tribus à des consultations collectives. Le résultat de ces
consultations, dont les représentants de 1'Unioii à l'Assembléedécrivirent
plus tard les modalités, fut : pour l'incorporation, 208 850 ; contre
i'incor~oration. ?"""zo : .on consultés. 56..,0.,.
Iii~oi~uitiit<IOIIC) cette ex11re;sioiid'opinion despeuples dti Sud-Ouest
africain en Ia\eiir il'uiis1;itiit qi~;LSSP<lece Ilayj tiiic partiede I'ijiiion.
r, Ic; duiites<111av:iient oist; 5l'originequaiit il'application du systl'nic
<leiiiiandits icc tciriioirc: 3) I'c~l~éii~i~q ciii, <Icpiiiiitlti:~rtclcsiicli~,
;i\.*it Intr rliic Ics cuiiciiti~ns esceptionnellcs di1 tt:rriioirc iic
permettaient pas de bien l'administrer sou; le système des mandats ou
sous un système analogue; 4) le fait que les territoires de l'Union et du
Sud-Ouest africain devraient, pour des raisons géographiques, constituer
une unité; 5) le fait que les territoires des deux pays devraient, dans
l'intérêt de la sécurité nationaleet de la paix mondiale, constituer une
unité stratégique ; 6) l'argument que la population du territoire avait
une affinitéethnologique et nationale très étroite avec la population de
1'Uiiion ; 7) que le territoire dépendait économiquement de l'Union,
et que la fusion de l'administration du territoire et celle de l'Union ayant
déjàétépartiellement effectuée,cette unification devrait étrepoursuivie.
dans l'intérêtgénéraldu pays et de sa population, - pour toutes ces
raisons donc, le Gouvernement de l'union sud-africaine estimait qu'il
faudrait donner effet sans retard aux vŒux que ces populations avaient
librement et pleinement exprimés en ce qui concerne le statut futur de
leur pays.
Au cours de son exposé introductif à la Quatrième Commission de
l'Assembléegénérale,le maréchalSmuts,chef de la délégationde l'Union
sud-africaine, ajouta notamment que, bien que depuis la dernière'guerre
son Gouvernement ait étésaisi de demandes énergiquesde la population
européenne tendant àmettre fin au mandat, le Gouvernement de l'Union ESPOSE DE hl.KEKNO (SATIOKS GNIES) - 16 V 50 167

avait nettement compris que sa responsabilitédevant les autres nations
ne lui permettait pas de profiter d'une situation crééepar la guerre pour
effectuer un changement dans le statut du Sud-Ouest africain, sans
consulter à ce sujet tant les peuples de ce territoire que les organismes
internationaux compétents '.
Les propositions de la délégatiorie l'Union siid-africaineprovoquèrent
au sein de la Quatrième Commission de l'Assembléeet de la sous-com-
mission à laquelle la question fut renvoyée poiir examen approfondi,
des divergences d'opinions accuséeset exprimées avec force.La plupart
des représentants arrivèrent à la conclusion que l'Assembléegénérale
ne devrait pas accepter la suggestion de l'Union sud-africaine. Il y eut,
cependant. entre eus des divergences de vues marquées sur les niotifs
juridiques et pratiques qui étayaient cette conclusion, ainsi que sur les
termes dans lesquels celle-ci devait êtreformulée.
Certains représentants considéraient que le rattachement du Sud-
Ouest africain à l'Union ne comporterait pas d'avantages pour les
populations indighes du territoire en raison de la politique de ségrégation
et de discriminationpratiquée par l'Union contre tous les non-Européens.
Des doutesfurent exprimésquant à la capacitédes populations indigènes
du Sud-Ouest africain, au niveau actuel de leur évolution,de comprendre
le caractère et la portée de la consultation à laquelle eiles avaient été
soumises ou l'améliorationde leur statut q. .~ourrait résulterde l'instau-
ration du rbgime dt: tiitclle. Queklurj reprtscntants csriiiinient que Ors
r8~lisntioiis(Inn5Ic iioni~~inCcoi~uiiii~~ieitc soci;il,ou (1,:scons~(l~r:iti~iis
~l'ii~iit;,niiiniiiiiti:~iri\~o~sin~gc giigral>liiilue ou de tl(pcn(laiicc.
6co1iiiiiii<~~ici.'<'lnicntIlas iiiie jiiîtiiicarion siitfi~;iiiti:p<iurune :iriiit:xiori
pulitiquc. jelori eus, I';iccéptntionp;ir les S:iiioiis I.nivs rlc In propojitiuii
de l'Union marquerait une régressionpar rapport au régimedu mandat
susceptible de compromettre l'idéalde progrèsde la Charte et les aspira-
tions légitimes despopulations des territoires non autonomes.
Sur le plan juridique, certains déléguéss,e basant sur des arguments
de teste et des travaux préparatoires, déclarèrentque la Charte n'iinpo-
sait pas l'obligation de placer les territoires sous inandat sous le régime
de tutelle. D'autres représentants considéraient que la dissolution de la
Société des Nations n'offrait que deux solutions légalespour les terri1.oires
précédemment sousmandat :celle qui consisteraità leur conférer une
véritable indépendanceou cellepar laquelle ces territoires seraient placés
sous la tuteue des Nations Unies. Si le Sud-Ouest africain, après être
devenu un Etat indépendant, voulait, de son propre gré, entrer daris
l'Union sud-africaine. une telle solution pourrait être juridiquement
tion. les Nations Unies avaient non seulement le droit mais aussi l'obliga-
tion de surveiller l'autorité chargéede l'administration. Vannexion du
Sud-Ouest africain signifierait la cessation de la protection dont jouissait
la population de ce territoire par la communauté internationale.
La plupart des membres dela sous-commission qui avait étéconstituée
par la Quatrième Commission, après avoir entendu les exposés détaillés
sur les circonstances qui avaicrit conduià Inconsultation des populations
du Sud-Ouest africain et sur les modalités dela consultation, se pronon-cèrent contre une acceptation par l'Assembléegénéraledu principe de
l'incorporation du territoire dans celui de l'Union. Ils estimèrent que la
résolutionde l'Assembléedevait indiquer que tout nouvel examen de la
question du Sud-Ouest africain devait se faire à la lumièrede la résolution
que l'Assembléegénéraleavait adoptéeau cours de la première partie de
sa première session. La sous-commission donc, après avoir écarté deux
projets de résolution, l'un présentépar l'Union soviétique1et l'autre
conjointement par les délégationsde Cuba et de l'Inde2, adopta, par
12 voix contre 6, un-projet présenté conjointement par les délégations
du Danemark et des Etats-Unis. Le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine

émit un vote affirmatif.
Le projet de résolution de la sous-commission ra~~elait notamment
que iiia Charte des Nations Unies stipule dans ses ait'icles 77 et 79 que
le régimede tutelles'appliquera aux territoires actuellement sous mandat
suivant des accords quisefaient conclus », et en déduisait que « les faits
soumis à cette Assembléene justifiaient pas une mesure de la part de
l'Assembléegénéraleapprouvant l'incorporation .... n.
La Quatrième Commission préféracependant à ce projet une version
rédigéeen termes plus énergiques, proposéepar la délégationde I'lnde

Cette rédaction, qui fut approuvée par la Quatrième Commission par
17 voix contre 15, demandait que l'Assembléerejette toute solution
comportant l'incorporation du Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain à l'Union
sud-africaine ; elle recommandait que le territoire soit placé sous le
rérime international de tutelle et aue le Gouvernement de l'union sud-
afhcaine soit invité à soumettre ;in accord de tutelle à I'exameii de
l'Assembléegénérale.
.4la réunion plénièrede l'Asseinblée,les délégationsdu Daiieniark,
de l'Inde et des Etats-Unis d'Amérique aniioncèrent qu'elless'étaient
mises d'accord polir soumettre lin texte commiin qu'elles demanclaieiit

à l'Assembléede substituer à celui de la Ouatrième Commission. Ce fiit
ce texte de compromis qui fut finalemen? adopté par l'Assemblée,par
37 voix avec g abstentions.
Cette résolutiondu 14 décembre10~6',c.nstate avec satisfaction aue L
l'union ciid-:ilric:tine, en soiimettnnt la qiiestioii de I'incorpor~tioii :r
I'Unioii ilii trrritoire SUIIS:rn:intl;tt(111 Siid-Oiicst r:~, rc.conn.iii
1'iiitCr;tet Ic soiici t;nioirri16î nnr lei Xatioiis Ciiics i>oiir11iii~ ~ ~uiL~~
statut futur des territoires soks mandat. Ellerap~e'lle les dispositions
des articles 77 et 79 de la Charte, se réfère à la résolution adoptée par
l'Assembléegénérale au cours dela premièrepartie de sa premièresessioii,

exprime le désirqu'un accord puisse intervenir ultérieurement entre les
Xations Unies et l'Union sud-africaine au sujet du statut futur di1

' Ilocuments officiels de la çecondc partie de la premiùre sesside i':lçseiiil>lie
~ént'rale.- QuatriCrneCommission. - Tutelle.- Troisième partie.- I'rochs-
verbaux des séances de la Sous-Commission 2.- .%nnexe 5.pagc ior (chcinisc i3).
Id., page ror.
Documents olficiels de la seconde partie de la premièresessionde I'hssemhl&c
générale . Séances plénières . Comptes rendusin exlenso.- Annexe76.page
igGo(chemise 14).
4 Ilocuments officiels de la seconde partide la premiùre session de l'Assenil>lée
g<)nérnle-. QuatriCrne Commission. - Tutelle. - l'rçmiùrï partie. - I'rochs-
verbaux des séances. - Annexe 13 i),page 244 (chemise ir).
l)ocuments officielsde la seconde partiede la prernibresession de I'Asseinbléc
gén6rale.- Hkolutionç, 65 (1). page 123 (chemise 16). EXPOSE DE BI.KERNO (NATIONS UNIES) - 16 V 50
169
territoire, et note l'assurance reçue de la délégation del'Union sud-
africaine qu'en attendant cet accord, le Gouvernement de l'Union conti-
nuera d'administrer le territoire comme par le passédans l'esprit des
principes établis par le mandat. L'Assembléegénérale.considérant que
les indigènes du Sud-Ouest africain n'ont pas encore obtenu leur auto-
nomie politique et n'ont pas atteint un stade de développement politique
leur permettant d'exprimer une opinion réfléchie,qui pourrait être
reconnue par l'Assembléegénéralesur une question aussi importante
que l'incorporation de leur territoire, déclare qu'eue ne saurait admettre
l'incorporation du Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain à l'Uni011sud-
africaine et recommande que le territoire soit placésous le régimeinter-
national de tutelle. Le Gouvernement de l'Union sud-africaine est
invité à soumettre i l'examen de l'Assembléegénérale un accordde
tutelle.
Avantle vote de la résolution,le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine
déclara ne pas pouvoir accepter le texte proposéet indiqua son inten-
tion de s'abstenir au rote. II annonça que sa délégationrendrait compte
de son activité aux peuples du Sud-Ouest africain et leur ferait connaitre
la teneur de la résolution. Le Gouvernement de l'Union sud-africaine
désirait réserver la position des peuples du Sud-Ouest africain au nom
de ceux-ci, ainsi que sa propre position en tant qu'autorité chargéede
l'administration dii territoire. En attendant, leGouvernement de l'Union
continuerait d'administrer le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain selon
l'esprit du mandat qii'il avait reç'.

V. Intervalle entre la firemièreet la deuxièniesession de l'Assemblée

Le texte de la résolutiondu 14décembre1q4Gfut communiquéofficielle-
ment par le Secrétaire généralau Gouvernement de l'Union sud-africaine.
Le 15 mai 1947, le Secrétaire général s'enquit auprèsde celui-ci des
décisionsque le Gouvernement de l'Union avait prises ou des mesures
qu'il avait envisagéespour mettre i exécutionles recommandations que
renfermait la résolution.Par une communication datéedu23 juillet 1947~.
le ministre de l'Union sud-africaineà li'ashington fit savoir au Secrétaire
généralque le Gouvernement de l'Union avait diiment examiné In réso-
lution. Celle-ciavait étéégalement discutéepar le parlement de l'Union,
qui avait adopté une résolution qui constatait : premièrement, que le
Traité de Versailles avait conféréà l'Union sud-africaine pleins pouvoirs
de législationet d'administration sur le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain,
sous la seule réserve de rapports à présenter à la Sociétédes Xations ;
deuxièmement, que la Sociétédes Nations avait, depuis, cesséd'exister
et qu'elle n'avait pas qualité,aux termes du Traité de Versailles ou du
l'acte, pour transférer ses droits et pouvoirs quanau Sud-Ouest africain
i l'organisation des Nations Unies oii à toute autre organisation ou
organisme interiiatioiial. et que, en fait, elle n'avait pas pris de décision
à cet égard; troisiémemeiit, que l'Union sud-africaine n'avait pas
--
Documents officiels dc la secoiide partie de la premiùredcel'Assembl8e
gnerale. - SCaiicespIéniL\r. Comptcs rendus in~xlenso64modance. page ,326
(cheniise15).
8 Documents ufficicls de la deuxisme session de l'Assembléeg6ndr-leQua-
triùme Commission.- Tutelle. -Comptes rendus analytiques. - -4nnexc j a),
page 133(chcmisc 21).coiiseiiti par accord international à abandonner les droits et les pouvoirs
qu'elle avait ainsi acquis et qu'elle n'y avait pas renoncé ensignant la
Charte des Nations Unies, ou'elle restait donc en pleine ~ossessioii et
esercice <Ic es droits et ovor; lti~tri~iiri~c~t, qué I'r'crasaiitc
in:ijoriti.dcI:po]~iil:itioiiciirop6cnnc ct iion ctirupc'ennes'Ct:iit~iruiioiic;.~
cil faveur de I'incorpiirntion dit :iud.Ouest :ifric::iI'Ciiioiisiiil-:<friv:iiiiz.
En coiiséquence, la Chambre estimait que le territoire devait étre
représentéau Parlement de 1'Unioiisud-africaine comme faisant partie
intégrante de l'union et invitait le Gouvernement à déposer,après avoir
consulté leshabitants du territoire, un projet de loi leur accordant une
représentation au Parlement de l'Union. La Chambre considérait, par
ailleurs, que le Gouvernement devait coiitinuer à fairerapport à YOrga-
nisation des Nations Unies, comme il l'avait fait dans le passé,suivant
les termes du mandat.
Dans sa communication. le miiiistre de I'Uiiiori sud-africaine à
\\'ast~iii~toninform:iit L:~:ili.riiriitIc:Secr$tliire ~L,iilu':t la suite (le
1':idoptioiip:ir I':\sseiiit~lccde ia ic:~oliitioiisur la <luesiliiSiid-Ouest
africain. le (~otivernemcnt (Ir I'Uiiion;iv:iir <li,cirde lie Tinsi~r~)c~;d,:r
l'incorporation du territoire. La décisionde l'Union à cet kard était
donc en plein accord avec les termes de la résolution de l'Assemblée
générale.En ce qui concerne la partie de la résolution de l'Assemblée
quiinvitait le Gouvernement de l'Union à soumettre un accord de tutelle
pour le territoire, celui-ci estimait qu'en raison des veux clairement
exprimés au cours de la consultation des habitants par l'écrasante
majorité de toutes les races indigènes du Sud-Ouest africain et par un
vote unanime des représentants européensdu territoire, leGouvernement
de l'Union se voyait dans I'impossihilité d'agirconformément à la
résolution de l'Assembléegénérale,et avait donc décidéde maintenir
le statu quo ct de continuer à administrer le territoire dans l'esprit du
mandat. A cette fin, le Gouvernement de l'Union avait entrepris de
soumettre aux Nations Unies, pour leur information, des rapports sur
son administration du territoire. 11annonçait égalemeritqu'à la suite
de la résolution adootée ~ar le Parlement de l'union. des mesures-- - -
seraient prises, après Consuitation des habitants du territoire. pour que
ceux-ci soient directement re~résentésau sein de ce Parlement.
Par une lettre en date du lzAseptembre1947,la délégationpermaiiente
de l'Union sud-africaine auprès de l'organisation des Nations Unies
informait le Secrétaire générad le la transmission du rapport du Gouver-
neineiit sud-africain sur l'administration du Siid-Ouest africain pendant
l'année 1946 '.
Par une nouvelle communication eii date du 17 septembre 1947 5 la
délégationpermanente transmit au Secrbtaire généraluii mémorandum
intitulé :c Compte rendu des mesures prises par le Gouvernement de
l'Union pour communiquer à la population du Sud-Ouest africain les
résultats des discussions qui ont eu lieu lors de la dernière session de

ment de l'Union sud-africaine indiquait dans ce document qu'en ce quiernc-
--
' Dcxuments officieldc la deuxièmesession de l'Assembléegén6rale.- Quatrieme
Commission. - Tutelle.- Comutes rendus analv. .ueç. annexe -.bl. ."ce i-G
(chemise zr).
Documents officiels<lçla deuxi~mesrssion de I'.Assemblbegéniiralc.-Quatri&me
Commission. - Tutcllc.- Comptes rcndus analytiques. annexe 3 b). page 136
(chcmise 21). EXPOSE DE >I. KERSO (NA~IONS USIES) - 16 V jO 171

concerne la population indigèneon avait eu recours à des méthodessimi-
lairesà celles suivies au cours de la première consultation. Après que
des explications eussent &tédonnéesaux tribus, on avait demandéleur
opinion sur la situation qui avait résultéde l'adoption par l'Assemblée
générale des Nations Unies de la résolution du 14 décembre 1946. 11
apparaissait de leurs réponsesque la majorité écrasante était toujours
en faveur de l'incorporation du Sud-Ouest africain à l'union. Toutefois,
les Hereros, qui s'étaient déclarésopposés à l'incorporation lors de la
première consultation, n'avaient pas modifiéleur attitude. En ce qui
concerne la population européenne,la résolutionde l'Assemblée générale
avait étédiscutée lors d'une séancede l'Assembléelégislative du Sud-
Ouest africain, et une résolution avait étéadoptée le 17 mai 1947, par
laqueue la Chambre exprimait au premier ministre de l'Union ses remer-
ciements pour l'attitude qu'il avait adoptée à l'organisation des Nations
Unies et exprimait l'espoir que cette Organisation accéderait aux vŒux
de la grande majorité des Européens et non-Européens du temtoire.

VI. Deuxièmesession de rAssembléegéi~érale

La deuxième session de l'Assembléegénérale inscrivit à son ordre du
jour une question libellée : eExainen de nouveaux projets d'accords de
tutelle. s'il y a liw, et la renvoya à l'examen de la Quatrième Com-
mission.
Un débat prolongé suivit l'exposédu représentant de l'Union sud-
africaine, qui fut le premier à prendre la parole à la Quatrième Com-
mission. Répondant à une demande de précisionsdu représentant du
Danemark quant à la portke de la déclaration du Gouvernement de
l'Union sud-africaine que le statf~auo serait maintenu dans le Sud-Ouest
;ifiic?inct CIUL ICtcrriiuirc ioiiriiiii<:rii;:rrt: ~JniiiiistrC cI:~iisl'<.prit
dii iiiaiiil;it, le rcyrl:seii,luI'Uiiioii~xpliiliil rliic son Guii\~criit:meiit
tran5inctlrnit iin r:iuricrt :iiiiiuel sur le 5utl-Oiicst slricsiii iiui conrieil-
drait le genre de ren;eignements requis par l'article 73 e) déla Charte
pour les territoires non autonomes. Son Gouvernement présumait que
ce rapport ne serait pas examiné par le Conseil de Tutelle et ne serait
pas trait6 comme si un accord de tutelle avait étéeffectivement conclu.
Le représentant de 1'Union déclara, en outre, que son Gouvernement
estimait que, du fait de la disparitioii de la Societb dcs Nations, le droit
de présenter des pétitions n'existait plus. Ce droit supposait, en effet,
l'existence du droit decontrale et de surveillance ;or, de l'avisde l'Union
sud-africaine, l'organisation des Nations Unies n'était pas investie d'un
droit de cette nature à l'égarddu Sud-Ouest africain.
Au cours de la discussion, plusieurs représentants marquèrent leur
satisfaction de ce oue l'Uni011sud-africaine n'ait vas incornoréle Sud-
Oucst :ifiicain. ~ert:iiiiî d'entre eiis cspriiiii.rent r<;iirefois1:;cr;iintc que
Ica iiicsurcà <liiele Gou~rriieni~nt sii<l-:ifric:seipr,il~os;idc prcn<lrc
ii'iml~lirluciit,cn fait, I'nnncxiun ilii tcrriti,iic: pr l'C'ilion.I)? iiombreux
repr~~~i~t;~r~ fitisrent d'avis clu'ilesisr;,it uiii,$>hli,IJ foisjiiridique
et iiioralc i prGscntcriiii.~ccordrlc tiitcllc paiii Ic r~.rritoirc,Icj disposi-
tions dit clinnitrcSI 1dc la Clii~rtcCtnnt <itiliearijirz.ice iiuiconcerne
les territoire; sous mandat. D'autres représentants déclartr&t qu'ils ne
pouvaient accepter cette opinion. La suggestion fut émiseque 1Assem-
bléegénéraledemande un avis consultatif à la Cour internationale de
Justice sur la question de l'obligation juridique. Plusieurs représentantsl'espoir qu'il sera possible au Gouveriiement de I'Union sud-africaine de
le faire en temps \'oulu, tle manière à permettre à I'Assenibléegénérale
d'esaminer cet accord lors de sa troisième session.La résolutionautorise,
eiifin, en attendant, le Conseil de Tutelle à examiner le rapport sur le
Sud-Ouest africain présentépar le Gouvernement de l'Union sud-afri-
caiiie, età soumettrc à 1'.4sseinbléegénéraledes observations à ce sujet.

Le rapport du Gouveriiemeiit de l'union sud-africaine sur I'adminis-
tration du Sud-Ouest africaiii pendant l'année 1946 fut traiismis au
Conseilde Tutelle. Celui-ciprocéda à son examen au cours de sa deuxième
session. Plusieurs questions de procédure furent soulevées. Le Conseil
de TuteUe devait-il entrcprcndre cet examen en suivant les procédures
qu'il avait adoptées pour I'examen des rapports sur les territoires qui
avaient étéprécédemmentplacéssous le régimede tutelle ? Jouissait-il
à cet égard de tous les pouvoirs qui lui avaient étéconférés par le cha-
pitre XII1 de la Charte? Devait-il, au contraire, suivre lesméthodesde
la Commissiondes Mandats ? Devait-il inviter un représentant de l'Union
sud-africaine à assister à l'examen du rapport? Pouvait-il faire usage
d'autres informations que celles qui se trouvaient contenues dans le
rapport du représentant de l'Union sud-africaine ? Pouvait-il prendre
connaissance de pétitions ? Pouvait-il entendre dcs personnes qualifiées
qui désiraient lerenseigner sur les conditioris dans le territoir?
Le Conseil décidade prier le Secrétariat de faire coiinaitre au Gouver-
nement de I'Union sud-africaine la date à laquelle le rapport serait
examiné conformément à la résolution de l'Assembléegénérale.et lui
faire savoir que, si ce Gouvernement désirait envoyer un représentant,
celui-ci serait le bienvenu. Cette communication fut transmise par le
Secrétaire général,et la réponsedu représentant permanent de I'Union
sud-africaine fut que soli Gouvernement n'avait pas l'intention de profi-
ter de l'offrequi lui avait étéfaite, mais que si, aprèsexamen du rapport,
le Coiiseildésirait obtenir des précisionssur ses divers cliapitres, il serait
heureus de lui commuiiiquer, par écrit, les renseignements complémen-
taires dont il disposerait '.
.4u cours de l'examen du rapport par le Conseil,plusieurs représentants
exprimèrent le désir d'obtenir des renseignements siippléinentaires.
Une résolution fut approiivéc daiis laquelle le Conseil constatait tne le
rapport présentépar le Gouveriiement de l'Union sud-africaine semblait,

à certains égards, incomplet. Le Conseil acceptait l'offre de l'union
sud-africaine de lui fournir des renseignements complémentaires et
invitait le Gouvernement de I'Union sud-africaine à répondre, avant le
mois de juin 1948, aux questions que le Conseil avait formulées1. Une
proposition du représentant du Mexique 8,tendant à ce que le pasteur
hlichael Scott, qui avait informé l'Assembléeet le Conseil de Tutelle
qu'il était porteur de pétitions émanant de certains chefs africains du

1 ConseildeTutelle, deuxi&mcsession-. Extrait du comptc rendii de Indixième
seance, page8 (chemise 24).
2 Doïumentsoficielsdc la deiiri&niesession Conseilde Tutelle. Résolutions,
28 [Il), page 15 [chemis20).
Conseil de Tutelle. <It.uxiùrni:sessioExtraitdii compte rcndii <le ldix-
huitiénie séance. pagc 35 (chemi24).174 EXPOSE DE 11. KEKSO (SATIOSS USIES) - 16 \'50

territoire, soit invité à infornier le Conseil de la situation des indigènes
dans le territoire, fut retirée. 1-ereprésentant du Alexique se réserva le
droit de la réintroduire au cours de la troisième session du Conseil.
Le Gouvernement de l'Union siid-africaine transmit le "1 mai 14,.
s;,r;ponsc .iiiqucstioiiiinii~: du Cuiiscil [Ir 'fiireIlel. Uniis iiiicIc,ttrt.
d';icconipngriemcnt, le rcl~rcs~.i~l;~p itr interini tlcl Uiiion siicl-:ifricniiic
;iiii~rCsdcs S;iti<)iiCnics r;,i~oclnoiie siiii Çoii~crri~iiieiit ~.oiisidt;rI;it
transmission à l'0rganisatioAAdesNations Unies de renseignements sur
le Sud-Ouest africain, sous forme d'un rapport annuel ou sous toute
autre forme, comme volontaire et comme faite aux seules fins d'infor-
mation. Il ne se considérait pas tenu de transmettre ces renseignements
à l'Organisation des Nations Unies, mais déclarait qu'en raison du grand
intérêt norté à l'administration du territoire et conformément à la
pratiqué démocratique normale, il était désireuxet soucieux de porter

à la connaissance du moiide les faits et les chiffres dont il disposait déjà
et qu'il pouvait recueillir et coordonner sans imposer un travnil excesiif
à son personnel au détriment des tâches urgentes de l'administration.
II rappelait qu'en offrant de présenter un rapport sur le Sud-Ouest
africain, le Gouvernement de l'Union s'était conforméaux dispositions
de l'article 73 e) de la Charte, qui demande que soient communiqués au
Secrétaire pénéral Ides renseie-ements statistiaues et autres de nature
teclinique ;et ne iiientiuriiizpl<lesrenseignriiic.iiisrelatifs Ades (luestions
de politiqiie. S\'t:aniiioiriss,oiicieiixde porter iine :iideet iiriecullaborn~i(~ii
auisi mandes aue uossible, il avait eÏnla circonstaiice réuondude facon
coinpicitert4nti;,crikrit :iiis;livc.rs aspects ac politique. illieconsid6;:iit
pourtant p3-ique ce faisant 11crt;nit iiiiyrc'c>dciit.1:iiuutrc, le (;uiivernc-
ment de l'Union faisait observer que Irs r6iiunscsides ciiiestioiisoolitioues
IIC coiiil)urtiieni 112sI'engagL.miiitclc p;atiquer tt:llc uu r~llc'~olit;<~iic
:ll'avenir ou <irendre ii iiideg.;.~.iic.lconqiirdcs coiiiptes n I'O.~liiiintii~n
des Nations Unies.
Le Conseilde Tutelle reprit à sa troisièmesession l'examen du rapport
sur le Sud-Ouest africain, ainsi que des réponsesdu Gouvernement de
l'union au questionnaire établi à la session précédente.
Certains kprésentants étaient d'avis qu'Ln raison des termes de la
résolutionde l'Assemblée gknéraie,le Conseildevait se borner à formuler
des observations et laisser à l'Assembléegénéralele soin de tirer ses
propres conclusions. D'autres membresestimaient que le terme « observa-
tions n autorisait le Conseil à présenter des conclusions, mais qu'il était

préférable que le Conseil s'abstint de faire des recommandations
quant à des mesures que le Gouvernement de l'Union devrait prendre.
Le rapport du Conseil de Tuteile A l'Assembléegénéralefut adopté
par 6 voix contre 3, avec 3 abstentions 2.
Ce rapport servit de base ?Lla discussion de la question du Sud-Ouest
africain au cours de la troisième session de 1'Asseinblkegtinérale. Il
fut aussi mentionné à diverses reprises au cours de la quatrième session.
11apparaît donc nécessairede donner ici un résuméde son contenu.
Dans le domaine politique, le rapport constate que les indigènes
Iiabitant le territoire n'ont pas le droit de vote, ne sont pas éligibles

' Conseil de Tutelle. -Procès-verbaux officiels, troisième session. -Supplément
Tli75. pages 51 et suivantes (chemise 29).
1947-5ppaoûtdu194s.e-l dAçsembl6r générale,documents officiels sdcsila troisième
session (supple'rnenne4). page46 (chemise 29).et ne sont pas représentésdans les organes gouvernementaux ou dans
l'administration du territoire. Dans le domaine économique, le Conseil
estimait impossible, d'aprèsles renseignements dont il disposait, d'appré-
cier avec exactitude la mesure dans laquelle la population indigène
avait bénéficié de l'accroissement récentde prospérite du territoire et de
juger si les mesures que le Gouvernement de l'union avait déjàprises et
celles qu'il envisageait de prendre, étaient suffisantes pour améliorerla
situation économioue des indicènes. Le Conseil constatait Que les
indighnes ne déteniient que 42 four 100 des terres occiipées,et'faisait
observer qu'il manquait de renseigiiements sur la question de savoir si
les terres-qui leur Staieiit laissée; étaient suffisantes du point de vue
de la qualitéet de la productivité. Le Conseilestimait que lesexplications
donnéespar leGouvernement de l'Union n'indiquaient pas siles indigènes
seraient rétablis dans les droits aux terres cultivables au'ils avaient
perdues sous le régimeallemand. IIobservait que lesrestrictions imposées
aus habitants indi~ènes des réserves situées dans la zone de police
(zone de colonisatio~ européenne)en ce qui concerne l'élevagedu bétail
ne s'appliquaient pas aux habitants européens, et estimait que la mesure
dans laquelle les terres indigènes avaient été aliénéesétait l'un des
facteurs oui contribuaient à laisser la tribu Herero divisée.
Dans ledomaine social, le Conseilexprimait l'avis quetoute séparation
des populations indigOneset toute mesure tendant à leur attribuer des
zoiiës de résidencedéterminéesn'étaient pas favorables à leur progrès
général. De l'avisdu Conseil, le systeme visant à cantonner les indigènes
dans les u réservesiiidighes iiétait regrettable en principe, et il estimait
oue le Gouvernement de l'union d~~~ait 1-eviser sa nolitioue.
Le conseil marquait son opposition de principeà la Ségrégntion raciale,
et, tout en indiquant qu'il lui manquait des indications précisessur les
raisons oui aou\;aient iustifier cette eolitiaue dans les zones urbaines du
territoire,if estimait bue le Gouvernemen'tde l'union devrait déployer
de grands efforts pour faire disparaître par l'éducation et par d'autres
mesures efficaces toutes les raisons qui expliquaient la ségrégation.
Le Conseil notait les conditions de travail dans les mines et le niveau
de salaires de la main-d'eui~re. Il estimait que le nombre élevéde
condamnations péniteiitiaires témoignait d'une situation anormale et
exprimait l'avis que les relations contractuelles entre l'entrepreneur et
l'employéne devraient pas donner lieu à des sanctions pénales.Il notait
qu'aucune des conventions de l'organisation internationale du Travail
n'était appliquée dans le territoire. Il faisait observer qu'il ii'y avait
pas encore d'hôpitaux gouvernementaux pour les indigènes dans les
régionssituéesen dehors de la zone de police. Le Conseilobservait égale-
ment que jusqu'à présenton n'avait prévu aucune formatioii profession-
nelle de médecins indigènesou de couleur.
Dans le domaine de l'instruction, le Conseilnotait que le Gouvernement
n'avait crééaucunétablissement d'enseignementdmslesrégionspurement
indigènes qui sont situées en dehors de la zone de police ;le Conseil
estimait que la création d'établissements d'enseignementétait essentielle
au développement politique. économique et social de la population
indigène.176 EXPOSE DE JI. KERXO (SATIOSS USIES) - 16 V jO

[SéancePublique du 16 mai 1950, après-midi]

hlonsieur le l'résident, hlessieurs les Membres de la Cour.

VIII. Troisièmesessioride l'Assemblée gér~éra(lperemière partie)

Le rapport du Conseil de Tutelle dont je \,eusai parlé cematin lut
soumis à la troisième session de l'Assembléegénérale.
Voilà la raison pour laquelle j'ai cru nécessairece matin de donner
un bref aperçu du contenu de ce rapport. Une divergence fondamentale
entre le point de vue du Gouveriicinent sud-alricain et celui de l'Assem-
bléeen ce qui concerne le rôle que le Conseil de Tutelle était appelé à
iouer dans l'état actuel du statut international du Territoire di1 Sud-
Ouest africain était en effet manifeste. Cerapport a donc une importance
en ce qui concerne la question de savoir quel est le statiit iuridioue
actuel du territoire.
-4 la Quatrième Commission, le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine
critiqua la conception que le Conseil de Tutelle s'était faite deson rôle
quant à l'examen du rapport et défendit l'administration du Territoire
du Sud-Ouest africain par son Gouvernement, ainsi que la position
juridique et morale que celui-ci avait prise depuis la dissolution de la
Société des Nations,relativement à son statut futur. Il déclaraque son
Gouvernement avait réexaminéla questiori sous tous ses aspects et avait
conclu une fois de plus qu'il serait contraire aux intérêtsdu Territoire
du Sud-Ouest africain, comme à ceux de I'Union sud-africaine, que le
territoire soit placésous l'autorité du Conseil de Tutelle de l'organisa-
tion des Nations Unies. Dans ces coriditions, le Gouvernement de l'Union
considérait qu'il rie lui était pas possible de laire dràila demande de
l'Assemblée généraleet de soumettre \rolontairernent un accord de
tutelle. Le Gouvernement de I'Uiiioii était fermement décidé à veiller
à ce qne le territoire soit administré, comme par le passé, en tenant
compte de la nécessitéd'accroitre le bien-étre matériel et moral de
l'ensemble de la population. Le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine
fit parti l'Assembléegénéralede iiégociatioiisqui venaient d'avoir lieu
entre le Gouvernement de l'union et les représentants des deux partis
politiques du Sud-Ouest africain et qui avaient abouti à un accord sur
une association plus étroite entre le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain
et l'Uni011sud-africaine. L'association des deux territoires s'effectue-
rait var l'envoi de représentants du Sud-Ouest africain au Parlement de
l'l~ii~oii,par I~C~lcn~eiit ci';i,f:t(i'iiit,:C,OI~IIIIIp:ir le l1:irIe~n,iit
(IL'l'C:i~i~>iti[>:II'~.xten<iio~i.I:LCVIIIPCICIIC dI; cr~rp l<:gislntifdi1
Siicl-Oucst ;ifiic.iiii. Ci.5 iiuu\ellei disi>ositioiis.<l;cl,ira Ic rénr?~eiitanr
de l'Union sud-africaine, ne constitue;aierit une annexio;~ du terri-
toire. Le Sud-Ouest africain aurait le droit de s'administrer à un degré
qui n'était pas accordéaux vrovinces de I'Unio~i.Un nroiet de loi serait
ioumis dansun avenir rapp&ché au Parlement de 1'~Uio;isud-africaine,
et on pouvait s'attendre àce que l'union la plus étroite,ou la fusioiientre
les deiix pays, se réalisedan; un proche avenir.
Plusieurs représentants à la Quatrième Commission exprimèrent
une vive inquiétude quant aux mesures qui étaient envisagées par
le Gouvernement sud-africain et rappelèrent les engagements pris
précédemmentpar l'Union sud-africaine i l'égarddes Xations Unies. Ilsdemandèrent si ces mesures n'équivalaient pas à une incorporation du
territoire dans l'Union, contre laquelle l'i\ssemblée générales'était
prononcéeau cours de sa première session.
Un débat long et animéeut lieu, au cours duquel le statut juridique
international du Sud-Ouest africain et les obligations internationales
du Gouvernement de l'Union furent à noui7eau analysés. Le représen-
tant de l'Union sud-africaine affirma que le nouveau Gouvernement
de l'Union sud-africaine ne faisait aue ooursuivre la ~olitioue de son
prédécesseur.Sa ferme intention était 'd'administrer ie ~eiritoire du

Sud-Ouest africain dans l'esprit du mandat. IIs'efforceraitdonc d'accroî-
tre dans toute la mesure du possible le bien-êtrede tous les habitants
du territoire. Les mots Cdans l'esprit du mandat u ne devaient pas être
interprétéscomme comprenant d'autres obligations que celle-là.
Deux projets de résolution furent soumis comme base de discussion.
Ce fut celui présenté conjointement par les délégationsdu Danemark,
de la Norvégeet de 1'Uruguay 'qui fut approuvépar 36voix contre une,
après le rejet par la commission de multiples amendemerits, notamment
d'un amendement de la délégationde l'Inde 2. Cet amendementinvitait
le Gouvernement de I'Unionsud-africaine à ne pas procéderàdesmesures
qui équivaudraient ii un rattachement du territoire à l'Union sud-afri-
caine, et à accepter qu'une commission instituéepar le Conseilde Tutelle
visite le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain pour y observer la situation
politique, économique et sociale, ainsi que celle de l'instruction, et
soumettre un ra port au Conseil de Tutelle qui le présenterait, avec ses
observations, à y'Assembléelors de sa prochaine session. L'amendement
indien fut repoussépar 22 voix contre 21, avec II abstentions.
Le projet de la commission fut adopté en séanceplénièrepar 43 voix
contre une, et 5 abstentions. Le représentant de l'Union sud-africaine
indiqua qu'il aurait à voter contre la résolutionen raison de l'inclusion
du paragraphe maintenant la recommandation de l'Assembléegénérale
oue le territoire soit lacésous le réeime de tutelle.
' I'ar cette rCsoliitioii dii ?il t.i>\.cinbrc 1t,4S3, l'r\s~cni\~lC+p611Cralc
3y;inr r:il>l)clClys :itit;ci.dciir> $I'.iti:iiprir :teri. cles<~t~s~:rv:iriuiiidii
C~~ii~c< iIle'I'utcll..LU SLIJ~rit1~II~I-OIIC:Stiric:iinvt itivit:le 5 cr!r;ttrt:
;~~ricr:il:coriiniuiti~(ticrcc3 t,t~$cri.ariu~i;.IIIGuu\~eriieiii~iitde I'lliiioii
si~I-:tfrica~~~.l.'.\ssc~ilbl& tt~:iinrint SCT r~c~tti~t~ii~icliti~tn~ti'iit:urcj
tcitil;int CL. <IIIle 3it<l-Ouc~tafri~<itiioir i>I:iiS\>IIILr-Lgimc.dv tiitt:llr.
t,tiiûr::1\.1,cicgrcr que ces recomitt:~~tdari~~~ ~t-'.i~\~rlii.tii Cr;,t~.~ic~triti.
ICIlcprit :ictc des as;ur.~tic~~du rrpr&cnraiit de I'Utti~~~ st~l-;~frica~nt!

Quel'intention de son Gouvernemeni était de continuer à administrer le
tcrritoirc dans l'esprit du in;~iid:it.qiic Ics iiou\~clle.imejiirésproposCri
eit viic c1':isjocierplus ~troitc.in~~nrIP Sud-Oiiest frit 1 I'lJriiuii
iid-ifriciitic ne sicnin;iieiit oas I'iticorvor:itioii (lu re:rri<I;iitI'Uni~iii.
ni que le territoi; serait a6sorbépa;l'autorité chargéede l'administra:
tion. L'Assembléerecommanda que, sans préjudice de ses résolutions
antérieures et jusqu'à la concIusion d'un accord avec l'organisation des
--tions Unirs en ce qui concerne l'avenir du Sud-Oucst africain, le
1 Documents afliciïls rlçIctroisihrne session <leI'rlsseiiiblir gdnérale,premier~
partie. - Séances pl&ni&res. - Annexes aiixcomptes rçn<ius analytiques dcs
séances, A1734 pagc 41i (chemise 32).
Id.. page 407.
Documents officiels de la troisieme session de I'~\sscmhligénrrale,premièrc
partie. - I<ésolutions.227 (III), page89 (chemise 34).17s ESPOSÉ DE 31. KERSO (S.ATIOSS USIES) - 16 \> 50

Gouvernement de l'Union sud-africainecontinue àfournir chaque année
des renseignements sur l'administration du Sud-Ouest africain. L'Assem-
renseignements et àe soumettreeàTl'Assembléegénéraleses observations
à ce sujet.

IS. Commi~nicntionde l'Union sud-africaine du Ir juillet 1949.-
Le «South-West Africa Aflairs Amendment Act r. .-in- Cinqicième
session di4 Conseil de Tilelle
Le II juillet1949, le représentant permanent adjoint de I'Union
sud-africaine aupres des Nations Unies transmit une co~ninuiiicationau
Secrétaire général,qui constituait la réponsede son Gouvernement à la
résolution adoptée par l'Assembléegénéraleau cours de sa troisième
session. Le Gouvernement de I'Union exnrimait le reeret de ce aue
l'Assembléene se fût pas rendue aux raisAs avancécsGr l'Union s;d-
africaine contre la mise du Sud-Ouest africainsous la tutelle des Nations
Unies. Il confirmait les assurances données par son représentant à
l'Assembléegénérale, A savoir que sou intention était de continuer à
admïnistrer le Sud-Ouest africain dans l'esprit du mandat et que les
iiou\~ellesmesures tendant à associer plus étroitement le Sud-Ouest
africain ne signifiaient pas l'iiicorporatioo du territoire danson, ni
son absorption par celle-ci.
La recommandation de l'Assembléeeénéraleseloii laauelle l'Union
<lc\,r:iit coiiiiiiiier i fouriiir des rerise'~gi~<ur l'~dniinisti:itioii
di1 S11d-011vitnfric;iiii, poursui\.;iit Ir r~~pr~seitermanent adjoint
dc I'Cnion siiil-alticnine ilniis s:i coniriiiiiiic~tion. n\.nit fnit I'ighict
de l'examen le plus attentif de la part du ~ouverhement de l'Union.
Celui-ci rappelait qu'il n'avait reconnuà aucun moment qu'il existait
pour lui une obligation légalequelconque de fournir aux Nations Unies
des rapports sur le Sud-Ouest africain, mais qu'il avait offert de fournir
ces rapports dans un esprit de bonne volonté, de coopératioii et de
complaisance, étant clairement entendu, d'une part, que le Gourer-
nement de l'Union sud-africaine le ferait sur une base volontairà,titre
d'information strictement, et, d'autre part, que l'organisation des
Nations Unies n'avait aucun droit de regard sur le Sud-Ouest africain.
Au monient de la transmission d'informations en 1947 et 1948 ,e Gou-
vernement de l'Union avait soulignéque l'envoi de renseignements sur
la politique suivie ne devait pas ètre considéré commecréant un précé-
dent ni interprété comme un engagement pour l'avenir ou comme
indiquant que le Gouvernement de l'Union avait des comptes à rendre
aux Nations Unies. Le Gouvernement de l'union avait à ce moment
exprimé laconviction que le Conseilde Tutelle aborderait sa tâche d'une
manière absolument objective et examinerait le rapport dans le même
esprit de bonne volonté, de coopération et de complaisance qui avait
conduit l'Union à faire coiinaître ces renseignements. h.lalheureusement,
de l'avis du Gouvernement de l'union, les renseignements qui avaient
kté fournis avaient donné à certains l'occasion de se servir du Conseil
de Tutelle et de la Commission de Tutelle de l'Assembléecomme d'une
tribune pour critiquer et condamner injustement l'administration par
l'Union sud-africaine, non seulement dans le Sud-Ouest africain, mais
dans l'Union également. Les malentendus et les accusations au cours
des débats par les Nations Unies ont eu des répercussions tant dans EXPOSÉ DI5 31.KERSO (S~ITIOSS USIES) - 16 \. 50 179

l'union que dans le Sud-Ouest africain, avec des conséquencesnéfastes
pour le maintien de relations liarinonieuses, qui avaient prévalu jus-
qu'alors et qui étaient si indispensablesàune bonne administration. En
outre, le fait mêmede la présentation d'un rapport avait créédans
l'esprit d'un certain nombre de Membres des Nations Unies l'impres-
sion que le Conseil de Tutelle avait qualité pour formuler des recom-
mandations sur la question de l'administration intérieure du Sud-Ouest
africain et avait engendré d'autres conceptions erronées concernant le
statut du territoire. Dans ces conditions, le Gouvernement de l'Union
était arrivé à la conclusion que la présentation aux Natioiis Unies des
rapports spéciaux sur le Sud-Ouest africain ne pouvait pas présenter
d'avantages réels quelconques, et, tout en se proposant d'informer
l'opinion publique mondiale dc la situation dans le Sud-Ouest africain
par d'autres moyens à sa disposition, il était arriàéla conclusion que,
plus êtreenvoyé.Toutefois, et conformément aux assurances donnéesvait
par le premier ministre au Parlemeiit de l'Union, le Gouvernement de
l'Union transmettait aux Nations Unies, pour information seulement,
un exemplaire de la loi no 23 de 1949. qui apporte certaines modifica-
tions à la formc de l'association existant entre le Sud-Ouest africain
et l'Union sud-africaine, ainsi qu'uii commentaire de cette loi.
La loi de 1949, dont le texte fut transmis par le Gouvernement de
I'Union au Secrétaire général,constitue une transformatioii du régime
constitutionnel du Sud-Ouest africain, qui avait étéinstauré à la suite
de l'attribution du mandat à l'Union sud-africaine par une loi rotée
par le Parlement de l'union de 1925. La loi de 1g2j avait institué dans
le territoire sous mandat, côtédel'administrateur. un comité exécutif,
un conseil consultatif et une assemblée législative,et avait définileurs
pouvoirs et fonctions respectifs dans le domaine exécutif et législatif.
La loi de 1949 a pour portée d'abolir le Conseilconsultatif, de rendre
l'Assemblée législativedu territoire entikrement élective, d'étendre
sa compétence et de pourvoir à la représentation du territoire au sein
des deux Chambres du Parlement de l'union. La loi accorde au Sud-
Ouest africain six représentants à la Chambre des députés del'union,
tous élus, et quatre représentants au Sénat. dont deux élus et deux
nommés par 1; général.L'un des sénateurs nommés doit
êtrechoisi surtout en raison de la connaissance approfondie qu'il possède
Dar ses fonctions officielles,011de toute autre-manière, des besoins
étdes vcenx raisonnables des populations de couleur du territoire.
L'Assemblbe législative du Sud-Ouest africain sera, aux termes de la
loi, composée de 18 membres éluspar les électeursinscrits <luterritoire.
Sousl'empire de la loi de 1925,l'Assembléeétaitcomposéede 12 membres
éluset de six membres désignéspar l'administrateur du territoire. Seuls
les ressortissants de l'union de descendance européenne peuvent voter
et sont éligiblestant au Parlement de l'Union qu'à l'Assembléelégislative
du territoire.
Le Sud-Ouest africain continuera à ne pas êtresoumis au régime
fiscal de l'union. La loi stipule expressément qu'à l'exception des lois
relatives aux droits de douane ct de régie,aucune loi du Parleinent de
l'Union qui impose une contributioii, un droit, une servitude, ou une
obligationà la population de I'Unioii,ne sera applicable dans le territoire.
La disposition en vertu de laquelle les impôts votéspar le Parlement de
l'Union ne seront pas perçus dans le Sud-Ouest africain lie peut étreamendée, modifiéeou abrogéesans l'assentiment de l'Assembléelégis-
lative du Sud-Ouest africain exprimédans Urierésolutioncommuniquée -
au Parlement de I'Unioii par un message do gouverneur général.
La compétence de l'Assembléelégislative du Sud-Ouest africain a
étéétendue à certaines iioiivellescatézoriesde uucstions. Restent exclues
de sa juridiction les affaires iudigèies ou tiutes affaires intéressant
particulièrement Ics autochtones, y compris la créatioiid'impUtssur les
personnes, les terres, et les habitations ou les gains des autochtones, et
également les questions relatives à l'aviation civile, aux chemins de fer

et ports, au statut des foiictionnaires publics, à la compétence et à la
procédure des tribunaux, aux postes, télégrapheset téléphones,aus
affaires militaires,à l'immigration, au tarif douaiiier, aux impôtsindirects,
à la monnaic et à 1;1 banque. L'Assemblée législativedu Sud-Ouest
africain a ce~endant le pouvoir de recommandation et peut rendre des
ordonnances'en ce qui 'conceriie ces questions, h coiidition d'y étre
autoriséepar l'administrateur. Elle peut égal-mentêtresaisie par l'admi-
nistrateu; des demandes d'avis. -
Seul le Parleinent de l'Union aura dorénavaiit le pouvoir de légiférer
pour le territoire sur les questions hors de la compétencede 1'Assemblée
législative. Le Parlement de l'Union aura également le droit d'annuler
les dispositions de toute ordonnance de l'Assemblée.Une ordoiinaiice
promulguéepar l'Assembléelégislativen'aura effet que dans la mesure
où elle ne sera pas en contradiction ou incompatible avec une loi du
Parlement applicable ail territoire.
Signalons que les dispositions du préambule de l'Acte de 1925ayant
trait aux dispositions du mandat qui enjoignaient au Gouvernement de
l'Union de promouvoir dans toute la mesure du possible le bien-être
matérielet moral et le progrèssocial des habitants du territoire, ont été
maintenues. Par contre. dans la formule de serment p ré vueDour les
incmbrcs (1,I':\ajemblr'cIc:gislnri\c,la rif&reiice;lu in;incl;itIiit ;liiiiiii~c.
IIen est de iiiiriie dc 1':irtic44 dc la loi (Ir tqzj, qiii cunticnt iinr cl:iujc.
il^ .:iuvce.îrilc touch:int ~e~~~-uit (Ir I'tiiiioii d':itlrniiiijtrcr Ic territoire
et de légiErer à cesujet, et qui dans la loide 1p5 se référaitd'une manière
explicite au mandat. Cette référenceest remplacéedans la loi nouvelle
des c pleins pouvoirs
p& un texte qui traite d'une manièreplus
d'administration et de législation que l'Union exerçait jusqu'ici dans
le territoire en tant que partie intégrante de l'Union n.

1.c ('<,ii,c.dc Tutcllc éi~trel>rit :IIIcoiirs dc s:, ciiiqiiiiiii~: sc~ssiuii
I't:x:~inïn<le1:ic~~iiiiiiiiiiic;itiuii i]uillei 1449(III~~~~r;si~iit:~ ~it~III:L-
C I i n 1 1ni : r II crtrc nr:~ 1 iiiic
résolution l,en date <lu 21 juillet 1949, le Conseilùéciù2à'attirer l'attcri-
tion de l'Assembléegénéralesur le fait que le Gouvernement de l'Union
sud-africaine avait désormais,suivant <a lettre du II juillet 1949. mis
à exécution son intention d'établir une forme plus étroited'association-
entre le Sud-Ouest africain et l'Union et avait décidéde ne plus trans-
mettre de ra~vor.. sur ce territoire. Le Conseil laisait connaître à
I'.Assemhl;,:t~iicle rçliis p:ir Ic Cioiiveriiciiient de 1'Cnion (le pr'-.sciilt:r
cIç i~oii\.cniixrtippurts Ic mettait <InnsI'irn]iujjibilitï cl'cscrcer lzs luiii:.
tioiii dunt le c:linrgi:;~:ir;s~,liitiude 1i\ssciiil,li~Iizi, no\.i.mbre i?)qS.

1 Documents oRiciels <lela cinqui4me session<luConseil de Tutelle. - Résolu-
tions. III (V). page 19 (chemise 38). X. Qirnlrième sessioii de 1'Asseftiblégeénérale;

Au cours de la auatrième sessioii de l'Assembléerénérale.l.,débat
:i1.iQii:iiri;iiic ~oi;iiiils=iii'cii~.i~c~sur la b.ise <leI,.iioiiiiiiiinia::itiuii
,III(;t~u\~erncnlt:i.t~~i~I-.~fric,11 rr jiiiIlrIC).~cJi tlii r.tppbrt (IConscil
CILl.rzll,!. 1.in:l>r;..~erii.,rIVICiiioir ~ii<I-nfri~;~inrie:l,rit Icsprinciliniix
~miriis[Ic I:icoiiiniiiiiic:itiiil,: soi1Coti\~crii~:riiciiett criti~lua poiiir r.ar
point les observatiorij i~ii':~vnitfdires Ic Linseil ,le 'I'iircll~.I'iiiinL:~.
~~ri~cCOcnr~ eI:i~i\ci~~t:i~t rapporl siIr I'~~l~l~i~~~s~ri1 it~1iierrltolrc

Oii Sud-Ouest :frc:ii XII cours cl<:1';iiiiiéc1946. l'lujiriirs or;itciirs
coi~dainiir:reiiiIc (;nii\crri~mïrit (lc 1'l:iiinn sud-africi~iiicpolir I'nttiiiirle
iiiii:~:liii-c:ii\.;iit i~:,I'F::ir<des rl:solutions <II:I'r\sscnilill:ecbnc'rnle.
tertains émirent ?opinion que la loi de 1949constituait virtuëllerncnt
l'incorporation du territoire dans celui del'union, et signalèrent certz'mes
déclarations faites par le premier ministre de l'Afrique du Sud dans le
Parlement de I'Unioii, d'où il résulterait notamment qu'à la suite de la
promulgatioii de lanouvelle loi, l'Union siid-africaine ne reconnaissait
plus l'existence du mandat.
Au cours de la discussion, la question lut poséede savoir si certaines
communications relatives au Sud-Ouest africain reçues par le Prtisidcnt
de la Quatrième Commission et le Secrbtaire généraldevaient être
distribuées en tant que documents de séance, et s'il convenait que la
commission entendit ceux des représeiitaiits des autochtones du Sud-
Ouest africain qui lui eii avaient adressk la demande. Ces propositions

soulevèrent de longs débats de procédure. La commission finit par
adopter une proposition invitant le Secrétaire général à distribuer les
parties (l'unecommunicationconcernant la demande d'audience présentée
par le pasteur Jlichael Scott '.Le pasteurçcott avait informéleprésident
de la Comniission qu'il se trouvait aux htats-Unis à titre de consultant
de la Ligiie interniitionale des droits dc I'liomme et qu'il y était venu h
la demande et aux frais de la tribu des Hererosa.
La commission adouta ensuite une autre résolution 3, Par iaaueiie
elle décidaitd'accorde; une audience à un ou plusieurs reprksentaits de
la popiilation indigènedu Sud-Ouest africain qui auront dûment justifié
de-leur mandat DG la ~résentation de leurs uouroirs. Une sous-commis-
sion fut chargé; d'examiner ces pouvoirs. Îae représentant de l'Union
sud-africaine fit connaitre à la commission qu'il ne pouvait accepter de
siéger à la sous-commission. son Gouvernement estimant que sa Üartici-
pafion aux travaux de la sous-commission pouvait étie interprétée

coniine iine acceptation du principe que la commission avait adopté
dans cette résolution
La souçcornmiss~on examina la seule requêtedont elle était saisie,
à. savoir la <lemaiided'audience dcvniit la Quatrième Commission pré-

' I>ocutnents o~ficiïls dc la quatriùme session <le L'Assemble'e générale.-
Quatrième Commission, - Tutelle. - Comptes rendus analytiques des séances.
1311"" se'ancc.page 239 (chemise 40).
2 Documents officiels de la quatribme session de l'Assemblée générale. -
QuatrièmeConimission. - Tutelle.- ~\nnexe aux comptes rendus analytiques des
séances. :\/C.q/L. 57, page 13 (chemise 41).
S Documcnls otficicls de laquatriémesession de I',ls.sembltc génCrale.-Séances
plSni6rs. - Anncïe aux comptes rendus analytiques des séancesh ,lr18o. par. IO,18'2 ESPOSÉ IIE LI. KERSO (S.~TIONS UXIES) - 16 V jo

sentée par le pasteur Scott. Elle constata que les pouvoirs du pasteur
Scott devaient êtreconsidérés commeétant pleinement valables.
Après avoir approuvé le rapport de sa sous-commission, la Quatrième
Commission décida d'accorder une audience au pasteur Scott. Le repré-
sentant de l'Uni011 sud-africaine déclara que, sa présence pouvant
étre interprétéecomme une acceptation de la décisionde la commis-
sion, sa délégationn'assisterait pas à cette audience.
Le pasteur Scott fit une déclaration verbale au cours de la r3S.i~
séance de la Quatriéme Commission. A la suite de cette audition, la
commission accepta une proposition de la délégationdes Philippines
tendant à faire figurer dans les comptes rendus officiels de l'Assemblée
générale certaiiiesaiinexes auxquelles le pasteur Scott avait fait allusion
dans sa déclaration '.

Au cours de la 139~1~ séance,le représentant de l'Union sid-africaine
déclara qu'en raisoii des événementsqui s'étaient déroulés à la com-
missioii, soi1 Gouvernement avait donné ~our instructioii à la déléea-
tion sud-africaiiie de n'assister à aucun iutre débat de la ~uatrikke
Commission sur la question du Sud-Ouest africain.
La commission passa alors à l'examen des projets de résolution. Une
première proposition de la délégationde i'Indea visait la communica-
tion aux Nations Unies par le Gouvernement de l'Uni011sud-africaine
de rapports sur le Sud-Ouest africain. Le projet de cette délégation
proposait à l'Assemblée d'exprimer le regret de la répudiation par
l'Union sud-africaine de son engagement antérieur et invitait le Gou-
vernement de l'Union à reprendre la présentation de ces rapports.
Ce premier projet de résolutionfut approuvé par l'Assembléeplénière
le 6 décembre 1949 par 33 voix contre g et IO abstentions 3.Dans sa
forme finale, la résolution exprime le regret de l'Assembléegénérale
du retrait par le Gouvernement de l'Union de sa promesse antérieure
de présenter à l'organisation des Nations Unies, pour information,
des rapports sur son administration du Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain.
L'Assemblée confirmeles termes de toutes ses résolutions antérieures
sur la question du Sud-Ouest africain et invite le Gouvernement de
l'Uni011 à reprendre la présentation de rapports à l'Assembléegénérale
et à se conformer aux décisions exprimées par l'Assembléegénérale
dans ses résolutions antérieures.
La deuxiéme résolutionque l'Assemblée générale adopta lors de sa

quatrihe session fut celle relativeà la demande d'un avis consultatif
à la Cour internationale de Justice. Deux projets furent soumis à cet
égard à la Quatrième Commission : celui présenté conjointement par
les délégationsdu Danemark, de la Norvège, de la Syrie et de la Thaï-
lande' proposait à l'Assemblée généralede rappeler ses résolutioiis

' Ilocuments "ficiels de la quatriéme session de l'rlssemblée générale.-
Quntrième Commission -. Tutelle.- Comptes rendus analytiques des séances,
138mcséance, page 285 (chcinis40).
a 1I)ocumentsofficiedeInquatrième sessionde YAssembléegénérale.- Séances
plénieres.-r\nnexe aiicomptes rendusanalytiques des çt'ances. A/r '80,Rapport
de lDocuments officieldeola quatri6me sessine)I'i\ssernblgériéalç- R4soIu-
tions. 337(IV), pages 45-46(chemise 43).
Documentsofficiels de la quatrième session de YAssembléegénéraleSéances
pléniéres.- Annexe aux comptes rendus analytiques desséances.A/r i8o.Ilapport
de la Quatrième Commission. page 6 (chemise 42).antérieures sur la question du Sud-Ouest africain, de noter la teneur de
la communication de l'Union sud-africaine en date du Ir juillet1949,
ainsi que du texte du Sooth.'Vest Africa Afairs Amendine)il Act 1949
et les commentaires sur les dispositions de cette loi transmis par le
Gouvernement de l'union, et de formuler la question h la Cour de la
manike suivante :

o Ouel est le statut iiiternational du Territoire du Sud-Ouest
africain, et quelles sont Ics obligations internationales du Gouver-
nement de l'Union sud-africaine en ce qui concerne ce territoire,
et. notamment
'a) Le Gouvernement de I'Union sud-africaine a-t-il encore des
obliaations internationales en vertu du mandat pour le Sud-Ouest
africain, et, si c'est le cas, quelles sont-elles ?-
6) Les dispositions des chapitres XI et XII de la Charte sont-
elles applicables au Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain, et, si c'est
le cas, avec quelles modalités d'application ? »

Le projet de l'Inde' sur le mémesujet donnait à la question la forme
suivante :
iiCompte tenu des instruments internationaux que la Cour
jugera pertinents, aiiisi que des objectifs et du fonctioniieinant
du système des mantlats,
Compte tenu de la dissolution de la Sociétcdes Nations et de
la résolution adoptéele 18avril 1946 par l'Assembléede la Société
des Nations sur la question des mandats,
Compte tenu des dispositions de la Charte des I'Jations Unies,
et, notamment, des articles 77 et 80,
Quels sont les droits et obligations du Gouvernement de I'Union
sud-africaine en ce qui concerne le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain,
et quel est le statut international de ce territoire ?
a) Le Gouvernement <leI'Union sud-africaine a-t-il notamment
le droit de prendre unilatéralement des mesures touchant le statut
international du Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain ?
b) Dans le cas d'une réponsenégative à la question a) ci-dessus,
qui a compétence pour modifier le statut international du Terri-

toire du Sud-Ouest Africain ? »
A la lumière de la <-liscussionde ces deux projets par la Quatrième
Commission, les délégationsdi1Danemark, de la Norvige, de la Syrie,
de la Thaïlande et celle de l'Inde s'entendirent sur un teste commun
qui combinait leurs propositions primitives'. Les questions y étaient
rédigées commesuit :

c Quel est le statut international du Territoire du Sud-Oucst
africain, et quelles sont les obligations internationales de l'Union
sud-africaine qui en découlent, et notamment,
a) L'Union sud-africaine a-t-elle encore des obligations inter-
~ ~ionales en vertu du maiidat Gour le Sud-Ouest africain. et. . .
si c'est le cas, quelles soiit-elles ?
b) L'Union sud-africaine est-elle tenue de négocier et de con-
clure un accord de tutelle qui placerait le Territoire du Sucl-Ouest
africain sous le régimeinternational de tutelle ?

1 Voir note 4, page 182.
15 c) Daiis le cas d'une réponseiiégative à la question b),le Sud-
Ouest africain est-il un territoire auquel s'appliqueiit les disposi-
tions du chapitre SI de la Charte ?
dl L'Union sud-africaine a-t-elle comvétence Dour modifier

Le projet de résolution ajoutait que le Secrétaire généraljoindrait
aux documents qu'il était chargéde transmettre à la Cour notamment :
le texte de l'article22 du Pacte de la Société desNations, le texte du
mandat Dour le Sud-Ouest africain allemand. confirmévar le Conseil
de la &été des Nations le 17 décembre I@O, les dotuments perti-
iieiits concernant les objectifs et les fonctions du système des mandats,
le texte de la résolution sur la question des mandats adoptée par la
Société desNations le 18 avril 1946. le texte des articles 77 et 80 de la
Charte, ainsi que les renseignements sur les débats auxquels ces articles
ont donné lieu à la Conférencede San-Francisco et à I'Assembléegéné-
rale, le rapport de la Quatrième Commission ct les documents officiels,
y compris les annexes, se rapportant à l'examen de la question du Sud-
Ouest africain lors de la quatrième session de l'Assembléegénérale.
Au cours de la 14om0séancede la Quatrième Commission ',les auteurs
de ce projet de réwlution commun acceptèrent un amendement de la
délégationdu Mexique tendant à prier la Cour de transmettre son avis
à I'Assembléegénérale,si possible avant la cinquième session de celle-
ci. Le représentant de Haïti, qui insista pour que les documents soumis
par le pasteur Scott soient transmis à la Cour, retira un amendement
à cet effet après qu'il fut assuréque ces documents seraient communi-
qués i la Cour comme annexes aux documents officielsde la quatrième
session de l'Assemblée.
Le projet de résolution présentépar les cinq délégationsfut mis au
vote i la Quatrième Commission, en plusieurs parties. Le deuxième
paragraphe du préambule, qui prenait acte de la cominunication de la
délégationsud-africaine du II juillet 1949, fut rejetépar 24 voix contre
onze, et onze abstentions. Une proposition du Guatemala. qui suggérait
par voie d'amendement le libellésuivant de la question àla Cour :
i<Quelles sont les obligations de l'Union sud-africaine en ce qui
concerne le Territoire du Sud-Ouest africain aux termes des dispo-
sitions pertinentes du Traité de Versailles, du Pacte de la Société
des Nations, du mandat de rgzo et de la Charte des Nations Unies ?J*

fut rejet& par 18 voix contre 15, avec 13 absteiitioiis. Les alinéasb)
et c) du dispositif du projet des cinq délégationsfurent éliminéspar
24 voix contre 17 et 5 abstentions.
Deux amendements au texte proposé par la délégation des Philip-
piiies furent également rejetés. Le projet résultant de ces différents.
votes fut finalement adopté par la commission par 37 voix contre 7,
avec 4 abstentions.
A la séanceplénièrede I'Assemblée,le représentant de l'Union sud-
africaine rappela une foisencore la position prise par son Gouvernement
--
' Documents officiels de la quatrieme session de I'Assembl6e g6n-ralQua-
iqomresdance, pages292 et suivantes (chemis40).us analytiques des séances, EXPOSÉ DE .\I.KERSO (SATIOSS USIES) - 16 Y 50 18j

sur la question. II se plaignit de ce qu'au cours du débatde la Quatrième
Commission, la bonne foi de son Gouvernement dans l'accomplissement
de sa tâche ait étédélibérémenm t ise en doute. 11répéta que,de l'avis
de son Gouvernement, l'association plus étroite entre I'Uniori et le
territoire, récemment réaliséeen vertu du Sozith-WestAfrica Affairs
Amendment Act, non seulement n'avait pas excédéla limite du mandat.
iii:titliie,tl~III;,ilIICs':igiss,iitpis tl'iiii ~~iiiiI,i,i.rcc!q~iele rvrritaire
conjcr\air iinc cntit; iliirincre. II protcstl conrr~: I:id>cisioii .~ii';iv:iit
prise I:i C)iintri>iiieCoiiiiiiissioii <l':ii:coriiiiitaii(lieiice:,IIplstcur
Scott et lit reniarqiiïr qiic les tcrincs <l13 premirirc r>~olution~)rol>os<t:
Lxtr 1.1coiiiiiiisjiii I':il>prob.~;iuie I'z\:jeiiitiler gcn;rlL;cI'in\,itarion
qui 5').trou\.ail inclusc 3u C;OU\.~~IICI~,d ~c~IIlJiiiuii sii(l-:ifriz:dene
reprendre la présentation de rapports anticipaient les conclusions de la
Cour internationale de Justice sur la question qui lui était poséepar
l'Assemblée généraledans la deuxième de ces résolutions. En ce qui
concerne celle-ci. le délég- . de l'Union sud-africaine déclara avec force
que ,on Çou\.eriiçineiit croy;iit en la sul)r;~iiiatirdu droit et qu'il a\,ait
uii .cris prufoiid (le ses ohligatioiis eri\,cri Incon~iiiiiiiniittiiriterii~tiun:ilc.
11exprima également la crainte que la question ne soit pas régléepar
l'Assembléegénérale conformément à l'avis de la Cour, mais qu'elle
continue, même aprèsque cet avis aura étédonné, d'êtresoulevée à
l'AssembléeDourdes raisons ~olitioues. Il fit sesréservesouant au libellé
de la questiÔn qui allait êtreLadre&é e la Cour, et en p<rticulier quant
h la liste de documents que l'Assembléedemandait au Secrétaire~énéral -
de transmettre à celle-ci.
Le représentant du Danemark soumit, en son nom et au nom de seize
autres délégations,un amendement à la résolutionde la commission, qui
aioutait un alinéa au disnositif de celle-ci. Dar .e.uel l'Assemblée
<Jcninii<lair:iI;,Coiir de se pronoi1ct.r.]>;irini1i.qiii.iti<inspnrticiiliéres,
sur celle ile sn\.oir si les dispositions dii çhapirrc I de InCliartc étaient
;iiivlic;iblei ;iu 'l't.rritoireiJii Sii<I-01iest:ifrimin et. dniis I'afCir(l.etti\~e
<uêllefaçon.
Le représentant du Danemark, qui avait été le président de la
Quatrième Commissionau cours de la quatrième session, et le rapporteur
de celle-ciau cours de la session précédente,insista sur l'importance qu'il
y avait pour l'Assemblée à obtenir l'avis dela Cour. L'Assemblée,dit-il,
si elle adopte la résolution, disposera à sa cinquième session d'un avis
autorisésur les aspects juridiques de la question du Sud-Ouest africain,
et sera mieux à même de parvenir à une décisionqui aura d'autant plus
de poids qu'elle reposera sur une étude juridique effectuéepar l'organe
judiciaire principal de l'organisation des Nations Unies. La Cour
comprendra, sans aucun doute, déclara le représentant du Danemark,
que l'Assemblée attend d'elle qu'eue élucide entiGrement tous les
problèmes juridiques posés par &laquestion du Sud-Ouest africain.
L'adoption du projet de résolutionet de l'amendement à cette résolution
~ermettra d'ob;tenir. conformément au Statut de la Cour, une ré~onse
détaillée. D'autres 'orateurs. les représentants du Guatemala; des
Etats-Unis, du Royaume-Uni, de la Thaïlande et de l'Inde appuyèrent
également le renvoi de la question à la Cour. L'amendement proposé
conjointement par les dix-sept délégationsassociéesfut adopté par
39 voix contre 6, avec 7 abstentions.
L'ensemble du projet de résolutionfut approuvépar 40 voix contre 7,
avec 4 abstentions.=86 EXPOSÉ DE Y. KERSO (SATIOSS USIES) - 16 V 50

Telle est. hfonsieur le Président et Messieurs les Membres de la Cour.
présentée aussi objectivement et aussi succinctement qu'il m'a été
~ossible de le faire, l'histoire déjà -ongue de la question du Sud-Ouest
africain devant les Nations Unies.
Vous avez pu constater que l'Assembléegénérale a recommandé
d'une manière constante une solution quant au statut futur du tcrri-
taire sous mandat du Sud-Ouest africain que le Gouvernement de
l'Union n'a pas jugé pouvoir accepter.
A côté d'arguments politiques, de nombreux arguments juridiques
furent avancés pour étayer la thèse (le l'Assemblée généraleL.e recours
à la Cour internationale de Justice, en vue de préciserla position juri-
dique et de mesurer l'étendue desdroits et des obligations internatio-
nales de l'Union sud-africaine, avait étésuggéréà diverses reprises tant
par les représentants du Gouvernement de l'Union que par d'autres
membres de l'Assemblée.Finalement, au cours de sa quatrième session.
l'Assembléegénérale ajugé qu'avant de proposer une solution qui,
cette fois-ci, espère-t-on, amènera un règlenient définitifde cette ques-
tion Iiérisséede difficultés, ilétait important qu'elle s'entoure [le l'avis
de la Cour et que, en vue d'arriver une solution acceptable et conforme
aux principes qui servent de base à l'organisation des Nations Unies,
elle mette ainsi à contribution la haute autorité dont la Cour inter-
nationale de Justice jouit auprès de tous les gouvernemeiits qui se
réclament du respect du droit international.

XI. Le dossier transmis à la Corrr

En conformité avec la deuxième partie de la résolution du 6 décem-
bre xaao. le Secrétaire générala transmis à la Cour internationale un
dossi&';& comprend t&s les textes que l'Assembléegénérale a expli-
citement mentionnés. Le Secrétaire général y a ajouté d'autres docu-
ments qui, à son avis, pouvaient servk à éluciderla question et faciliter
l'Dans la première partie du dossier, les membres de la Cour pourront
trouver des dispositions du Traité de Versailles, par lesquelles l'Aile-
magne a renoncé en faveur des Principales Puissances alliéeset asso-
ciées à tous ses droits et titres sur ses possessions d'outre-mer. Le dos-
sier contient égalementdes extraits du Traité de BerLinde xgzr relatif
au rétablissemelit de la paix entre l'Allemagne et les Etats-Unis d'Amé-
rique. A cOtéde l'article 22 du l'acte de la Société desNations et du
texte du mandat sur le Sud-Ouest africain, tel qu'il fut confirmépar
le Conseil de la Société desKations le 17 décembre 1920, le dossier
comprend le texte de la décisiondu Conseil suprêmede la Guerre du
7 mai 1919, relative à l'attribution du mandat sur l'Afrique du Sud
occidentale allemande à l'Union sud-africaine.
La tàche de sélection desdocuments pertinents concernant les objec-
tifs et les fonctions du régime desmandats ne fut pas sans difficulté.
Nous n'avons pas voulu transmettre à la Cour des ,textes autres que
ceux émanant de sources officielles. Parmi ceux-ci, 11aurait peut-être
convenu que nous communiquions les comptes rendus, les rapports
et les actes de toutes les sessions de la Commission permanente des
Mandats. En raison mêmedu volume de cette documentation, il nous
a fallu nous en abstenir. La Cour trouvera, cependant, dans le dossier ST.%TEZIEli Ti'hlr.KERSO (UXITEDSATIOSS) - 16 \, 50 187

certains documents essentiels :la constitution de la Commission perma-
nente des Mandats et son réglernent intérieur, le premier rapport pré-
senté par le Conseil à l'Assembléesur les responsabilités qui incom-
baient à la Sociétédes Nations en vertu de l'article zz du Pacte, avec
aux pétitions, les questionnaires de la Commission des Mandats concer-
nant les mandats iiC »,et enfin unc publication officiellede la Société
des Nations datée d'avril 1945, relative au syst&me cles mandats, à
son origine,à ses priiicipes età son application. Des extraits d'actes
de la dernière session de l'Assembléede la Sociétédes Nations et le
texte de la résolutionquiy fut approuvée ont étéégalement inclusdans
le dossier.
Le dossier comprend également le texte des chapitres XI et XII de
la Charte, le teste des comptes rendus de la Conférence des Xations
Unies sur.l'Organisation internationale de San-Francisco, comportant
la discussioii des articles figurant dans ces chapitres, et l'ensemble
des comptes rendus et des documents des différents organes desNations
Unies qui se sont à ce jour occupésde la question du Sud-Ouest afri-
cain. Une table des matieres et un index faciliteront, je l'espere, le
dépouillen~ent et l'utilisation du dossier.

In this second part of my statement, the Court \riilpermit me to
make a number of observations regardiig the legal problems raised
hy the questions ivhich the Assembly has reierred to the Court for an
advisory opinion.
The questions submitted to the International Court of Justice by
the General Assembly have been iramed in very broad terms.
How should the accepted principles of international law and the
methods of legal interpretation of international instruments and prac-
tices he applied to the complex situation of a territory which has been
administered under a League of Nations mandate, but wh'ichhas not
been placed under the international Trusteeship System ?
In order to facilitate, at least to a certain degree, the task of the
Court, 1 shall attempt to emphasize at the outset wliat was the inter-
national status of theTerritory of South West Africa prior to the disso-
lution of the League of Nations. 1 shall attempt then ta ùetermine
the obligations of the mandatory Power which resulted from this status.
Havine sooken about the dissolution of the Lerieu.,of Nations and its
juricli&;l;ift.ct1,sliall dc\.ott: orle cliaIOctlic stuily of tlic pertiricnt
pro\,isions of tlie Cli.irtcr of the Cnitç~lSntions. 1:iiially. I sli;illatteinpt
to bnng some light on the question as to who has the cornpetence to
determine and modify the international status of the Territory.

1.The international statusof the Territory O/ SouMc-WestAfrica prior
to the dissolzctionof the League of Nations
A. Basic international instrumentsand decisions

mined the status of South-West Africa after the end of the First \VorldISS STATE.\IEST BY 11~. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 16 \'50
\Par should be considered above al1 in tliis respect. These are : first-
Articles 118 and 119 and the following articles of the Treaty of Ver-
sailles; second-Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations :
third-the decision of the Supreine Council of the Principal Allied

aiid Associated Powers allocating the mandates; and fourth-tlic
Mandate for South-West Africa. Tlie examination of these texts leads
to the following basic conclusions :
1. Articles 118 and 119 of the Treaty of Versailles1 represent a com-
plele rent~nciationon the part of Ger~nanyof al1 her rights and titles
to lier oversea possessions. It is therefore unnecessary for us to coii-
sider the status of the Tenitory of South-West Africa prior to IVorld
\Var 1. That it was under the sovereignty of Germany has not beeii
questioned and is inferentially recognized in the opening paragraph
of Article 22 of the Covenant. In the early years of the war, the Terri-
tory was occupied by troops from the Union of South Africa and it
was administered as an occupied territory until the end of the hostili-
ties. 13y Article 118 of the Versailles Treaty, Germany undertook to

recognize and to conform to the measures which might he taken by
the Principal Allied and Associated l'owers, in agreement where necez-
sary witli tliird Powers, to carry iiito effect the renunciation by Germany
of its rights, titles and privilegcs.
z. The rer~z6nciritiobnyGerfnanywas in faveur O/the Principal Allied
and Associated Powers, that is the United States of America, the
British Empire, France, Italy and Japan. It MI1 be noted that the
renunciation was not in favour of tlie League of Xations, iior of the
Union of South Africa.
It will he recalled that while the United States never ratified the
Treaty of Versailles, it reserved for itself in a separate treaty, which
it concluded with Germany in Berlin in 1921 a,al1the rights and advan-
tages stipulated in the Treaty of \'ersailles for the Principal Allied and

Associated Powers, including those in respect of the former Germaii
colonies. The Treat of Berlin also stipulated that the United States
should not be boundYbythe provisions of the Treaty of Versailles relating
to the Covenant of the League of Nations or by any action taken by
the League of Nations, unless the United States should expressly give
its assent to such action.
Notwithstanding this reservation in the Treaty of Berlin, there are
no grounds for the view that so far as the United States is concerned,
its failure toratifytheTreaty of Versailles bas invalidated or weakened
in any way the dispositions made iii the creation and the operation of
the Mandates System. The point is moreover made quite clear in tlie
written statement submitted to the Court by the Government of the
United States in the present caseJ.

3. The Covenant of the League of Nations was an integral part
-- the Treaty of Versailles. Articles 118 and 119 of the Treaty must
' The Treaty of Peace between thoAlliedand Associated Powers and Germany,
28 June,1919.-Part IV. Geman Hights and Intcrests outsideGermany (Folder 1).
Trcaty concerning the re-establishment of peace between Germany and the
United States of Arnerica, signed at Berl25.i\ugust, r9zr (Folder1).
a International Court of Justice.-InternationalStatus of South-\Vest Africa
(Request foran Advisory Opinion).-List of docuinents accornpanying the request:
Written Staternents. p. 93. STATEJIEST BV JI^.KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 16 v jo
189
therefore be read and understood in connesion with Article 22 of the
Covenant.
1 shall not attempt to retrace the genesis of Article 22 ',although
a comprehensive study of the political and humanitarian ideals, the

declarations of statesmen and the political writings, during and imme-
diatelyafter thel'irst \\'orld\Var, on the question of the ultimate disposal
of territories to be detached by the Allies from the enemy States,
would undoubtedly assist in the understanding of the objectives and
the functioning of the Mandates System.
Field hfarshal Smuts' Practical Suggestioit/or F. Leafzre of Nations
has been generally recognized as the main bluepnnt for the Mandates
System. In this plan, published in Ilecember 191s. Field hfarshal
Smuts proposed, with respect to certain territories which had belonged
to the European and Near-Eastern Empires, that the League shoiild
be regarded "as the reversionary in the most general sense and asclothed
with the right of ultimate disposal in accordance with certain fiind-
amental principles. Reversion to the League of Nations would be sub-
stituted for any policy of national annexation." "The delegation of
certain powers to the mandatory State", wrote Field Marshal Smuts,
"must not be looked upon as in any way impairing the ultimate autlio-

rity and control of the League ....For this purpose it is important that
in each sucli case of mandate, the League should issue a special act
or charter clearly setting forth the policy which the mandatory will
have to follow in that temtory. This policy must necessarily Vary from
case to case, according to the deaelopment, administrative or police
capacity and homogeneons character of the people concerned. The
mandatory State should look upon its position as a great trust and
honour, not as an officeof profit or a position of private advantage for
itself or its nationals." Accordingly, Field Marshal Smuts recommended
that the "degree of authority, control of administration exercised by
the mandatory State shall in each case be laid down by the I.eagne
in a special act or charter, which shall reserve to it complete power
of ultimate control and supervision, as well as the right of appeal to it
from the territory or people affected against any gras breach of the
mandate by the mandatory State".

It should be pointed out, however. that the Smuts plan envisaged
application of the mandates only to tlie territories of Eastern Europe
and of the Xear East. With respect to German colonies, he considered
that their disposal should be decidecl according to the principles which
President \Vilson had laid down in the fifth of his fourteen points.
It was only at a later stage in the negotiations between the Allies of
the Treaty of Versailles that the Mandates System was made applic-
able to the German territories in Africa.
The fiftli of President Wilson's famous points read :

Cf. Leagueof I\'ations.-Thealandates System : Origin, Principles. Application
(series of L. of N. Publications-1'A. blandatcs-ig45. \'I. A.r,p. 13.See also
Quincy \Vright, ilfondntes under the L.O/ A'. (1930); David Hunter \liller, The
Dralling a/the Cmcnani. Vols. 1 anclII, 1928): D. F. W. \'an Rees, Les dlaridnls
inlemalioriai~x, Le Co>llrUIcirilewialiorial de I'Adminisfration mo9idalnire. 1'01.
(1927).
Vhe Leagiieof i\'aiions. A PraclLal St,ggerliori. Reprinted in David Hunter
Miller, The Dralling of the Cm,enont.VolIl. p.27. "A free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of
al1 colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle
that. in determinine al1such ouestions of sovereientv. theinterésts
of the populations"concerned must have equal-wééi'ghw t ith the
equitable claims of the government wliose title is to be deter-
mined."

The terms of Article 22 made it expressly applicableto those colonies

and territories which, as a consequence of the war, ceased to be under
the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed tliem, and whicii
are inliabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under
the strenuous conditions of the modern world.
The principle was laid down that the well-being and development
of the peoples of these territories constituted asacred lrrrstof ciililization.
It \vas provided that as the best method for giving effect to this prin-
ciple, tlie tnlelage of these peoples should be entrusted to advanced
nations best fitted to undertake Lhis res$onsibility. It was further
stipulated that this tutelage was to be esercised by these States as
mandatories 01% behall O/ Lhe League of h'atio~fs. \Wh respect to the
colonies formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire-those territories
whicli were to become the "A" Mandates-it was considered that they
had reached a stage of development where their existence as inde-
pendent nations could be provisionally recognized, suhject to the reiider-

ing of adminislratiue advice and assistance by a mar~datory until such
time as tliey would be able to stand alone. With specific reference to
South \\"est Africa and other territories which were to become "C"
i\laridates, it w'asstated that they could be best ndministered under the
laws of tlie mandatory as integral parlions O/ ils lerritory,subject to
safeguards in the interests of the indigeiious population.

4. Paragraph S of Article 22 prescribecl that the degree of authority,
control or administration to be exercised by the mandatory aould,
if not previously agreed upon by the JIembers of the League, be espli-
citly defined in each case by the Council, but no provision was madr
regarding the authority which ivould appoint the mandatory.

Basing Iiimself on the intentions of tlie authors of the Covenant,
on the test of Articles 118 and rrg of the 'l'reaty of Versailles,
&Ir.Hymans, liapporteur of the Council of the League, concluded, and
the Council agreed, tliat the right to appoint mandatory l'owers should
belong to the Principal Allied Powers and that "tlie legal title held by
a mandatory Power must therefore be a double one, one conferred by
the Principal I'owers and the other by the League of Nations" *.
Actually, on 7 May, 1919, several weeks prior to the signing of the
Treaty of Versailles, the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated
Powers took a series of decisions on the allocation of mandates and

' The Treaty of Peace between the Allied and AssixiatePowers and Germany,
28 June. 1919. Part I-The Covenant of the League of Nations (Foldorr).
See League of Nations,RcspasibilifiesO/the Leogue avisingouf ofArticle22
(.%landafes).-Ite bpotretCouncil to the Assembly (zo/48/rGi), pzg(Folder1).
adopted by the Councileseofethe LeagueelgofnNationsmeetinge.atrSan Sebastian.
5 August, 1920,id., page 14. determined that the Jlandate with respect to German South-West
Africa would be held by the Union of South Africa1. This decision was
officiallycommunicated to the I'resident of the Council of the Leaçue
of Nations by a letter from the Prime hlinister of France dated
16 October, rgzo8.

5. While agreeing that the mandatory Powers must, in accordance
with the Treaty of Versailles, be selected by the Principal Allicd and
Associated Powers, the Council of the League held that it wss in the
last resort itself responsible for approving and, if necessary, for drawirig
up the tems ofthe mandates. It decided, bowever, that it was prepared
to receive the proposals of any of its hfembers with regard to theterms
of mandates provided tliese proposals rvere made ivithin a reasonable
time S.
After some delay and several requests on the part of the I'resident
of the Council, MI. Arthur Balfour presented to the Council oii

14 December, 1920, draft mandates which had been prepared by his
Government for several territories, including a draftmandate for South-
\Vest Africa'. On 17 December, 1920, the Council decided, subject
to certain ameodments, to confirm the draft mandate for South-\\'est
Africa.
The preamble of the Mandatec refers to Article 22 of the Covenant
and contains the acceptance by "His Britannic Majesty for and on
belialf of the Uiiion of South Africa" of the Mandate in respect of
German South-West Africa and the undertaking by the mandatory
that the AIandate shall be exercised on behalf of the League of Nations
and in accordance with its ~rovisions.
1 shall return to tlie other provisions of the hlandate in the pari
of mjr statement devoted to the more detailed examination of tlie obli-
@ions of the mandatory Power.

B. Jrrrisfs'discirssionon localion O/socereignty

III the report which 1 mentioned a moment ago aiid which wds
adopted by the Council of tlie League on 5 August, 1920, the liappor-
teur, Mr. Hyrnans, dealing with the question of the determination of
the terms of the mandates, remarked :

"The degree of authority, control or admiriistration is, so far as
'B' or 'C'Mandates are concerned, a question of only secondary
importance. In the former case, as in the latter, the inandatory
Power will enjoy in rny judgment a fi111exercise of sovereignty.
in so far as such exercise is consistent with the carrying out of the
obligations imposed by paragraphs 5 and 6. In paragraph 6, which
deals with 'C':Ilandates, the scope of these obligations is perhaps

1 Id., Annex 2, page 7.
Id.. Annex 6,page zo.
Id., Annex q.page 14.
4 Leagueof Sations Council.-Oficial Jorlrn~1.-Proces-verbal of the Eleventh
Session. page 36.
"emç of Lcague of Nations h1andates.-Republished by the United Nations
(Document Alîo) (Folder r). .-192 STATEZIEST BY .\lr. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 16 V 50

narroaer than in paragraph 5, thus allowing the mandatory Power
more nearly to assimilate the mandated territory to its own 1."

But a little furtlier on and discussing the extent of the League's
right of control, he stated :

"1 shall not enter into a controversy-though this would cer-
tainly be very interesting-as to where the sovereigrity actually
resides. Ive are face to facewith a new institution. Legal erudition
will decide as to wliat estent it can apply to this institution the
older juridical notions ...'"

Throughout the life of the League, this official position of refraining

front an examination of tlie exact location of sovereignty aras main-
tained by ail its orgaiis. This \\-as true not orily because the question
\vas recognized as extremely difficult with chances of agreement small,
but also because at no time did a solution appear indispeiisable in dealing
with the practical problems involving the responsibility of the man-
datory Power before tlie League of Nations.
However, while League organs have observed tliis prudent attitude,
eminent jurists of many nations eagerly accepted hlr. Hymans' chal-

lenge, and there is a wealtli of legal literature on the subject. In spite
of this abundance of legal tlieory, there esists no consensus, nor even
a clearly discernible preponclerance of opinion. In reviewing the liter-
ature on the suhject, it inay be observed that sovereigiity lias been
variously attributed by jurists to the Principal Allied and Associ?ted
I'owersS, to the mandatories4 in their own right or on behalf of the
League of Nations, to the mandated communities 6 or to the League

of Nations'either as such or as representing the international com-
muiiity. Xearly every possible combination of these four basic tlicories
has been advanced, includirig theories of joint, divided and suspended
sovereignty '. Further, mariy jurists have expressed the opinion that

1 League of Kations, Responsibilities of the League arising out of Article 22
(Alandates).-Report by thc Council to the .Assernbly (z0/~8/16i). Annex 4. page 15
(Folder 1).
Id., page 17.
a For example, see Fauchille, in secondpart of his Treatise, Traité de Droit
inlcnzafional Piiblictome r, zmepartie. 1925. p. 849 ; Pottcr, Origirt of lhe Syslem
O/ hrarrdoles it>iderIhe LeogtO/ i\'alions"The American Political Science Review",
\'O].16. So. 4, Sovernber igzz, pp. 563-583.
' For erample, see Rolin. Le Système der hlondats coloniai<x, "Revue de Droit
international et de Législation comparée", troisieme série, tome 1 (igzo), pp. 329-
363 ; Lindlry, The Acyi~isiiion arid Gooarnnzent of Rackward Ièvrilory (1926).
pp. 266-267 ;Diena, Les ~llnndals infernalionaf'x"Académie dc Droit international.
Recueil des Cours", tome 5 (rg24, IV), pp. 215-261.
6 For example, seeStoyanovsky. La Thdorie généraledes Mandats infernafionat<x
(1925) ; Pic, Le Régime da Ma*%datd'après le Traité de Versailles. sowapplicolia
dans le Pro~he-Orienl.. Revue généralede Droitinternational oublic o.vol. 70 irsz?).
PP. 321-371. . - . . -,.
For example, see Lauterpacht, Priuale Law Sources and Analogies of Inter-
national Law (1927). pp. 191-202 ;Schücking and Wehberg, Die Salzt~rigder Volher-
bunder (2nd ed.. ~szd). oo. 688-7rr : Redslob. Théorie de la Sociétédes Nnlionr
(1927). PP. 175-216. .,... . .
' Far example, see Hall, ItrlenlnlimtalLam (Higginç 8th ed.. ~gzq). pp. 158-163 ;
Corbett, British i'earbook of Inlcrlrnfio~raLaw (1924). p. 134.tliere is no sovereignty with I-espect to mandated territoryL or have
argued that esisting conceptions of sovereignty have littlc practical
application to such a novel state of affairs as that presented hv the
hiindates System a.
\Vith the Court's permission, 1 should like to refer very briefly to
some of the arguments which have been advanced witli regard to
these various thëories of sovereignty.
Those supporting the view that sovereignty is in a coiidominium of
the Principal Powers poiiit to the fact that Germany renouiiced its
rights in favour of tliose Powers, and to the absence of an explicit

transfer of sovereignty thereafter. Against this it has been statcd that
the function of the Principal Powers \vas limited to the designation
of the mandatorv and to ~artici~ation in the settine UD of the man-
dates. Upon the performance of this function, it \'as &nid, their rights
under Articles 11s and 119 of the Treatv of Versailles came to an end.
Those supporting the Giew that soqereignty is in the mandatory
Po~ver emphasized the completeness of the posvers of government
possessed by the mandatory. They did recognize that siicli sovereignty
would be subject to the limitations and servitudes set forth in the
Covenant and in the hlandate. The arguments opposed to the view that
sovereignty is in the maiidatory have been numerous, and 1 will cleal
with some of these in more detail in a few minutes wheii 1 consider
the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission. Sliey are based
in part on inferences from the words mandate, tutelage and trust ;
in part ou the incongruity of a State at the sanie time possessing sover-
eignty and administering in the name of the League, and in part on the
absence of the usual legal relations which accompany sovereigrity.
The theory that sovereignty resided in the mandated community
\vas advanced with particular strength with regard to the "A" Alan-
dates, but was also argued with respect to "B" and "C Xandates.
It \vas sometimes stated that the exercise of sovereignty \vas in sus-

pense. Those supporting this view attached particular significance
to the tenn"tute1age" as used in Article 22. and also to the principles
of non-annexation strongly insisted upon at Versailles. Those opposing
the view that sovereignty is in the inhabitants pointed to the absence
in these temtories of a community capable of possessing sovereignty
and to the political immaturity of the peoples.
The publicist supporting theories attributing sovereignty in full or
in part to the League of Nations placed emphasis on the phrase "on
hehalf of the League" appearing in Article 22, and also on the iiecessity
for the consent of the Council for the modification of a iriandate. Some
writers found additional support for this theory in an analogy to the
private law concept of mandate. Against the view that sovereignty
was in the League, it was stated that the powers of supervision given
to the League were not those of a sovereign. A few were of the opinion
that the League \vas not capable of possessing soirereign poivers, while
others who recognized that the League might have sovereignty over
a territory believed that it had not been given such powers in the
case of the mandate.

' Scelle. 1tIanrde Droit irilernalional pub(1g~8) .p. 222-238:Hales. Som8
Legal AspecfsO/ lhe AlandaleSyslenr: Souereignly-l\alionaliii.-Terminaliand
Transfer, "Transactionsof theGrotiuS society", Vol.23 (1938)p.p.85-126.
Oppenheim. InfernolirmulLuw. Vol. 1 (LIcSair. 4th ed.,1gz8).p. 201-215. STATE>IEST BY >Ir. KERXO (USITED SATIOSS) - 16 \' 50
194
In view of these conflicting theories, it is not surprising that a number

af international jurists have expressed the opinion that sovereignty
is not a useful concept in describing the status of the mandates. It
was suggestecl that a new relatioriship had been created under the
Covenant and the mandates, and that the international status of the

territory was to be determined from the terms of these instruments
without attempting to force them into preconceived concepts of sover-
eignty.

C. Cotrrl decisiotts wilh respect to the stalrrs of the m~izdates

Haviiig bnefly considered the theories advaiiced in juristic writings.
1 might also mention the consideration of the status of mandates
which may be found in Court decisions. It will be recalled that the
Permanent Court of International Justice dealt with only one case
arising under the terms of a mandate-the Mavrommatis Palestine

Concessions case '. The maiority opinion of the Court does not deal
directly with the question of the status of the Territory. It does hold
Great Britain, as mandatory, intemationally responsible for actions
in Palestine but it does so under the terms of the Alandate. The Court,

in the course of this opinion, States that "the international obligations
of the mandatory are not, ipso jnclo, international obligations of
Palestine2. A more enplicit statement conceriiing the status of the
Territory is to be found in the dissenting opinion of Judge Busta-
niante, who said : "Great Britain is not the sovereign of Palestine
"
but simply the mandatory of the League of Nations ....
The question of the status of mandated territory has been involved
in a number of national court decisions', and the closely related ques-
tion of the nationality status of the inhabitants has been the subject

of considerable litigation % Perhaps the best known, and most interest-
iiig with relation to the present question, of the cases arising in the

' 5i.vJiiilgineiir Xo. z lJuris<l!crii~iijo .lugust. i92.l. Serin :\.Su r pp. 6-93
lim.,).315iiI>vnolc<lth;ir \dvijnr) OpiiiioiiNi, irof :.iSovember iq?j. c.,iiil:riiing
~ ~ ~ ~ie.i>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~.~.....>, r~~~-m~-r~-hr, ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~l\. i.1L:i~.,nii~,c~n~o~ ~<l

the boundary of Iraq, a rnandated territory. But this case did not concern questions
of the Xiandate ns suc.~~. ... al~ ~~nternational arbitration between Franceand
Alexico involving nationality statuç of inhabitants of rnandated territory, Xavera
Case, Annrtal Digcsf ofJ'riblic I!iternntional Law Cases, 1927-1928. CaseNo. 30,
PP. 52-53.
a Series A, So. 2. p. 23.
Series A, No. 2. p. 81.
Far example Hex o. Christian, South-Alricon Law Reports, 1924. Appellate
Division. pp. 101-137; Ffrost u. Stevenson, 58 C.L.R. (1937). p. 528; Att.-Gen.
u. Garalschwili, L. R. Palestine, 1920-,933. p. 353 ; Rex U. Ketter, 108 L. J. 345,
1 KB 787 (1940). (1939) I ALI. E. R. 729: Talagoa u. Inspector of Police (1927).
2V.Z.L.R. 883 ; Ddegate of the High Comrnisçioner in Alexandretta, Carelfe des

Tribtinat<x libnno-syriens, 3rd year,1927. p. ro~o,Anpiual Digest 1927.1928,
Case Fo.32 ;Antoine Bey Sabbagh v..\Iohamed Pacha Ahrned. Gazefie des Tribu-
naux mixtes d'zgypfe. 18th i'ear, igz,-~g?S, p. 13 ; In re Causshgue and Cot. Sirey.
1930, Part 3. p. 7. An"irn1 Digesl 1929-1930, Case No. rg, p. 30 ; In rdKarl andToto
Sané.Dolloi, 1931. Part 3. p. 36. Sivey, Igjr. Part 3. p. 129. and otber casesnoted.
Annual Digesl 1931-193%.Case So. 22, pp. 48-49 : Re Tarnasese (1929). New Zea-
land, L.R. 209 : Nelson u. Braisby (193~). hTew Zealond Lam Reporfs 559.
See summary of eleven cases by Hales in Tranradions O/the Grotius Socirfy.
1g37. Val. 23, pp. 95-rrz. STATEAIEST Bi'blr. KERSO (UXITED SATIOSS) - 16 V jO 195

courts of the mandatory Powers is that of Res u. Cliristian', decided
by the Supreme Court of the Union of South Africa in 1923.Jacobus
Christian, a leading figure in the Bondelzwarts Rebellion in 1922,
was convicted by the Courts of South-West Africa on the charge of
high treason. The case came to the Supreme Court of the Union by
way of appeal on a question of law relatiiig to the international status
of the Mandate. Put in its simplest terms, the question was whether
the Union of South Africa as mandatory possessed the sovereignty
necessary to maintain a charge of treason. The conviction was affirmed
by the unanimous decision of five judges. Three of the judges (Chief
opinioii that the crime of high treason can be committed against ahe
State ivhich possesses internal sovereignty, even tliough its external
powers may be limited. They held that the Union, as mandatory,
possessed sufficient internal sovereignty, or majestas, to warrant a
charge of treason. The two other judges (Associate Justices de Villiers
and Wessels), iii expressing the view that sovereignty over the Territory
was in the Union, did not distinguish between internal and external
sovereigiity.
In the tour separate opinions written in this case, the position of
the mandated Territory of Soiith-\{'est Africa under the Treaty of
Versailles, the Covenant and the Alaildate is examiiied at length.
1 shall not attempt to present these opinions in full, but should like
to mention a few points of special interest. Chief Justice Innes, in
considering Article 119 of the Treaty of \'ersailles, stated that, while
the expression "renounce in favour of" was used elsewhere in the
Treaty to mean "cede to", it did not have that meaning in Article 119.
The animrrs essential to legal cession was not present on either side.
This, he believed, was not oiily supported by rii ide 22, but also by
a comparison of Articles 254 and 257 of tlie Treaty. Undcr the first
of these Articles a State to whom territory was ceded was compelled
to assume responsibility for a proportion of the German debt, whereas
no such obligation was imposed on the mandatory under Article 257.
This opinion of Chief Justice Innes, although recognizing that South
Africa did not possess full sovereignty, expressed the view that it Iiad
to the sovereignty of another State. It was argued that neither thet
League nor the I'rincipal Powers as such constituted a State, and there-
fore that they could not possess sovereignty. Justice de Villiers devel-
oped this point further by stating tliat while the exercise of sover-
eignty by the Union was limited hy the terms of the Mandate, sucli
limitation did not deprive the sovereign of majestas so long as tberc
was no abdicatioii of sovereignty iii favour of another State.
\i'liile the arguments in these opinioiis have beeri cited in support
of the view that sovereignty is in tlie mandatory, the decision $self
nid not rest on a finding that the Uiiion of South Africa possessed
sovereignty so far as the international status of the Territory was
concerned.
The status of mandated territory has heen the subject of Court
decisions in a number of cases in the Australian Courts. It appcars
that some of the earlier Australian cases imply the existence of sover-

' Soiiih-Alricon Law Reporlr, rgzq.Appellate Division. pp. 10,-137.196 STATEYEST BY Mr. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 16 V 50

eignty in the mandatory. However. in Ffrost u.Stevenson 'now cited
as the leading Australian case, the Colirt considered at length the
nature of the mandates and did not accept the view that sovereignty
had been acquired over the Territory of Xew Guinea. In this case the
High Court of Anstralia was called upon to decide a question relating
to the extent of legislative powers in mandated territories.Chief
Justice Latham expressed doubt whether any light could be tlirown
on the question by coiisidering the npplicability to mandated territo-
ries of a conception itself so uncertain and so disputable as thnt of
sovereignty. The grant of mandates, he thought, introduced a new
principle iiito international law, and he concluded that a mandated
territory is not a possession in the ordinary sense. Justice Evatt in
his o~inion in this same case es~ressed the view that everv recoenized
authirity oii international lawAaccepts the view that the macdated
Territory of New Guinea is not part of the King's Dominions.
~herë are, of course, a large number of cases arising in Palestine
and the other "A" Alandates'. 1 will only mention one of these. The
High Court of Palestine in Attorney-General W. Goralschwili held that
the British Crown had not acquired full sovereignty by accepting the
Mandate for Palestine, and the subjects of thisTerritory had not become
British nationals.

D. Practice of the Per>na~cenM t andates Comnzission

Having surveyed a few of the Coiirt decisions relevant to the status
of maiidated territory, 1 should now like to deal with the practice
of the League of Nations as it reflects on this problem. As 1 noted
earlier in this statement, throughout the practice of the League, the
organs responsible for thc supervision of the Mandates System con-
sistently refrained from any effort to determine the exact location of
sovereignty. 1 mentioned tliat tliis may have been partly due to the
difficulty of the question, but the more important factor seems to have
been that its solution was at no time indisnensable in dealine witli the
practical problems which arose.
However, conclusions were definite on the point that sovereignty
did not rest with the mandatorv Power. The records of the Permanent
Ilandates Commission show thit that body at al1 times assumed the
unequivocal and emphatic view that the mandatory did not possess
sovereignty over mandated territories. This conclusion was also
approved in reports and resolutions of the Council of the League.
Between 1921and 1939, the Permanent Mandates Commission, a
body of experts selected by the Council of the League of Kations for
their personal merits and competence, held thirty-seven sessions in
its capacity as advisor to the Council. It examined the annual reports
in the presence of the representative of the mandatory Power. It
received and examined petitions and considered other matters relating
to the observance of the mandates either at the request of the Council
or upon its own initiative. Discussions of the question of sovereignty
by the Permanent Mandates Commission occurred in connexion with
a variety of questions. 1 can only mention a few of these at this time.

' 58 C.L.R. (ig37),. 528.
L.R. PalesfineIgZO-rg23,p.353. STATEJIEST BY Jlr. KERSO (USITED XATIOSS) - 17 v jo
198
to the people under mandate on the day when they were in a condi-
tion to be emancipated, and to enjoy their full independence'."

Upon the failure of tlie Union of South Afnca to gire a reply satis-
factory to the members of the Commission, the inatter was again the
suhject of discussion and report in 1929 at the fifteentb session of the
Commission.
The Council of the League adopfed resolutions on the basis of the
Commission's Reports on 8 September, 1927, and 13 January, 1930.
The report accompanying the first of these resolutions, adopted by
the Couiicil on 8 September, 1927, recalled the Council's position that
it should not express any opinion on the difficult point as to where
sovereignty over a mandated territory resides. Howerer. with regard
to the legal relationship between the mandatory Power and themandated
Territory, the Report espressed the view that this relationship is a new
one in international law. For this reason. the use of time honoured
terminology in the same way as pre~.iously\ras thought inappropriate
to the new conditions.

The Report accompanying the Resolution of 13 January, 1930,
was more direct in stating that there \vas no reason to modify the
opinion that soverei~ntv in the traditional sense of the word does not
rëside in the mandatory Power.
The Union of South Africa, by a letter of IG April, 1930, stated its
acceptance of the definition of the powers of the mandatory contained
in these Reports to the Council. This letter was noted with great satis-
faction by hlr. Van Rees, Acting Cliairman, at the opening of the
eighteenth session of the Permanent Mandates Commission.

[I'ziblic sitting of hlay rith, 1950, nzornin:]

The question of the status of the inandated territories \vas also
discussed with regard to a number of other subjects considered by
the Permanent Mandates Commission. At the request of the Council,
the Commission studied the prohlem of the national status of the
inhabitants of the "K" and "C" aiandates at its second session in 1922,
and submitted a report to the Council. The Council, by Resolution
adopled on 23 April, 1923'. recognized the principles tliat the status
of tlie native inhahitants of a mandated territory is distinct from
that of the nationals of the mandatory, and that the native inhabitants
are not invested with nationality by reason of the protection extended
to them. This position was based on the view that the mandated tern-
tories were separate from the temtories belonging to the mandatory

Power

' alinutes of the eleventh session,92.
' League of Sations. Oficiol Jorrrnal.Tnenty-fourth Session of the Council.
4th Vear. Xo. 6 (June1923). p. 604.
Fordiscussion in Permanent Mandates Commission, see: hlinutes of second
session. pp.16-20,21. 85-37;Report of second session, League of Kations, Doc. A.
39.1922. \'1 (C. 550.JI. 332.1922VI) ;bIinuteS of third sessip..7:Minutes of
fourth session, pp. izg-126; inutes of twelfth session. pp. roo-IO,, 198:AIinutes
of fourteenth session, pp.ij, 80-81, 208-210.225,274 ; Rlinutes of fifteenth
session .p. 14. 24-27. Oz,65,75,212-2132 .76-27g2.94:Minutes of sixteen11.
session. pp.128-131,155,187- sr 202-203; hlinutes ofeighteenth sessiop. STATE3IEST BY >Ir. KERXO (USITED XATIOSS) - 17 v 50
199
The Council at the same time stated that it was not inconsistent
with tliese principles that individual inhabitants might voluntarily

obtaiii naturalization from the mandatory Power. Special treatment
of the Germans in South-West Africa was also permitted, and legisla-
tion of the Union provided for their naturalization as a group, leaving
them, however, the option to retain tlieir German nationality.
Another problem considered by the Commission in which it was
recognized that the mandated territory constituted a distinct entity
from the international point of view involved the application of special

international conventions to mandated territones 1. The Commission
in the report of its third session accepted the view that even "C" Man-
dates, although administered as an integral part of the territory of
the mandatory, liad a distinct international status,and that accordingly
international treaties signed by the mandatos. State did not apply
de jure to territory under "C" Mandate. The Couiicil of the League,
on 15 Septemher, 1925, adopted resolutions recommending the exten-
sion to niandated territories of international conventions which were

applicable to neighbounng colonies, thus implicitly accepting the
view that those territones possessed a separate status.
The Mandates Commission considered during its thircl and fourth
sessions the question of land tenure arising out of the transfer of property
of the German Government to the mandatory Power under Articles 120
and 257 of the Treaty of Versailles3. In the course of tliis tliscussion,
>Ir.Van Rees yresented to the Commissiona report in which he examined

at length the various views wliich had been put forward with regard
to the "sovereignty of the manclatory Power '".
He concluded that under the Mandates System the rnand;itory State
was merely the governor of a territory which did not belong to it. This

1 Ninutes of the third session, pp110-irr,jog-310; hiinutes of the çixth Session,
pp. roo-,oz. 116-117, 146, 169-170, 172 ; Plinutes of the ninth session. p.IO.
League of Nations, Oficial Jot<ntnT,Thirty-fifth Session of the Council. 6th
year. Xo. io (Octoher rgzj), p. iglr.
qhe texts of these Articles are:
Arlicle 120.-"hl1 marable and immovable properiy in such territories helonging
to the German Empire orany German Stîte shall pass tothe government exercising
authority over such territories,on the terms laid domn in Article 257 of Part IS
(financial clauses) of the prcsent Trcaty. The decision of the local courts in any
dispute as to the nature of such property shall be final."
Article 257.-"In the case of thc former German territories, including colonies,
protcctorates or dependencies. administcrçd by a rnandatory undm Articlc 22 of
l'art 1 (League of Nations) of the prcscnt Trenty, neither the territory nor the
rnandatory Powershall be char~ecl with any portion of thc debt of thc German
Empire O;States. . ~ -
"hl1 property and possessions belonging to the Germa" Empire or to the German
States situated in such territories shall he transferrewith the territories ta the
rnandatory Power in its capacity as such. and no payment shall bc made "or an?
credit given to those Governments in consideration of this transfçr.
"For the purposes of thiç hrticlc. the propcrty and possessions of the German
Empireand of the German States shall he deçmed to include al1 the prapcrty of the
Crown. the Empireor the Statesand private propcrty of the former German Emperor
and other royal pcrsonages."

1:or discussion in Permanentnlandatcs Commission, see Minutes of third session,
pp. zr-22; 30-32. zr6-239, 3"2; Minutes of lrourth Session, pp. 123-124, ~$7,
156-157 ;Minutes of A'inth Session, p. 32.
'Minutes of third session, Annex 2, pp. z17-222.
16ZOO STATEA1l:ST Bi' \Ir. KERSO (UXITED XATIOXS) - 17 1: jO

fact, he thought, should be borne iii mind in interpreting the transfer
of property under Articles 120 and 257. He also noted that under
Article 2j7 the transfer was "to the mandatory Polver in its capacity

as such".
At its fourth session, the Permaiient hlaiidates Commission, upon
the proposa1 of hlr. Van Kees, incorporated into its report 'tlie opinion
that the inaiidatory l'owers do not possess, in virtue of ilrticles 120
and 257 of the l'reaty of Versailles, any right over any part of the Ter-
ritory under niandate other than that resulting from their having
beeii entriisted with the administration of tlie Territory. It was also
suggested that if any legislative provision relating to land tenure shoulcl
lead to conclusions contrary to these principles, it would be desirable
if the text mere rnodified. This opinion expressed by the Permanent
Mandates Commission was endorsed by the Couricil of the League of
Nations in its liesolution of g June, 1926~.
A particular application of this principle may be found with regard

to the Soutli-\\'est-African Railways and Harbours Act of 1gzzS.Accord-
ing to this Act, the railway system and ports of the Territory were
incorporated in the railway system and ports of the Union of South
Africa and vested in the Union in "full dominion". Ali interpretation
of the term "full dominion" was giveii by the Union Government
which was coiisidered by the Commission at its sixth session in 1925
to be in accordancc with Articles 120 and 257 of the Treaty of Ver-
sailles. Howcver, it was suggested that, in order to avoid misunder-
standing, it would bc advisable to amend the law of 1922.
\Vheii Soutli Africa did not take immediate action to amend this
law in accordance with the wish of the Commission, the matter was
called to its attention at the ninth, eleventh and fourteenth sessions.
In the report of the fifteenth session in 1929. the Commission again
noted that it had received no information concerning steps to amend
the Act in order to bring the legal régimeof the railways and harbours

into conformity witli the pi-inciplesof the hlaiidate, the Treaty of Ver-
sailles, and the decision of the Council of tlic League of Nations of
19 June, 1926. Thereafter, the Commission, nt its eighteenth session
in 1930, received and noted with satisfaction a communication from
South Africa informiiig it that the desired amendment hadbeenmade.
The status of tlic l'crritory was also discussed by the Commission
during its consideration of the question of loaiis, advances and invest-
ments of public and private capital4. The Conimission, at its third
session, was impressed by the fact tliat the maiidated teiritories might
be placed uiider an economic disadvantage owing to the uncertainty

' See Alinutes of fourth session of Permanent Alandates Commission. p. 157.
a Forgudiscussion inPermanentJorAlandates Commission, see:6Minutes of third
session, p. 32: alinutcs of sixth session, p. :JIinutes of ninth session, pp. 42-
44.129 and 220; Alinutes of eleventhsession. pp 176,176-177, 193; >linutes
of fourteenthscssion, pp. 71-79115,116and 275; Alinutes offifteenth session.
pp. 76-77.29:4 hlinutesof eighteenth seçsion, pp. 130,204.
' Fordiscussion in the l'emanent Alandates Commission. see :%linutes of third
session,pp. 76-78. go. 161,191,197-1993 ,11-312;Alinutes of fourth session.
pp. 140-1411 ,46:nlinutes of fifth session, pp. 154.1,61-1621,76-180M ;inutes
ofsixthsession,pp. 52-541,17-119 145,151.1531,54-1561.56-r58 171-17;2Alinutes
of seventh scçsiun, p. 6., ST.%TEZlEST BY AIr. KERSO (usITED S:\TIO'IS) - 17 V jO 201

in tlieir status, pnrticularly with regard to the possibility of revocation
or transfer of the Mandate '. 1 shall return to the disciission of revoca-
bility, wliich the Commission considered highly theoretical, in a
latter part of tliis statement. It may be mentioned Iiere that the Com-
mission considered that a pronouncement by the Council of the League,

tending to remove the lack of confitlence arising from the uncertainty
of status, would greatly promote the economic prospects of the Territory.
The Commission subsequently, at its sisth sessionz, recornmended that
the Councildeclarc that obligations assumed by a mandatory Power in a
iiiandated territory and rights of every kind regularly acqiiired under
its administration sliould have under al1 circumstances the same
validity as if tlie inandatory Power werï sovereign. It furtlicr recom-
mended that the Council should decitlc that : "In the event of a cessa-
tion of a inandate or of its transfer-liowever improbable this may
be-to a fresli mandatory Power, the Council, ivithout whose ayproval

no such change could take place, should not give such approval unless
it has been assured in advance that the iiew government undertaking
the administration of the Territory will accept responsibility for the
fulfilment of the financial obligations rcgularly assumed by the former
mandatory Power and will engage that al1 rights regiilaf?y acquired
under thc ad~ninistration of the latter sliall be respected.
The Council considered this recommendation during its 35th Session.
31.Undén, in his report to the Council on rj September, 1925, noted
that the test as proposed by the Commissionused the word "sovereign".
This, he tliouglit, raised certain complicated questions of international

law which it did not seem necessary to take up at that time. The
paragraph was. tlierefore, redrnfted in order to eliminate reference to
the word "sovereign". The rcsolutiori, as adopted, declared that the
validity of financial obligations assunied by a mandatory I'ower ou
I~ehalf of a mandated territory in conformity with the provisions of
the Mandate and al1 rights regnlarly acquired under the mandatory
régime were in no way impaired hy the fact that tlie territory was
administered under inandate
Mr. Van Rees,. in referring to this resolution, remarked diiring the
eleventh session of the Commission that this question would never

have arisen if the Council had not taken the view that these territories
did not helong to the Powers which exercised the Mandate over them4.
The question of sovereignty, particularly as it related to South-
West Africa, was also raised in the Commission in counexioii with
the South-\\'est Africa Constitution Act of 1925 in coniiexion with
the resolution of the South-West Africa Assembly of 1934concerning
incorporation of the Territory as a fifth province of the Union O, and
--
Ilinutes of third session, pp. 311.312.
1 alinutas of sixth session, pp. I71-I7?.
a League ofSations, OficioJlottrnal, 6th year. So. 10.pp. 1510-1511.
J Permanent Alandates Commission, Alinutes ofeleventh session, pp. 87-88, See
also Report of hl. van Blokland, adoptcd t>ythe Council on 8 September, 1927.
Ofictol Jor~rnol.8th year, p. Irm.
6 Permanent Mandates Commission, hlinuteç of ninth session, {>p. 33-35.
a Permanent Mandates Commission, i\liniitcs of wnd session. pp. 23-25 ;nIinutes
of 23rd session. p. 8;Alinutes of26th session, pp. 46-52. 62-64, 163-166, 167, 2;7
Alinutes of27th scsçiaii. p.12 ; Minutes of 29th session, pp. 126-125. 166, zrr ;
alinutes of 30th session, p. 13; Minutes of 3ist session, pp. III-rr6, r75. 192 ;
,\linrites of jjrd snsion, pp. 140-iqr. 17;.\linutes of34th session. pp. 74-76.202 STATEaIEST BY >Ir. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - I7 Y jO

in connexion with several statements made by South-African statesmen
which the Commission considered to state incorrectly the relationship
of the Union to the mandated Territory. Field hlarslial Smuts, in a
lettcr to hf. Rappard, Director of the Mandates Section of the League
Secrctariat, in 1922 referred to the fact that under Article 22 South-
West Africa coula he administered under the laws of the Union as an
intcgral portion of its territory and stated the view that the "C" Man-
dates are in effect not far removed from annexation '.Field hlarshal
Smuts further amplified this position in a statement hefore the South-
African Parliament which \vas called to the attention of the nintli
session of the Permanent RIanclatesCommission in 1926. In this state-
ment, he said that the Mandate gives the Union "such complete power
of sovereignty not only admiiiistrative but legislative that we iieed not
ask for anything more". Hc continued : "When the Covenant of the
League of Nations and, subscqiiently, the Mandate gave to us the right
to administer that country as an integral portion of the Union, every-
thing was given to us. 1 remember at the Peace Confereiicc one of the
great Powers tried to modify thc position, and, instead of saying 'as ali
integral portion', an amendmeiit was made to introduce the mord 'if',
so that it should read-'as if an integral portion of the inandatory
Power'. But, after consideration, the 'if' was struck out. \Ve therefore
have the power to govern Soutli-\\'est Africa actually as an integral
portion of the Union'."
The members of the Permanent hlandates Commission were quick
to state their opposition to this position. &Ir.Van Rees remarked that
the Mandates Commission Iiad always interpreted paragraph 6 of
Article 22 of the Covenant in the sense that the mandated territory
should be administered"as if it were an integral portion of the tem-
tory of the mandatory 2". Sir Frederick Lugard at the same time stated
that he did not think that the insertion or omission of the word "if"
made any real difference in practice Mr. Orts did not believe tbat what
liad been said during the discussions preceding the adoption of the
Covenant could be used as an argument, as no minutes had been kept
of the Conference, and RI. Rappard concurred in this view hI. Merlin
stated "that the 'C' Mandate for South-West Africa laid upon the
mandatory the same obligations as the 'B' Mandates, except that
concerning economic equality. Both 'B' and 'C' Mandates involved
the obligation to present an annual report and recognized the right
of the inhabitants to present petitions. These were the points which
made it impossible to describe the inandates asan equivalent to annex-
ation '."
Mr. Van Rees, at the eleventh session, after a review of a number
of the decisions of the Council and of the Commission, concluded "that
on no occasion had the Commission or the Council, or the mandatory
Powers themselves, ever agreed to recognize that mandated territories

Annex to the Rlinutes of the second session of the Permanent Mandates Com-
mi'sPermanent AIandates Commission, Minutes of ninth session. p. 33.
" Ibid.. p.34. STAT1:MEST B\. 31r. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - I7 V jO 203

formed iii reality an integral pnrt of the territory belonging to those
Powers 1".
Somewhat similar discussions of the proper conception of the man-
date ensued with regard to other territories. 1 might mention, for
example, discussions which took place at the 10th session of the Com-
mission in 1926and at the 12th session in 1927with regard to statements

concerning the status of Western Samoa. At the former sessioii, great
satisfaction was expressed with regard to a statement by the Governor-
General of New Zealand that "Western Samoa is not an integral part
of the British Empire, but a child of which we have assumed the guar-
dianship2". On the other haiid, nt the latter session the followingyear,
the Chairmari of the Commissioii viewedwith concern a statementmade
by the Administrator during the celebration of the King's birthday
which referred to Western Samoa as "part of the British Empire 8".
The representative of New Zealand assured the Commission that
the Xew Zealaiid Government was content to accept the view ivhicli,
if he remembered rightly, was taken by the Commission, that a new
sort of relationship, unknown in,international law hitherto, had been
created by the mandates.

II. ObligaliottsO/ the U?zio?z O/ South Africu frriderthe Mandnte

Having thns commented on the general question of the international
status of the inandated territory before the dissolution of the League,
1 will now endeavour to list briefly the specific obli~ations of the Union
of South Africa which arose under the Mandate. 1 shall examine in.
this respect the obligations which have their source in Article 22 of
the Covenant and in the Mandate for South-l\'est Africa. 1 shall also

refer to certain ~ractices whicli have develoued durine the ~eriod when
the organs of t6e League of Nations have éxercisedtheir iunctions of
supervision over the administration of the mandated territories. Onlv
thbs can the exact nature and extent of the duties espressly enumerated
in Article 22 and in the Mandate be fully measured. In this connexion,
may 1 recall that the General Assembly of the United Nations, in para-
graph 2 of its Resolution, refers not only to the Covenant of the League
and the Mandate for South-\\'est Africa, but also to the objectives
and functions of the Mandates System.
Article 2 of the Mandate for South-West Africa' gives to the man-
datory full powers of administralion ad legislation over the Territory
under mandate. As in the other "C" Mandates, it authorizes the inan-
datory to administer the Territory as an integral portion of the Union
of South Africa and to apply the laws of the Union of South Africa
to the Territory subject to sucli local modifications as circumstances

may require. The extent of these powers of administration and legis-
lation is, however, qualified by the objectives prescribed by Article 22
of the Covenant and the Mandate itself. Article 22 of the Covenant
refers in general terms to the "well-being and development" of the
inhabitants and provides in its paragraph 5 for certain "specific safe-
guards". The Mandate provides for corresponding "securities" for

1 Ifinutes of the eleventh sessip. 88.
a Ilinutes othe tenth session, p. 24.
4 FoldereI.of the tnelftsession,p. 103.204 STr\TE\lEST Bi'.\Ir. KERSO [USITED SATIOSS) - I7 1'jO

the "performance" of this "sacred trust of civilization". Its Article 2
prescribes that the mandatory shall promote to the utmost tlie material
and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants of the Terri-
tory. Article 3 prohibits slave trade and forced labour except under
specific conditions ; it regulntes the traffic in arms and ammurlition
and forbids the supply of intoxicating spirits and beverages to the
natives. Article 4 restricts military training of the natives and prohibits
the establishment of military or naval bases or fortifications. Article j
guarantees freedom of conscience and religion, subject only ta the
maintenance of public order and public morals. It allows missionanes

to enter into, trarel and reside in the Territory for the purpose of
pursuing their calling.
These obligations with respect to the administratioii and legislation
of the Territory clearly have an iittersatioiial character.Uiider Article 6
of the Mandate, the inandatory is to present to the Couiicil of the
League an annual report to the satisfactiotz of the Coz~ttcil,as to the
measures taken ta carry out the obligationsassumed under Articles z,
3. 4 ""d 5.
The Council of the League very early gave expression to its views
as to the extent of the right O/ coiztrolto be exercised by the League of
Nations. The report of M. Hymans, adopted by the Council on 5 August,
1920 1,stated the following :

"\\'bat irdi be tlie responsibility of the mandatory Power before
the League of Xations, or in other words in what direction will
the League's right of coiitrol be exercised ?1sthe Council to content
itself rvith ascertaining that the mandatory Power has remained
within the liniits of the powers which were conferred upon it,
or is it to ascertain also whether the mandatory Power has made
a ~ood use of these oowers. and whether its administration has
cunforiiicrltu tlic iiit<rrsts "i tl.: n.iti\c pul,iil:itiuii?
Ir :ipl>r.~rsto me tlint tlic \i..(lcrintrrl>rzt:ition slioiilrlbt:niIolirecl.

Pnrnjirnl>lij r 2nd 2 of :\rticlc 22 h2t.e indicarcd the spirit \r.liicti
st.ould iiispirv ttiose \vho :ire entriisted witti :i<lniinistcri~igI>~:IIIIII.>
not yct c;ipnblé t>fgovcriiiiig ili~~riis~lvcsa.iirl Ii:i\.e t1~termiiic.d
tliït tliis tutclrice slioiilil be csercis~~<IlI\. trie States in oiicîiiuii.
as mandatories and in the name of the ~éague.The Annuai Report
stipulated for in Article 7 should certainly include a statement
as to the mhole moral and material situation of the peoples under
the niandate. It is clear, therefore, that the Council also should
examine the question of the whole administration. In this matter,
the Council will obviously have to display extremc prudence, so
tbat the exercise of its right of control should not provoke any
justifiable coniplaints, aiid thus increase tlie difficulties of the
task undertaken by the niandatory Power."

In its report to the First Assembly l,the Council summarized its
views in the following way :

' League of Sation4.-Responsibilities of the Lea~ue ariçing out of Article 22
(klandates): Reportby the Coundl to the Assembly. :\nnex 4, page 17 (Folder 1).
' League of X*'ations.-Responsibilities of the 1,eague arisinout of Article 22
(Mandates) : Report by the Council to the Assembly, page 3 (Folder 1). "With regard to the responsibility of the League for securing
tlie observance of the tenns of the Ifandates, tlie Council inter-
prets its duties in th'isconnexion in the widest manner.
Nevertheless, the League will ob\riously have to display extreme
prudence, so that the exercise of its rights of control should not
in any way increase the difficulties of the task undertaken by the
mandatory Powers."

The aizrrirnlreports submitted by the mandatory Powers served as
the chief source of information at the disposa1 of the Permanent Man-
dates Commission. They were prepared on the basis of a detailed ques-

tionnaire ', drafted by the Commission for the purposc of indicating
the points with which it desired the niandatory Power to deal. The
reports and the annexes did, in fact, cover the wliole field of activity
of the various branches of the administration of the tcrritory and
contained in particular specific questions on the status of the tern-
tory, the status of the native inhabitants, international treaties or
conventions applied to the terntory and the extent of legislative and

executive poxvers delegated to the chiel administrative officer. Under
a Council Resolution of zg August, rgzq, the mandatories were required
to attach to their annual reports the complete test of al1 legislatire
or administrative decisions adopted in the mandated territories.
The Constitution of the Permanent Mandates Commission' which
was approved by the Council on I December, 1920 (a date prior to the
confirmation of the Mandate for South-West Africa on tlie 17th of the
same month), provided for the appointment hy the mandatid Powers

of a "dulv ntlthori~~d rrefiresentatiue"throuali whom the aniiual reports
o~ ~~i~ mindato~~~2owi-s were to be tr~~initted. ~~~~~~,and who woufd be
prepared to offcr any supplementary explnnations or supplementary
information whicli the Mandates Cominisrion miaht request. The Com-
mission was to examine each individual report Tn the'presence of the
special rcpreseotative who had the right to pnrticipate with absolute
freedoin in the discussion of the report.
As pointed out in the study of the Mandates System published by
the Secretariat of the League of Natioiis in 1045 tlie hearing of the

accredited representative generally enabled tlie Commission to make
good any deficiency in the written information nt its disposal, to clear
np obscure or doubtful points, to dispel any misunderstandings and
thus to eliminate the possibility that its conclusions might be based
on incomplete data. The presence of special representatives, particu-
larly rvhen they rvereofficiaispersonally responsible for the administra-
tion of tlieterritory, proved of thegreatest assistance to the Commission

in tlie performance of its tasks. It afforded an opportuiiity for the
discussion, not only of questions arising out of the esamination of the

' League of Nations (A. 14. 1926. VI) B and C R1andates.-List of questions
which the l'errnaneiit Xnndates Cornmision desires shoiild be dcvlt with in the
Annual Reports of the mandatory Powers (Folder 1).
League of Sationç.-Responçibilities of the League arising out of Article 22
(AIandatcs) :Report by the Council to the hssembly, Annex 14 page 34. Seealso
Lengue of Sntions (C.P.M. 8(2)),Permanent R1;indates Commission, Rules of
Frocedure (Folder 1).
Lcague of Nations.-The Mandates System : Origin. Principles, Application,
page 39 (Folder 1).annual reports, but also of any questions of a general nature regarding
tlie mandatory régime.As a result, there grew up a genuine co1labor:r-
tion between the Commission and these representatives.

The question was also coiisidered by the Commission whether it
might ntake aitinvestigation 01,the spot of the conditions in a inandated
territory. Some members were of the opinion that the Commission was
entitled to ask the Council to send a visiting mission into a mandated
territory about \vliiclitlic Coniiiii.;sioiiilcsirccliiinrc iiifr,nn;,tiuii 1\\.:as
av;iil:tblc tliruii~l~tlie urclin:iry soiIrces. Hoii.c\.cr. tlicr15 ito inst:iiicc
III ivhtçh tlir Coiiirni,iion cli<luialerr:~k<:siicli ;i visit tri :Ini:$i~d:ire~l
territory, nor \\,as there any disposition on the part of the Council to
give such authorization, although the Council itself in several instances
did send special commissions to maiidated territories in cases of an
inquiry coiicerning a question pending hetween two States which
had been referred to the Council by the parties concerned '.

The Commission had as a further source of informatiori a variety of
documeiits collected by the Nandates Section of the Secretariat, which
was instructecl by the Commission to submit to it any pi~blicationsor
doczimentswhich mieht be of interest to it and to ~rovide it with infor-
mation regarding ezpressions of public opinion throughout the world
concerriin~ the Mandates Svstem. The materials thus collected were
not only-official documeiitS, such as the recorcls of parliamentary
debates concerning mandated territories, but also information emanat-
ing from private sources, such as scientific stuùies or articles published
in reviews or in the claily press.
The practice ivhich developed under tlie alandates System with
regard to the righl of petitio~t has especially beeii mentioned in the

General Assembly. There ivas no express provision in the Covenant
iior in the Mandate concerning the right of petition. Xor was there
refercnce iii tlie Hymans Report or in the Constitution and original
rules of procedure of the Permanent Mandates Commission to this
subject of petitions. Nevertlieless, the right of petition was soon recog-
nized as a factor of fuiidamental importance in the esercise by the
1-eague of tlie functions of supervision under the blandates System,
and as constituting not orily a means whereby those concerned might
state their grievances and secrire redress for wrong done them, but.also
an additional source of information.
On 31 January, 1923, the Council of the League adopted rules of
procedure iii respect of petitions regarding inhabitants of mandated
territories2. It was poiiited out in the report by hl. Salandra that

'The investigation of the causes of the Bondelrwarts rebellion in South-\\'est
Africa and of its rrpresçion\vasmatle by a commission of inquiry appointed by the
mandatory Power. This commission \vas appointed following asuranceç given to
the Assembly of the League by the mandatory that a full and impartial inquiry
would be made. The reports of this commission of inquiry mere studied by the
Permanent Alandates Commission. See Hesolution of ~\sseinbly of League of Xations.
20 Septeinber. 1922, League of Sations, Records of the 3rd j\sçembly, Plenary
hleetings. \'ol.i. page ,156;Report on the Bondelrwarts Rebellion, Permanent
hlandates Commiçsioii, Anncxes to the Minutes of the third session, 20 July-
roAugust, ,923, pp. 290.296 ;and Report and Kesolution of Council of League of
Sationç, Oficial Jounrol, 27th Sessioii of the Council. 5th YearSo. 2 (February
1924).PP. 339-341, 391-391.
League of Nations, Oficial Journal, 4th Year. So. 3, Alarch 1923.-Twenty-
third Session of the Council.-Procedureinrespect of petitions regarding inhabitants
of mandated territories (Annex 457) [C. 44 (1).Il. 73. 1923. VI] (Folder 1). STATEBIENT BY >lr.KERNO (USITED NATIOSS) - 17 V 50 207

"as administration is exercised by the mandatory l'owers on behalf of
the League of Xations, the latter could not remaiii deaf to the pleas
of those wlio are directly or indirectly concemed in a jnst applicatioii
of the principles contained iii the Covenant '".
On the other hand, however, hl. Salandra noted that "important
as it is in the interests of justice and of peace that every serious and
sincere petition should be impartially investigated by the League
of Nations, it is no less important, in the interests of justice and of
good government, to discourage seditious or trivial petitions by persons
whoçe motives may be either culpable or frivolous 2".

The question whether the Commission migbt give an oral hearing
to petitioners was considered at some length by tlie Commission and
the Connci13.Tlie Commission,in tlie report of its ninth session, adopted
the view that experience had shown that the Coinmission had been
unable at times to form a definite opinion as to whether certain peti-
tions were well fonnded and that in those cases it might appear
indispensable to allow the petitioners to be heard. The Commission,
however, the report continued, did not desire to formulate a definite
recommendation on this subject before being informed of the views
. of the Counci14.
The Council requested the views of the inandatory Powers on tliis

question. In their replies submitted to the Couilcil, these Poners were
unanimous iii opposition to the hearing of petitioners. They stated
that with such a procedure the parties would in fact be engaged in
a controversy before the Commission and they thought that any proce-
dure which \vould transform the Commissioninto a court of law woul<l
be inconsistent with the nature of the mandatory system.
The Council, in a Resolution adupted on j Marcli, 1927,having takcn
note of the replies of the inandatory Powers, decided tliat there was
no occasion to inodify the procedure which had hitherto been followed
by the Commission in regard to the hearing of petitioners. The report
accompanying this Resolution, however, recognized that if in any

particular case the circumstances should show that it was impossible
for al1 necessary information to be secured by the usiial means, the
Council could decide on snch exceptional procedure as might seem
appropriate and necessary iri the particular circumstances j.
A further important factor to note in considering the obligations
of the mandatory Power was the provision in Article 7, paragralih I,
of the Mandate for South-West Africa, that the consent of the Council
of the League of Nations was required for any modificatioitof the terrns

Voir note 2. p. 206.
League of Nations, Officiai Joirrnal, 4th YeXo. 3, Jlarch ,923. Twenty-thiid
session of thc Council.-Procedure in respect of petitions regarding inhabitantof
rnandated territories (Annex 457) [C. 44 (1).hl. 73. 1923. \'Il. Ser! FoldI.
See forexnrnplchlinutes of the third session, Permanent Mandates Commission,
pp. 62, 64-67 ; Minutes of the eiglith session, Permanentilfandates Comrnissiiin.
pp. 157-160 jninth session, pp. 47-54. 55-56, 129-130. 189-193. 216: 41st sessior>
of the Council, Oficial Journal, October igzG. pp. 1231.1237, ,239. Oficial Jozrrnnl.
Uecernber rg2G.pp. 1646.1653 ;44th session ofthe Council, Ofici01 Journal. April,
1927Minutes of the ninth session, p.?rG.
5 League of Sations. Ofidal Jaicrnal, 44th Sessionf the Council (April l<)27),

PP. 437-438208 STATEZIEST BY Jlr. KEKSO (USITED XATIOSS) - 17 V jO
of the Alandate. 1 \vil1only mention this point now, since 1will coiisider
it more thoroughly with regard to the question concerniiig the inodi-
ficati011of the present status of South-\\'est Africa.
A final obligation of the Union of South Africa as iiiandatory is
that established by Article 7, paragraph z, of the Mandate. Uiider
this paragraph the mandatory agreed that, if any dispute whatever
should arise between the mandatory and another Member of the League
oi Nations relating ta the interpretation or the application of the provi-
sions of the Mandate, sucli dispute, if it could not be settled by iiego-
tiation, should be subinitted to the Perntaïle~ztCotirt of I~ttcrrznlionnl
Justice.

III. Tlte dissoltitiot~of the Lcagire of Nations

These are the few comments 1 wished to make on the iiiternational
status of the inandated Territory of South-\l'est Africa and on the
international obligations which devolved from it upon the Union of
South ilfrica. It wvillbe of interest at this point to esamiiie in detail
the precise circumstaiices iii which the dissolution of the League of
Nations took place and the conditions governing the assumption by ,
the United Nations of a iiumber of League functioiis.
It should first be recalled that when the Assembly of the League
met at its last sessioii to take the necessary steps for the methodical
dissolution of the League, the way Iiad already beeii partly cleared.
The great majority of League Members had taken part in the San
Francisco Conference ; the Uiiited Nations Charter had come iiito force ;
during the first part of its first session, the General Assernblyhad adopted
resolutions relating to certain of the functions previously performed
by the League.
Les us recall briefly the contents of these Resolutions of 12 I'ebruary,
1946
1. '4s regards the functions and powers belonging to the Leagiie of
Nations by virtue of inlerrratiotialagree~~tentst,he General Asseiiibly
of the United Nations \vas in principle ready to assume certain of these
functions and certain of these powers. More particularly, the Geiieral
.4ssembly declared itself ready :(a) to assume on behalf of the Uiiited
Kations the ftrnctioics O/IIsecrelariat; (b)to proceed wnth the neci:ssary
measures to assure the uninterrupted esercise of the fuiictions and
powers of a techtiical atid iton-political character; (c) to esamine itself
or to submit to the competent organsof the United Nations any r(:quest
from the parties that the Uiiited Nations should assume the exercise
of the functions and powers of a political character.
z. As regards the non-political functions and activities of the 1.eague
of Nations other than those wliich had devolved upon it by virtue of
international agreements, the General Assembly of the United Nations
invited the Economic and Social Council to proceed to a complete
examination, with a view to determining those which should be assumed
by organs of the United Nations or of specialized agencies. In a tem-
porary capacity the Council was to assume immediately the tasks
previously fulfilled by the following sections of the League: the eco-
nomic, financial, transit, public health and opium. The Secretary-General
received the task ofassuring the coiitinuity of the serrices oftheLibrary,
the Archives and of the publication of the Treaty Senes.210 ST.ATE\IEST Bi' air. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 17 V jO

Desiring to promote, so far as lies in its power, the continuation,
development and success of international co-operation in the new
form adopted by the United Nations ;
Considenng that, since the new organization has now com-
menced to exercise its fuiictions, the League of Nations may be
dissolved ;....1''

The dissoliition of the League was effectedby this General Resolution
and by a number of resolutions on specific subjects. Here are the titles :
(1) the Dissolution of the Permanent Court of International Justice ;
(2) the Assumption by the United Nations of the Functions and Powers
previously exercised by the League of Nations by virtue of inter-
national agreements ; (3) the Assumption by the United Nations of
Actiaitiei hitherto performed by the League of Nations; (4) hlandates ;
(5) Interiiational Bureaux and other International Organs placed
iindcr the direction of the League of Nations or brought into relation
with it ;(6) International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation.
Let us examine specially the Kesolution on Mandates.
. In submitting this Kesolution to the Plenary Assembly, together
with tliose concerning the bureaux placed under the direction of the
League of Nations and the International Institute of Intellectual
Co-operation, the rapporteur, Professor Bailey, stated :

"The Assembly comes now to three major activities of the
League, which as activities of the League will, of course, from now
on be brought to their termination. That does not mean, however,
that the activities themselves as international activities will come
to an end. It means ratber that they will be continuecl in some
other form.
........................

Althou~h the imniediatc Drocess on whicli the Assemblv is
engaged k a process of techn'ical dissolution, it is only part if an
essentially constructive and continu in^ process in the work of
-.
international organization 2.''
'She Kesolution on Mandates was unanimously adopted on IS April.
1946, \\+th the sole abstention of the Egyptian delegate. Let ils recali
the terms of the last two paragraphs of this KesolntionS :

"3. Recognizes that, on the termination of the League's existence,
its functions with respect to the mandated territories will
come to an end, but ilotes that Chapters XI, XI1 aiid XII1 of
the Cliarter of the United Xations embody principles correspond-
ing to those declared it~Article 22 of the Covenant of thc League ;
4. Takes note of the expressed intentions of the hlembers 01the
Lengue riow administering territories under niandate to continue
to administer tkiem for the well-being and development of the

' League of Sations, Oficial Jorirnnl,Records of the 20th (Conclusion) and
Twenty-first Ordinary Sessions of the .Assemhly,page 281.
"eague of Sations, Oficiol Journal. Records of the 20th (Conclusion) and
zistOrdinary Sessions ofthe hssernbly, page 55 (Folder 1).
Lengue of Xations, Oficial Journal, Special Supplernent So. 194. Records
of the 20th (Conclusion) and zist Ordinary Sessions of the r\ssemblAnnex 24 (c)
(Folder 1).212 S.T:\TE~IEST BU m. XEHSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 17 v go
the riglits and al1the obligations of the League of Natioiis '.The United
Nations [nad: clear its political intentions with regard to the future

statiis of tlic inandated territorics, but did not formally declare, either
in the Charter or in any of the decisions of the General Assembly, that
it assumecl the functions of the Leagiie of Natioiis with regxd to the
siipervisioii of the hIandates System. Xor has there been any agreement
between the United Nations aiid the tinion of Soutli Africa in this inîtter.
Secondly, it may be said that the supervision and the control of
the League of Nations over the engagements undertaken by the man-
dstory Powers has disappeared, and that the functions of the League
of Kations have not been formally undertaken by the Uiiitcd Nations.
Further, it mny be said that this supervision and this control form such
an essential part of the System tliat their disappearance must ncces-
sarilv entail the disau.earaiice of the Svstem itself and the oblieati"ns
resurting tlierefrom.
I:inally, whatever may be the situation concerning these two ordinary
causes of extinction .of iiiternational obligations, it may be argued
that tlie disappearance of the League of Nations constitutes a ne+\,
factor aiid such a considerable chance th-t the doctrine of rebzls sic
stnntibt~ssliould apply.
Let us consider now the view according to which the Rlaiidate remains
iii force despite the disappearaiice of the League of Nations. Accord-
ing to this vie>+.i,t iuay be argued that the eugagemeiits had been under-
taken towards the League of Nations because at that time it was thc
persoiiification of the international community. The League of Natioiis
has disappeared, but the international community remains and it

has created for itself a new organ which is the Uiiited Nations. The
United Nations is not, of course, legally the successor of the League
of Natioiis and it is not in its capacity as successor of the League, in
the proper sense of the word, that it exercises certain functions of
the defunct organization. I-Iowever,the United NationS, like the League
of Nations, is the representative organ of the international commu-
nity, and in this capacity has the task to undertake the fiinctions
exercised by the League of Nations, and to maintain the place which
the League held vis-à-vis tlie States which had subscribed to engage-
ments before organs of the League. It therefore falls to the United
Nations to decide whether to undertake certain functions which the
Leaguc of Xations exercised, and whether toexercise the rights which
belongecl to the League of Nations by virtue of ciigagements under-
taken by the States toward it.
It may also be maintained that the Mandates werc engagements
undertaken towards the' populations of the territories, the League of
Nations haviiig ooly supervisory functions which, could or could not
be taken over by another international organization representing the
internatioiial community.
---
'Sec resolution 24 (1)of IZ Iicbruary.1946. an extract of which follows:
"Fit,tdionsend Powerr irnderTrenties. Interrlatimlal Coi8vrnfim~s, ilgreein~9ifs
and Ofhcr lrtslrt~metzhnvingu I'olilical Chorocter.
"Thc General .Asçernblywill itself cxaininor will subniit to the appropriate
organof the United Katioiis, any request fram the ~arties that the UniSations
should assume the exercisoffunctionsorpowers entrustrd to the Leagueof Nations
by treaties, iiitçrnntional conventions, agreeinents and other instruments having
a political charactcr." SThTEllEST Ri'Jlr. KERSO (USITED s,\TIOSS) - 17 v jO
213
It may also be added that the obligations undertaken by the inan-

datory Powers in respect of the territories under mandate may continue
to be fulfilled even after the disappearance of the League of Nations,
the disappearance having only entailed the disappearance of the super-
vision and the control exercised by tlie latter.
Finally, Article 80 of the Charter, with wliich 1 shall deal later, may
be invoked in support of the view of the survival of the Mandate. Tlic

statements made by the mandatory Powers during the course of the
last session of the League of Nations ', containing the assurance that,
until the tnisteeship agreements entered into force, the obligations
under tlie Mandate would retain their full validity, may also be recalled.
The last Assembly of the League of Nations took note of these declar-

.ations in its Resolution concerning the Alandates %.Finally, we have the
resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the futiire
government of Palestine hy which the Assembly during its second
session recommended "to the United Kingdom as the maiidatory
Power for Palestine, and to al1 other Members of the United Nations,
the adoptioii aiid implementation" of a plail in which it was said "the

Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible, but in any

' League of Nations, Oficiol Jorrrnal. Specivl Supplement Xo. 194. Rccords

of the Twcntieth (Conclusion) and Tmeiity-first Ordinary Sessions of the Assembly.
Text of the 1)çbatcs at the Plenary Xectings ancl Alinutes of the First and Second
Commissions :
P. ?S.Biscount Cecil of Chelwood (United Kingdom) :O....Until the three Afncan
Territories have actuallv heen ~laced under trusteeship and untll fresh arrangements
have bren reached in régard to Palestincwhvtever those arrangements may hc-
it is the intention of His Majesty's Government in the United Iiingdom to continue
to administer theçe Tcrritoriks in accordance ivith thc general pnnciplcs of the
existing Mandatçç."
P. 32. &Ir.Leif Egeland (Union of South Afriça) :"....The Union Governiiient ivill
nevçrthrless regard the dissolution of the League as in no way diminishing its

obligations under the hlandate, which it will continue to discharge with the full
and proper appreciation of its responsihiliticç until such tirne as other arrangements
aréagreed upon concerning the future status of the Tcrritory."
P. .". &Ir. Kno~ ~~ ~ ~Xem Zealandl :" ....New Zealand does not consider thnt
dissolution of the League of Sations and. as a consequence. of the Permanent
Alandîtes Commission ivill have the effect <ifdiminishing her obligations to the
inhabitants of \\'ester" Samoa or of increasin~ her rightç in the Tcrritory. Until
the conclusion of ourTrusteeçhip :\gceementiar \~&tern Samoa, therefore, the
Territory will continue to be administered hy Sew Zealand, in accordance with the
terms of the hlnndnte, for the proniotion ofthe ivçll-being and advancement of the
inhabitânts."

P. 47. Profcssor Bailey (~iustralia) :" ...Aftcr the dissolution of the League of
Nations aiid the conscquent liquidation of the I'ermanent Alandates Commissian, it
will be impoçsiblc to continuetheX1andates Systcminitsentirety. Xotwithstantling
thiç. the Govcrnment of Auçtralia does not regard the dissolution of the Lcngut: as
lessrning theobligations imposed upon it for the protection and advancement of
the inhabitants of the mandated territorieç.which it regards as having still full
force and effect."
* League of Xations, Oficial Journal, Special Supplement So. 194, Records Of
the Tiventieth (Conclusion) and Tiventy-first Ordinary Sessions of the -4ssembly.

.Amex 24 C (Folder r).
Oflirial IIecords of the Second Session of the Coneral Açsrmbly. Resolution rSr
(11). page 132.214 STATENEST Bi' Jlr. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - I7 V jO

casenot later than I August, 1948"T .his clearly implies that the Assem-
bly considered the Mandate to be still in force despite the termination
of the existence of the League of Natioiis.
To conclude this part of my statement, 1 should like to emphasize
that 1 do not think it possible to reply to the questions put by the
Geueral Assembly without having previously examined the provisions

of the Charter of the United Xations. 1 have already had occasion to
observe that the Charter entered into force prier to tlie dissolution
of tlie League of Nations. The succeeding part of my statement will
therefore be devoted to a bnef esamination of the pertinent provisions
of the Charter.

11'. Tlce prouisioi~sof the United A'atzoiisCharter

'The General Assembly's second particular question is "Are the
provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter applicable to the Territory

of South-West Africa, and, in the affirmative, in what manner ?"
The San Francisco Confereuce may justly be considered as one of
the important congresses which from time to time, foliowing great
upheavals having universal repercussions, have had to frame an inter-
national structure for the future. The delegates of the great majority
of the States comprising the international community, including
amongst them the representatives of the very great majority of Itembers
of the League of Nations, had the desire to deal there with al1 the

vroblems of iiiternational interest of our times whic~-~~~--ctl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
:ndirectly, may affect the peace of the world. Tliey were (herefore'fu~l~
iustified in devotinrr a considerable Dart of their efforts to the vroblem
of tiie future of thë populations of Bon-self-governing tcrritoriés.
As stated by one of the representatives of the United States 1, the
Charter of the Uiiited Natioiis concerns these populations in more than

' U.S. Conference on International Organization, ,945.-Verhatim minutes of
Committee on Trusteeship System (III 4). May zz-June 1.-U.X. :\rchiveç, Vol.
69, Eleventh Meeting. Running Sumber 23.
Commander Srassas: "....1 just !vant tomake a brief statement to assure the
distinguished delegate from the Philippines that this document in iti completion.
this Charter that we are drafting, at San Francisco, 1 am certain will prove to be
the greatest document there has everbeen in the history of the world for tlie
progressive advanccmcnt of people toward independencc, self-government. hctter
standards of living, and full recognition of sovcreignty in the ivoi... There arc
these four important parts. Assuming that we arc able to complete our work at
San Francisco and that we have this truçteeship document. as we are naw beginning
ta envisage it, included in the Charter, there will be four important sections of the
Charter mith which the dependent peoples throughout the world will be very mirch
eoncerned. They are the general purposes of the entire Organization. Chapter 1 ;
Chapter II. the general principles of the entire Orpaniration ; third, the general
policy statement that ne are here concerned ivith ; and fourth. the direct, basic
objectives of the Truçteeship System. and this isthe manner in vhich they arc
applied. As the entire organization in al1 of its aspects and the rnponçibiof thosc
having a responsibility in the administration of peoples, the peoples themselveç.
proceed to develop, they reach the stage where they do come under the general
purpose. Purpose 2, wliich states that every member is obliged to follow thcse
principles when thcy sign this <locument. to dcvelon friendlv relations ainoiigorie respect. Tlie equality of "riglits of men and women and of nations
--.P Pnd small" is one of the urincioles ~rovided iri the Preamhle.
~elf~determination is one of the brincibles ÔfArticle I. We havethen

the "declaration" contained in Chapter XI and, Iastlv, Chapters XII
and SI11 estahlish an international Trusteeship Systém

A. Arliclc 80
Witb regard to the application of Chapter XII, let us first consider
the provisions of Article So. 'Cheyread as follows :

Except as mliy be agreed upon in iiidividual trusteesliip
agreements, made under Articles 77, 79 and 81, placing each
territory ilrider the Trusteeship System, and until such agreements
have been concluded, +~ot/ci~izgnlhis Cicaptershall be construed
in or of itself to alter in any mnnner the rights whatsoever of any
States or any peoplesor the terms of existing international instrtiments

to which RIembers of the United Nations may respectively be
parties.
2. Paragraph I of this Article shall not he interpreted as giving
grouiids for delay or postporiement of the negotiation and conclzcsion
of agreements for placing mandatecl and other territories under
the 'l'rusteeship System as provided for in Article 77."

In the wvorkingpaper which was accepted as basis for the discussions
~f ~ommittee 1114.the corresvondine text said : "Exceut as mav be
agreed upon in' 'individual ,kusteeghip arrangements 'placing éach
territory under the Trusteeship System, nothing in this Chapter should
he conitrued in aiid of itself Coalter in anv manner the riihts of aiiv
u
State or any peoples in any territory '."
At the nintlr meeting of Committee 1114,this text was amended by
the delegate of the United States with the agreement of the Committee
and continued to serve as basis for the discussion in the following
fonn : "Except as may he agreed upon in individual tmsteeship arrange-
ments made under paragraphs 4 and 6 placing each temtory under
the Trusteeship System, nothing in the Chapter should be construed
in and of itself to alter in any manner the nghts of any State or atiy
peoples in any territory, or the terms of any mandate'."
The Egyptian delegate, iri ari aineridment, espressed Iiis preference
for a text that would have stipulated : "Nothing in this Chapter should
be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights of the
people of any terntory or the terms of any mandate'." There was

thus no reference to the rights of States in the Egyptian text.

takes place, first under the trusteeshipor first under a colony, the progressive
development under those objectives or under the policies. they reach the stage
where on the matter of the self-determinatiohased on thrir cleveloprnent they can
apply forinenibcrsliip in the Uiiitcd Nntionç. U'hen thry rcncli the ofmember-
ship in the United Nations, the first principlcornes into play, and that is that
it is based on the principleofsorereign equality of al1 thc >lembers, and by the
signing of thiç document every signatory \vil1agree that every ZIember is entitlell
toçovrreign equality."
1 Documents of the United Satioiis Conference on International Organiration.
San Francisco, 1945,Vol. io.Coinniissioti II. page 67s.
Ibid.,page 477.
17 At the Committee's tenth meeting, the amendment bv the Egvptian
delegation was rejected by 25 votes to j '.A similar proposal by the
representative of Syria was also rejected, after il had been pointed
ont that this amendment miglit weaken the conservatory clau~e by
failing to preserve some of the iinplied rights'.
The text of the United States representative mas then adopted by
29 votes to j '.At this same meeting, the representative of the United
States made a statement on the .4rticle, of which the Committee tool;
formal note. The statement is included in the summary record of the
meeting, as follou.~. :

"The delegate for the tliiited States stated that paragraph B 5
\vas intendcd as a conservatory or safeguarding clause. He \\.as
willing and desirous that the minutes of this Committee show
that it is intended to mean that al1rights, whatever they may be,
remain exactly the same a's they exist-that they are neitlier
increased iior diminished by the adoption of tliis Charter. Any
change is left as a matter for subsequent agreements. The clause
should neither add nor detract, but safeguard al1 existing rights,
whatever they may bc."

At its thirteenth meeting, the Committee had previously rejected a
text proposed by the delegate of Iraq, \\,hich read as follows :

"(a) In the event of any territory being placet1uiider the Triistee-
ship System, nothing in this Chapter should be coiistmed in and
of itself to alter in any maniier the rights of any State in aiiy
territory or to diminish tlie riglits of the people of that territory.
(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, in the
event of the transfer to the Trusteeship System of any temtory
now administered on the basis of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of
the Covenant of the League of Xations, such trusteeship shall iiot
apply to such a territoxy Savewithin the limits and for the purposes
laid dowii in the aforementioned paragraph of the Covenant."

' At this meeting, the Committee agreed to replace the text adopted
at its tenth meeting by a new text submitted by the representative
of the United States. This text contains, for the first tinie, a second
sentence which later became paragraph 2 of Article 80 '.The summary
report of this meeting, which is the official record transmitted to the
Court, contains no explanation of this new sentence. However, thc
verbatim minutes of this meeting show that Commander Stassen, in
introducing tliis amendment, stated the following4 :

"Then we add a new sentence : 'This paragraph should ~iotbe
interpreted as giving grounds for delay -or postponenient of the
negotiatioiis and concliisioiiofthe agreements for placing mandatecl

Ibid., page487.
Ibid.. Daae4.6.
' Verbatim ininutes of thirteenth meeting,8 June. ig45.Running Sumbers 24.
25. U.N. Archives. Vol. 70. STATEhlEXT BY hlr. KERSO (UNITED XATIOSS) - 17 \'50
217
and other territories, as provided for in paragraph 3, urider the
Trusteeship System.'
Xow, there are a iiumber of factors that come into the amend-
ments that \iveare proposing. Let me state, in the first instance,
that this does not change the conservatory nature of tlie clause
as we originally proposed it, but it does clarify and take away
some of the possible misinterpretations that have been raised.
It is clear tliat paragrapli 5 is intendcd to preserve tlie rights
duririg that in-bctwccii period from the time tliis Charter is
adopted and the time that the new agreements are negotiated
and completed with the new Organization. And it is not iiitended
that paragraph 5 should be any basis of freezing eternally the
situation affecting any temtory.
On the other hand, neither does paragraph 5 take away at al1
from the other paragraphs of this Chapter as to tlie method by
which the negotiations of the subsequent agreements slioiild be
carried out. We inake it very clear in the new sentence that no
one can point to paragraph 5 in the future and sav :'1 refuse to
ncgotiate ; 1 simply stand on paragraph 5, and 1 insist we stay
there forever.' "

This text also contained a ncw phrase iri the first sentence-"and
uritil such agreements have be~n coiicluded", and the phrase "or the
terms of any mandate" was enlargecl to read "or the terms of existing
international instruments". It was this text adopted at the 13th meeting
which, with certain minor drafting changes, became the present
Article 80 of the Charter. Tlie report ' of Committee II14 points out
that some delegates had proposed that changes be made in this con-
servatory paragraph, so tliat it rvould apply only to the rights of the
peoples concerned and riet ta the riglits of mandatory Powers and
other States and peoples, but that the opinion held by the majority
was that al1 rights without distinction should be treated equally.
The report recalls the interpretation given to the clause by the United
States delegate and indicates that as regards the suggestion that the
clause should incliiden specific reference to paragraph 4 of Article zz
of the Covenant of thc League of Nations, the Committee liad decided
that the phrase "esistiiig international instruments" w;is preferable
and had acceptrd the interpretation that amon: the "ri~hts whatsorver
of any States or aiiy peoples", there wcre included al1 the rights set
forth in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of tlie Leaque of
Nations.

R. Voluntary or obligrrtorytraitsformulioit of the maitdates

There are several articles in Chapter XII of the Charter of which
one must take note in consicleringthe question of wliether the placing
of mandated territories under the Trusteeship Sys.em .s compulsory
or optional.
Article 7j of the Cliarter provides tliat tlie United Nations shall
establish under its autliority an iiiteriiational Trusteeship Systeni
for the administration aiid supervision of such territories as may be

1 Documents of United Sations Conference on International Organiration.
San Francisco1 .945.\'ol.10.Commissiin II. Document 11i5, p. 6rr.plnced tkereritzder6)'sribseqiieirlindividzial agreemeirlsIt is inore speci-
fically provided in Article 77 that the Trusteeship System shall apply
to such territories in certain specified categories us mny heplucedilzere-
under by means of trzrstceshipugreements. These spccifiecl categories are,
first, territories iiow lield iintler mandate ; secoiid, territories whicli
may be detached from eneiny States as a result of tlie Sccond \Vorld
\Var, aiid tliird, territories volutilurily placed under tlie System by
States responsible for tlicir administration. A secoiid parngraph of
Article 77 states tliat it will be a matter for subseqtieirlagreement as
to which territories in the foregoirrgcntepries \\.il1 be hrought under
the Trusteesliip System ancl upon what terms.
Article 7S specifically escludes from tlie applicatioii of the Trustee-

ship System territories which have become hlenibers of tlie United
h'ations.
Iii Article 79 it is providcd that tlie terms of the trusteeship agree-
ments shall be agreed upori hy the States directly coiicerried, iricluding
tlie mandatory Poaer iii the case of territorics lield under mandate
by a Member of the United Nations. These terins miist be approved
iiithe case of strategic areas by the Security Council aiicl, in case of
other areas, by the General Assembly.
And finally, as 1 have just noted, there is the conservatory provi-
sion in Article 80 of the Charter, and the statenient iii paragriiph 2
that the first parngraph iii this Article shall not be iiiterpretecl as giving
ground for delay or postpoiieinent of tlie negotiation ancl conclusiori
of agreements for placing mandated aiid other territories under the
Trusteeship System as provided for in Article 77.
Tliere has been n sharp division of opinion in the General Assembly
concerning the legal issue whetlier or not these provisions of the Charter
inake it compulsory to place a mandated territory under trusteeship.

\\'hile tlie Assenibly hns repeatedly recommeiided that the Territory
of South-!l'.est Africa be plncccl under international trustcesliip, no
two-thirds majority of its hlemhers has been foiind to confirm the
view held by a great many members of the Fourth Coinmittee that
"it is the clear iirtett!ioof Chapter XII of the Charter that al1terri-
tories previously held under mandate, until granted self-government
or independence, shall be brought under the internatioiial 'l'rustceship
System", and tliat therefore the placing of sucli territories iinder
trusteeship \vas obligatory '.
Those believing that the placing of a mandated territory under
trusteeship is compulsory, have placed particular emphasis on the
fact that the word "voluntary" appears only in relation to the third
category of territories listed iinder Article 77. They argiied that the
use of the word "voluntnry" in category (c) escludes the idea that
the placing of territories now held under mandate, as specified in
category (a), is also voluntary. They have further expressed the view
that with regard to mandated territories, only two courses are legally
permissible : either they be granted full independerice or they be

placed under the Trusteeship System. They find confirmation for
their position in Article 80, paragraph 2, and some interpret this

' See draft resolution recoinmendcd by tFourth Corninittee during the second
session of the General .\ssçinl>lyItçport of the FotirthCoinrnittce, A/q22,
page ,543(Folder 21). SThTEhfENT BY >Ir. KISKSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 17 V 50 ZI9
provision to mean that the Uiiion of South Africa, while free ta agree
upon the particular terms of a trusteeship agreement, is not legally

free to refuse to negotiate and to conclude such an agreement.
Tliose believing that tlie Trusteeship System is voluntary point
out that Article 75 refers to such territories as may be placed under
the Trusteeship System by subsequent individual agreemerits, and
that Article 77 likewise states that the Trusteeship System shall apply
to such terntories as may be placed thereunder by means of trustee-
sliip agreements. Furthermore, thcy arguc that paragraph z of Article 77,
which provides that it will be a matter for subsequent agreement as
to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under
the Trusteeship System, applies equaUy to each of the three specified
categories in the first paragraph of Article 77. FinaUy. they 'rely on
Article 80 as evideiice that nothing in Chapter XII of the Charter
alters in any manner the rights of a State holding a territory under
mandate.
As the Court will have to pronounce itsell on tliis question, it may
be of interest if 1refer to the genesis of Article 77 at the San Francisco
Conference.
The Court wiii recall that there were no provisions conceriiing
specifically non-self-governing territories in the Durnbarton Oaks
Proposals, but several governments presentecl proposals on this subject
to the San Francisco Conference. The proposals submitted by the
Governments of France, the United States, the United Kingdom,
China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Ke~ublics were similar in
suggesting tliat the Organization should establish a system of inter-
national trusteeship for the adniinistration and supervision of such
territories as may- be placed thereunder by subsequent agreement.
Among tliese territories were included the "territories now under
mandate".

The proposal of the Government of Australia, on the otlier hand,
suggested that the territories to ivhich the Trusteeship Systemshould
apply should be declared either by the voluntary action of the RIember
administering the territory or by the Gencral Assembly, after con-
sideration of the recommendations of a conference or corifcrences,
especially convened by the United Nations, of hfembers respoiisible
for the administration of dependent territories.
During the course of the general discussion in Committee 1[/4, the
delegate from Australia espressed the view tliat the principal issue
before the Committee aras whether the application of the Trusteeship
System to territories other than League iiiandates and es-enemy
dependencies should be left to the voluntary action of the l'owers
res~onsible for their administration. In the Australian view. he said.
m&ely voluntary procedure was inadequate '.
The United Kingdom delegate, on the otlier hand, objected to the
compulsory application of the Trusteeship System ta existing colonies
The delegate of the United States pornted out that his Government
did not seek ta change the relations esisting bctii.eeii a mandatory and

dociiment 24i.1114/7U..X.I.O.eVol.ro,[>p.496,t429.q.io Jlay 1945.U.N.C.I.O.
Summary of 4thmeetingofCommittec 1114.14 3l;iy1945.U.S.C.I.O. <locument
jro, Il/q/r~.U.N.I.O.Vol. IO.11.qqo.220 SThTEAlEST BY air. IiERSO (IIXITED SAT~OSS) - 17 1, 50

a mandated territory \vithout the former's consent, and supported
the principle of voluntary submission of territories to the System 1.
The delegate from the Union of South Africa, at the fourth meeting
of Committee 1114,stated that the terms of esisting mandates could

not be altered witliout the consent of the mandatory Power 3.
In tlie working paperB adopted by the Committee as a hasis of dis-
cussion, the paragrapli which served as the original for wliat was to
become Article 77 of the Charter, read as follows : "The Trusteeship
System should apply only to such territories in the followirigcategories
as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship arrangements :
(a) territories now Iield under mandate ; (b) territories which may be
detached from eiiemy States as a result of war; and (c) territories
voluntarily placed under the system by States responsible for their
administration. It would be a matter for siibsequent agreement as to
which territories tvould be brought under a Trusteeship System and
upon what terms. The Trusteeship System should not apply to terri-
tories which have become &lembers of the United Nations."
\T1henthis paragraph was considered by the Committee at its 8th

meeting on 22 hfay. 1945, the delegate of Egypt proposed that it be
amended to read : "The Trusteeship System should apply to (a) al1
territories now held under mandate ; (b) territories which may be
detached from enemy States as a result of this war ;and (c)territories
voluntarily placed under the System by States responsihle for their
administration. The Trusteeship System should not apply to territories .
which have become Members of the United Nations." The essentials
of this amendment were thus, first, tlie deletion of a reference to sub-
sequent agreement aiid, second, the addition of the word "all" betore
the phrase "territories now held under mandate".
In support of this amendment, it wasargued that no private title
to a mandated territory could lie with a mandatory Power and that
it would be for the League itself to pass title to siich territories. It
was further argued that it would be impossible for the League System
of Mandates and the new Trusteeship System to esist side by side. It

\vas also siiggested as a reason for deleting the referencc to agreement
that the es-enemy States could not be allowed to be a party to
an agreement for placing a territory under the Triisteeship System.
Finally, it was stated that, with regard to the third category of territo-
ries, no agreement was called for in the event of a voluntary transfer.
Consequently, al1 reference to individual agreements was considered
superfluous *.

' Ibid.
Ihid. n A?".
Documents oithe Unitcd Nations Conference an International Organization,
San Francisco. rgqg. 1)ocumcnt 323. II/~/Iz. U.N.I.O.Vol. 10,p. 678.
' Summary Report of8th meeting ofCommittee II/4. 22 AIay, rg+=,.ocumeiit
-12. II..,zr. U.N.I.O. \'ol.IO... .6-.
In the verbatim record of the meeting. a statement by the delegatc of Iraq is
in part as follows : "1can't çee hoiv. after this United Sationç Organization is
formed, we can think of having two --stems side by side, the Mandate System and
the Trusteeship System. 15'hat 1 have in mind is that alter this Orgarnirationis
formed. automatically inandates çhould be transferred to trusteeship. because 1
can't sechow the world cansupport ttvo çystems side by side. And. of course, ive
sa? al1 the members in this room are going to be hlembers of the United Fations. SThTE.\IEST BY Jfr. KERSO (USITED S;\TIOSS) - 17 V jo 221

In opposition to the amendment, it aras stated by some that the

proposed changes would have the effect of creating a compulsory system
and thus of legislating beyond the competcnce of the Conference. It
was argued by otliers that it would prejudge decisioris which ought
to be left to subsequent meetings of tlie United Nations. It \vas also
stated thxt the proposed Trusteeship System would differ appreciably

from the League System of alandates, and tlie simple form of succession
suggested by the amendment was therefore not practicahle. No Power
non, holdirig a mandate, it was stnted, should be expected to accept
responsibility under a new system, if it had no share in deciding upon
the revisetl terms of its trust '.
Following this discussion, the Egyptian amendment was put to a

vote in two parts. The proposed deletion of the reference to agree-
ments was rejected by 22 votes to 5, and the proposed addition of

That does not mean we are forcing them. 1 don't see any element of force. It is
voluntary. Of course. it is understood to he voluntary !hat al1 niandates are
going ta be translerred to trusteeship." \'erhatim minutes of 8th mecting of
Corninittee 1114. Running Numbers 31, 32. U.N. Archives, Vol. 69.
Summary Report of 8th l'ieeting of Committee 1114. 22 May. 1945. Document
512,II/4/21. U.N.I.O. Irof. 10, p. 469.
The vrrhatim record of the statement of the delegateof the United States is.
in part, as follows: "The effect of the amendment would he that we would
ie~islate, compulsorily, that al1 tenitories noiv held under mandate must go under
the Tmsteeship System. and that al1 territories which are attached to any enemy
States during this war must go under the Trusteeship System. And 1submit to
you that that is far beyond the province of this Conference. or the desires of the
delegates thaï are represented here. and that we must not accept an amendment of
this kind ; we must proceed on the general understood hasis of the voluntary
Trusteeship System." Verbatirn minutes of 8th meeting of Committee 1114.Running
Xumber 18. U.N. Archives, Vol. 69.
The verbatim record of the statement of the delegate of the Union of South
Africa iç, iii part. as follu:s"Mr. Chairman. 1 wish to support the point af view
put forward hy Commander Stasscn on hehnlf of the United States. We fecl that

we should not he requirrd to hand aver existing mandates without Our agreement,
and without oiir being consulted with regard to the term of that agreement. That
precisely puts the whole position.
"To delete the wordç, or the amendment rather. put forward by the delegate
from Egypt, \r.ould. 1 submit Sir, create an absurd position. These mandates are
ordinary contracts which would have ta be ecitered into by the Trusteeship Council
on the one hand, and hy the mandatory Powcr on the other. There muît, in other
words. br an agreement on the terms and not merely a bue acceptance of the
mandate without any terms being agreed upon beforehand." Verbatim minutes
of 8th meeting of Committee II/+, Running Niimhers 20, zr.U.S. Archives. Vol. 69.
The verbatim record of the statement hy the delegate of the United Kingdom
is. in part, as follo:s"Therc is one other point cvenin respect ofexisting mandates
containcd in this clause of the chapter. Clearly tliere musbe nelv individual agree-
ments at some stage which would take the place of the old mandate agreements.
Now those agreements may or may ~ot continue the trusteeship. That will depend
entirely on the appropriate circumstanceç of the case. and will he a matter for discur
sion between the mandatory Power and whatever is the body which is set up to
repre~ent the inter-& of the United Nations. \Vecan't, as 1 see it, at this stage.
prejudge that position. It isno good us going beyond ourpowers, and therefore
1 çuggest to the Egyptian delegate, and to al1 the memherç of the Committee.
though 1 fully realire the reason for which he has put forward his amendment, as a

matter of fact it is too rigid and too far-reaching, and that it ought not to be
accepted." Verbatim minutes of 8th meeting of Committee 1114,Running Numher
29. U.S. rlrchives, Vol. 69.2'2'2 STATEBIEKT Bi' hIr. I(ER40 (USITEU KATIONS) - 17 7' 50

the "all" before "territories now Iielrl under mandate" was rejectecl
by 20 votes to 6 '.
The report of the Rapporteur of Committee II/4%.which was adopted
at the third meeting of Commission 11 on 20 June, 1g4S3, stated that
it recognized this paragraph-future Article 77-as the primary para-
graph of Chapter XII.
Field Marshal Smuts, in commenting on the report of Committee
1114,stated that Section B dealt to some extent with the old field

already covered in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The provi-
sion, he said, is this : "That with regard to certain types of dependent
territories, old mandate territories, territories newly conquerecl and
talien from existing Powers, and also colonies where the governing
Power is prepared voluntarily to place them under trusteeship-al1
these varions types of territories will fall under the Trusteeship System,
which will impose stricter conditions than those prescribed in Section A.
You will find al1this set out in the recommendations and in the report '."
The delegate of Egypt recalled the objection of his delegation to

making trusteeship subject to an agreement with the countries now
administering territones, and especially mandated territories, but
expressed confidence that these provisions would grow into something
greater and better
Mr. Fraser, of New Zealand, who had served as Chairman of Com-
mittee 1114,concluded the discussion of the report in Commission II
with the following statement : ".... whatever difficulties there are, the
rule thàt we will be guided by-1 know 1 speak for my own country,
bu1 1 feel 1 speak also for every country in a similar position-is that
wehave accepied a mandate asasacredtrust,notaspart of OUI sovereign
territory. The mandate does not belong to my country or any other

country. It is held in trust for the world. The work immediately ahead
is how these mandates that were previously supervised by the Man-
dates Commission of the League of Nations can now be supervised by
the Trusteeship Council with every mandatory authority pledging
itself in the first instance as the test of sinceritv demands. whatever
may happen to the territory afterwards, to acknowledge the authority
and the supervision of this Trusteeship Council that lias been helped
towards iti formation this evening 6."

' Summary Report of 8th meeting of Committee Il/q, 2% 'Iay,i9qj. Document
512, 11/4/21, ti.N.I.0.Val. IO, p. 469.
The delegate of Egypt proposed several other amendments, the purpose of whiçh
was to insist on the compulsory character of the trusteeship agreement. These
amendrnentç were al1 rejected by the Committce. See, for example, the proposal
to delete reference to çubsequent individual agreements from Article 75 of the
Charter. Summary Report of 7th meeting of Cornmittee 1114, 18Alay, 1945. Doç-
urnent 448, 11/4/18. U.N.I.O. Vol. 10, p. 460.
' Report of the Rapporteur of Cornmittee 1114. Document 1115, 11/4/44 (1)
(a) (20 June 1945). U.N.I.O. Vol. ro, pp. 607-622.
Verbatim minutes of 3rd meeting ofCommission II,20 June, 1945.Document
1144, 11/16. Vol. 8,p. 154.
Ibid.p.. 127.
Vbid.,pp. 148, 149.
Zbid.p,. 154. STATE.\IEST BY .\Ir. KERSO (USITED X~\TIOXS) - 17 V 50 223

(PtiOlicsilliiig o/May 17th. 1950. ajlerr~ooi~]

C. S!(itcnieictby the delegation of South Anfrica

Rcference was made iii the General ilssembly to a statement made
nt ttic Sari 1;rancisco Conference by tlie delegate of the Union of South
Africa, rcferring to the intention of tlie Government of tlie Union
ivith respect to the future of tlie maiidated Territory of Soiith-West
rtfrica. The records in the United Nations archives indicate in this
respect that on 4 May. 1945, the South-African delegation submittecl
a paper entitled "Proposals submitted by the delegation of the Union
of South AIrica with regard to the mandated Territory of South-\Vest
Africa." After setting fortti the Uiiion's views concerning tlie special
circumstances witli regard to the Territory of South-\Vest Africa,
trie document had the follo\i.ing conclusion :

"The delegatioii of thc Union of South Africa thcrcfore claims
tliat the Mandate should be terminated and that the Territory
sliould be incorporatcd as part of tlie Union of Soutli Africa."

A lctter [rom the Secretary-General of the Conference, dated 5 May,
1945, acknowledged receipt of this draft and stated ttiat it had been
eiitered as a conference <-locumentand would be distributed to the
varioiis delegations. It was in fact mimeographed as document 2, G/26(6).
Tlie clocurnent does not appear on the official list of tlie documents
of the Conference. Photostatic copies of it are inclu<led in bound
volumes No. 3 and No. 34 of tlie Confcreiice records, ic-hichare in the
nrcliives of the United Nations. The document is precedcd, in each
instance, by a typewritteri insert wliich statesas follows :"'l'liefolloiving
paper, Iloc. 2, G/zT>(b) w,as withdrawn before it was given fiill distri-
biition." At the tliird meeting of Committee 1114,on II May, 1945.
the delegate of the Union of South Africa read the full test of the
statement on South-West Africa "in order to illustrate tlie problems
in respect of one of the manclatcd territories". The Chairman ruled
that the references to specific territories were only in order when used
for illiistrative purposes. The task of the Committee, he said, \vas to
discuss principles and mactiiiiery, not individual territorial issues '.

The subject of the applicability of Chapter XI has iiot beeri speci-
fically referred to the Court, and, in fact, an express question oii this
point uas rejected by the I.'ourth Committee of the General Assemblv.
However, the Court may fiiid it necessary to consider Chapter SI
in connexion with the general question concerning the. international
status of tlie Territory and the obligations arising therefroni. It !vil!
be noted that this point has beeii discussed in the written observations
which the Government of the United States of America lias submitted
to the Court.

Surnrnary Report of 3rd rneetirig of Comrnjt1114,Ir May. ,945.U.N.C.I.O.
document 260,II/4/8. U.N.I.O. VolIO,p. 434.The text of the statcment as read
in the Cornmittee appears in the verbatirn minutes of 3rdmeeting af Cnmmit-
tee Il/<,Running Sumbers 31-33. U.N. Archives, Vol. 68.224 ST.ATEZIEST Bi' Air. KERSO (USITED S:\TIOSS) - 17 B jO

By Chapter XI, which is entitled "L)eclaration regarding non-self-
governing territories", al1 the JIembcrs of the United Nations have
assumed responsibility for the administration of territories whose
peoples have not yet obtained a full measure of self-government and
recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these
territories are paramount. They accept as a sncrecl trust the obligation
tn promote to the utmost the well-being of the inhabitants of these
territories. To that end, they accept certain specific obligations,
includiiig the obligation to develop self-governrnent and to assist the
inhabitants in the progressive development of their free political
institutions.
Among these obligations the provisions of Article ')3 should be
specially mentioned, by which Members of the United Nations, having
responsibility for the administration of non-self-governing territories,
accented the oblig-tion to transmit reml"rlv to tlie Secretarv-General.
for ;nformatioii piirposcj. sul~ji:it 'to siicli 'liiiiit;itioii as seciirit!. anci
roiistitii~iuiial considerations mnv requirc. s1ntistic:il :ind otlicr infor-
mation of a technical nature relating to economic, social and educa-
tional conditions in the territories for which they are respectively
responsible, other than those territories to which Chapters XII and
XII1 apply.
As stated by the President of Commission II at the San Francisco
Conference, Field Marshal Smuts, this Chapter of the Charter "applies
the trusteesliip principle to al1 dependent territories, whether they
are mandates, whether they are territories taken from defeated coun-
tries, or whether they are existing colonies of Powers. The whole field
of dependent peoples living in dependent territories is now covered '."
1shall limit myself to two observations on these provisions of Chap-
ter XI of the Charter. First, that the scope of the information which is
to be transmitted by virtue of sub-paragraph (e)of Article 73, is more
limited than the information which istransmitted to the General Assem-
bly on trust territories upon the basis of the questionnaire formulated
by the Trusteeship Council in accordance with Article 88 of the Charter.
This questionnaire bears in particular not only oii econoniic, social
and educational matters, but also on political matters. Likewise, the
information transmitted under Article 73 (e) is of a more limited scope
than the information which was transmitted by tlie mandatory Powers
to the Council of the League of Nations.
My second observation is that no exact definition lias been attempted,
until now, of the territories to which Chapter XI applies. It may be
recalled that, at the first part of its first session, the Geqeral Assembly
drew the attention of the Members to the fact that the obligations
accepted under Chapter XI of the Charterby al1Members of the United
Xations were in no way contingent upon the conclusion of trusteeship
agreements, or upon the bringing into being of a Trusteeship Council,
and were therefore already in full forcea.
.At the second part of its first session, the General Assembly noted
the information it had received from several governments and the
--

1144,11/16,U.N.I.O.sVol.38, p.127.g of Commission II20Alay,1945. Document
Hesolutions adoptad bythe GeneralAssembly during the first part of the lirst
session-g (1)page 13 (Folder 8). STATEhIEST Bi' Mr. KERXO (UNITEI) NATIONS) - 17 V 50 22j

intention of certain other governments to transmit information in the
future and instructed the Secretary-Geiieral to summarize, analyze
and classify this infoimation, and include it in his annual report to the
General Assembly '. The Govemment of the Union of South Africa,
whicli at the time had seized the Assembly with its proposal of closer
association of South-\trest Africa with tlie Union, wasnot listed among
the iflembers of the United Nations who were transmitting information
under .4rticle 73 (e).
At its fourth session. the General Assemblv considered in a resolu-
tion tliat it was within its responsibility to éxpressits opinion on the
principles wh'ichha\,e guided or which may in future guide the Mem-
bers concerned, in enumerating the territories for which the obligation
exists to transmit information under Article 73 (e) of the Charter.
The special committee which is to consider, before the fifth session of
the Assemblv. the information transmitted under Article .- .e, of the
Cli;irtcr.KI; iii\,itc.d to r.x:iriiinc tlie I:ictors \r.liicli bcioi;ikrii
iiiro xccoiint in dcciiliiig ivlicilic.r;iiiy territory ij or is ;iterritory
wtioje pcuplci li:i\'e iiot artaineila fullmaisur,? of sr.lfgu\.ernnicnt P.

V. hfodification of the intemaiionnl statl~sof South-West Ajrica

\\'e corne, thus, to the last question submitted by the General Assem-
bly, a question the importance of which was particularly stressed by a
number of representatives in view of its far-reaching implications:
"Has tlie Uiiion of South Africa the competence to modify the inter-
national status of the Territory of South-\Vest Africa, or, in the event
of a negative reply, where does the competence rest to determine and
modify the international status of the Territory ?"
The approach of the Court to this question will depend, of course,
on the opinion which it will have formed with respect to the present
status of the Territory.
For my part, 1 should like to limit myself to bringing out some data
with respect to the question of the modification of the Mandate unàer
the League of Nations and then, in the final part of my statement, to
endeavour to point to some of the possibilities which the Court may
have to consider with regard to the modification of the present status
of the Territory.

A. Co7~sideration with regard ta the modification of a mandate under
the League of Nations

Whetlier or not the Court comes to the conclusion that the Mandate
for South-\l'est Africa has contiiiued in force, a consideration of the
methods by which a mandate could be terminated or modified under
the League of Kations will, 1 am certain, be of interest.
The text of Article 22 of the Covenant does not provide a clear ansu,er
to the question of the termination of the mandated status for a territory
urider a "C" Mandate. The situation is more precise with respect to
"A" Mandates, as paragraph 4 of Article 22 provides that "their exist-

Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the second part ofthe
firsResolutions adopted by the GeneralAssembly during the fourth session-334
(IV). page 43-226 STATEJIEST Bi' Jlr.IiERSO (USITED SATIDSS) - 17 \' jO

eiice as independent nations can be provisionally recogiiized, subject
to the rendering of adriiinistr:~tive advice and assistarice by a manda-
tory, until sucli time as they are able to staiicl alone". As to the "Fi"
ancl"C" alandates. ,AraerL.l.s ",and 6ofArticle 22 do iiot contair-~~~~~~lar
iridications. l'aragraph 6, in particular, refers to tlie sparscricss of the
noi~ulation of the territories. their small size. their rmoteiiess frorn
ceiitres of civilizatiori, their geographical contiguity to tlie territory
of the maiidatory. But tlien, pziragraph I of Article 22, wliich governs
al1 categories of mandatecl territories, refers to "peoples ?lotyet able
to stand by themselves uridcr the strenuoris conditions of tlie modern
world". What \\,as ta occur ufheii these peoples did reach the stage
wlicii they could govern themselves ? The short history of the League
does not offer any esamples. 1 will preseiitly furnish some iiidications
as to the views of the members of the Mandates Conimission in tliis
respect.
The niodification of the legal status of a territory uiicler maridate
coiild havc been brought about by a change i~r the legal iiistrzrments
wliich governed it. Can the possibility of a change in Articles 118 aiid
1x9of theTreaty of Versailles or in the decision of the Supreme Council
of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers allocating the Mandate
for South-\L'est Africa be envisaged ?It may be helrl. on the one hand,
that these provisions, Iiaving once been esecuted, became irrevocablr,
or, on the other hand, that the residuum of power uuder certain circum-
stances might liave remaiiierl iii the signatories of the Treaty of \Ter-
sailles or in the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.
A change in the terms of Article zz of the Covenant of the League
could have been brought about by an amendmeiit to the Covenant
under Article 26. This Article provided that amendments would tal<e
effect when ratified by al1 Members of the Leaguc rcprcseiited oii the
Council and by a majority of the Mcmbers of the Leagiie represeiited
iii thc Assembly. It will be recalled, however, that no such ameiidment
was to bind a Rlember of the I.eague which signified its dissent tliere-
from, but in case of sucli dissent it would cease to be a Rlember of the
1-eague.The determinatioii of the exact position of a maiidatory Power
which might have mithhcld its assent from a duly ratifiecl amendment
to Article22 of the Covenant mould not have been an casy one. Rut this
is now of only academic interest.
Finally, there is the question of a change in the Mandate Charter
itself. Article 7 of the Mandate for South-West Africa provided in its
first paragraph that the consent of the Council of the League of Nations
was required for any modification of the terms of the Mandate. A similar
provision was contained in al1 other mandates. Whether the require-
ment of consent by the Coiincil exterided not only to a modification

of the terms of the Mandate, but also to the re-allocation of the Man-
date itself and ta its termination was a question raised in discussion
in connexion with the termination of the Mandate for Iraq, appearsrly

to have answered it in the affirmative.
The normal method by which modification or termination of the
alandate could occur appears to have been with the consent of bath
tlie Cou~tcil and the mandatory Power. This method was followed in
1921 and 1922in the case of the change of boundary between Ruanda-
Llrundi under Belgian administration and Tanganyika under British ST>.TE\IEST Hi' &Ir. RERSO (USITIJD SATIOSS) - 17 Y 50 227

admiiiistration, and in 1931and 1932 with regard to the frontier between
Iraq and Syria. In the first of these cases, the Permanent Mandates
Commission directed tlie attention of the Council, in the report on its
second session ',to the unfortunate consequences to the native popula-
tion resulting from the boundary line betiveen the two Territones.
By Resolution of 4 September, 1922, the Council instructed its Presi-
dent to transmit for the information of the Belgian and British Govern-
meiits the observations oi the Mandates Commission with reference
to this frontier. I.'ollowing this Resoliition, the British and Belgian
Go\.ernrnents reached an agreement under which the area known as
Kissaka \vas detached from the Territory originally allocated to Great
Britain and attaclied to the Belgian inandated Territory. The Council,
on 31 ~hgust, 1923, noted this agreement and gave its consent to the
consequent modifications ofArticle Iof the Uelgian Mandate for Ruanda-
Urundi and of Article I of the British Mandate for Tanganyika *.
In the case of the frontier between Iraq and Syria, the mandatory
Powers, being unable to agree, brought this question to the Council,
and a rectification of the frontier was accomplished by a decision of
the Council.
Another example of a change in the terms of a mandate is that of

the modification of tlie Palestine Mandate to exclude from the "Terri-
tory knoivn as Transjordan" the application of the provisions relating
to tlie Jewish National Home. This modification was proposed by the
Britisli Government as the mandatory Power and became effective
following approval by the Council on 16 September 192% In each
of these instances in wh'ichterms of the Mandate were modified, there
was a manifestation of consent by butli tlie mandatory Power and the
Council of the Leagne of Nations.
These instances, however: relate only to changes in a inandate whicli
continued in existence aiid did not affect actual changes in the inter-
national status of the Territory. \Trith regard to a cornplete change in
international status, a very full discussion of the general conditions
to be fulfilled before the mandate rCgime could be brought to an end
occurred in 1930 and 1931 when the termination of the Mandate for
Iraq mas under discussion. The Council of the League of Nations, on
13 January, 1930. adopted a Resolution4 expressing its desire to deter-
mine what general conditions must be fulfilled before the mandate
régime couldbe brouglit to an end and requested the Mandates Com-
mission to submit any suggestions that might assist the Council iii
coming to a conclusion.
l'rom the discussions and decisions of the Commission " certain points
of interest may be adduced :First, it was the view of the Commission
--
League of Sations. Asîcmbly documents. A. 39. ,922 VI, C. 555.31. 332. 1922.
VI. pp. 5-6.
* League of Sations, OljiciaJloztrnnl4,th i'ear. Xo. II (Xovernber 1923).
PP. '273-1274.
League of Xations. Alincites of twenty-first session of Council, alr'rnal,
(XovLçagiie of Xations, &liniitofj8th scssion of CouncilOficiul Jui'riiu11th
Yïar. Xo. 2 (February rg3o). p. 77.
fiSec Permanent hlandatesCornrnissian, hlinutcs of 18th session (18 June-i July,
1930). pp.Ir,43, 158, 170-174200:\linutesof rgthsession (4-19 Novcmber. 1930).
PI>.153-156. 173-176. 205: Jlinutesof zothsession (June. ig3i). ppiz,149-rj6,
177-'87. '$9, rgg-~ro. 228-229.228 STATEIIEST BI' air.KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) -- 17 V 50

that the Mandates were intendedas temporary-to exist only until such
time as the inhabitants were able to stand alone. It was recognized
tliat the question of whether the régimewas temporary had given rise
to controversy, particularly in regard to the temtories under "13"
and "C" blandates, but it was pointed out that even though the goal
was sa remote as to be only of theoretical interest, this consideration
could not affect the accepted principle that the Mandates System implied
only a temporary charge. The mandate must terminate when certain
conditions have been fulfilled '.It was also stated that the Council,
in formulating the general question as it did, had made a uuanimous
pronouncement as to the temporary character of the inandate '.Count
de Penha Garcia, in his report, coucluded : "The System was created
to remedy the incapacity of the territories to govern themselves.

Ablata causa cessit effectus ?." Thistemporarycharacter of the mandates
was assumed as the first underlying principle for the Commission's
report.
Second, it was the view lhat the Cozincil of the League of Nations
was the competent authority to pronounce the termination of a mandate.
It was pointed out that CO-operation of three separate parties, the
Supreme Council of Principal Allied and Associated Powers, the League,
and the mandatory Powers, had been necessary for the introduction
of the Mandates System. However, it was the opinion of the members
of the Commission that the role of the Supreme Council had come to
an end followine the establishment of the mandate4.
There was a dkerence of opinion whether the Council of the League
could terminate a mandate without the consent of the mandatorv Powcr.
It was stated by Count de Penha Garcia and llr. Van Rees on the one
hand that the termination could not take dace without the consent of

the mandatory Power4. Otherwise, it was aGued, the termination would
be eauivalent to a unilateral decision incom~~atiblewith the decisioiis
of the Principal Allied and Associated ~okers which. conferred tlie
niandates and with the acceptance by the mandatories of the burdeiis
and responsibilities of the mandate
Lord Lugard, on the other hand, thought there \vas conflict between
the view that the mandate can only be terminated if the mandatory
Power requests it, and the view that when a territory had reached the
required standard the mandate must be terminated. The latter view lie
thought was the more correct6.
1t may be concluded that there was a consenslis tliat the Council was

the competent authority to pronounce the termination of a mandate.
and this was assumed as a second premise of the report. It was also
accepted that nortnally this pronouncement woulcl be made only upon
the proposal or with the consent of the niandatory Power.

Permanent Mandates Commisîion, Minutes of 20th session (18June-i July.
1930). pp. 197.'201.zoj.
Ibid.,pp. zor, 206.
' Ibid.,pp. 197, mg.
Vbid., p. 207.
' Ibid..p. 201. STATEMEXT BY arr. KER'IO (UXITED NATIONS) - 17 v 50 229

\VitIl regard to the third point of interest which 1 desire to mention,
tliere was greater controversy. This poiiit concerned the definilion O/
"the i~ihabitnnts" who were to be able to stand aloiie before a mandate
. miglit be teminnted'. In the discussion in tlie Commission, particiilar
reference sas macle to the white niinorities in the Territories of South-
\\'est Africa and Tanganyika. Alter hearing various statements on ttie
subject, the Commission inserted in its report a provision to the effect
tliat the conditions of political maturity must apply to the wliole of the
Territory and its population. 'SlieCommission recorded thus its view
tliat the fact that a certain part of the Territory or its population was
able to stand by itself would not justify the termination of the Mandate.
The report of the Commissionon the geneial conditioris ivhich must he
fulfilled before the mandate régimecan be brought to ail end in respect

of a country placed under ttiat rkgimewas considered by the Council on
4 September, 1931 2.Tlie Council iiotcd the conclusions of the Permaneiit
Mandates Commissioriand decided, in view of responsihilities dev«lviiig
upon the League of Nations, that the degree of maturity of mandated
territories which it may in the fiiturc he proposed to emancipate shoiild
be determined in tlie liglit of the priiiciples thus laid down, thougli only
alter a searching investigation oii cacli particular case.
The report of tlie Commissioii, tlius accepted by the Council as a
stniidard for determining when n mandate might be terminated, set
forth the opinion tliat the emancipation of a territory under maiidate
sliould he made dependent on two classes of preliminary conditions :
I'irst, tlie existence iii the territory of de facto conditions which justify

the presumption tliat the country has reached the stage of developmeiit
at ttfliicha people lias heconie able. in the words of Article 22 of the
Covenant, "to staiid by itself under the strenuous conditions of the
modern world", :ind second, certaiir guarantees to be furnislied by the
couiitry desirous of emancipation to the satisfactioii of the Leagiie of
N;itions, in whose nanie the Mandate %vascoriferrecl and lias been
esercised by the maildatory S.
The principles laid down in this Resolution were followed with
regard to the termination of the Mandate for Iraq '.It may be noted
that Major Pienaar, speaking on behalf of the Minister of External
Affairs of the Union of South Africa, at the time that the Council
Kesolution of 4 September, 1931, was adopted, expressed Iiis desire

to safeguard his country's rights as a mandatory. He said that he
did not oppose the report, provided it were understood that South

'Sec note by Lord Lugard, Permanent Xlaridates Commission. Alinutes of
20th session(r6 Junr-r Julg, rgjo), in ivhich he çtated: "A comparatirely srnall
comrnunity. more orles homogeneous in acountry where themassof theinhabitants
is quite unahle to stand alone. can bc granted local or municipal autonomy. but
thç mandated territory must be treated as a single entity and the mandate cannot
l>ewithdrawn iintil thehulk of thc -.onlc are able to stand alonc.See discussion.
ihid.p,p. I50-'53, 178-17% r79-180.
*League of Xatiaiis, Oficirrl/olirnal, rzth 1-ear,SO. ri (Sovember 1931).
pp. 2044.2058.
1Forfull text, see I'ermanent Ilandates Commission. Alinutes of 20th session
(g June-?7 June, 1931). pp. 228-zzg.
See particularly the Special Report of the Permanent Alnndates Commission
to the Council on the proposalofthe British Government with regard tothe emanci-
pntion of Iraq (Minutes of the z~st scssion. p.221, Annex 22). STATEAIEST BI7 >Ir. KERSO (USITED S.~~IOXS) - 17 Y 50
230
Africa did iiot thereby accept the recommendation of the Commission
as suitable for application to mandates other than Iraq, or as waiving

South Africa's right to ask for a modification wlieii the question of
the termination of other types of mandate arose '.
This review of the practice of the League, as 1 have mentioned,
indicates that the normal procedure for modifying or terminating a
mandate was witli the consent of both the Council and the mandatory
Power. 1 sliould iiow like to refer to discussions in the Permanent
Rlandates Commission concerning the possibility of unilateral change
either by revocation on the part of the Leaguc or by annexation on
the part of the mandatory.

During the course of the consideration of the subject of loans in
mandated territories, there was discussion of the point whether the
iilandate could be revoked without the consent of the mandatory
Power. It was stated on theone hand that the possibility of revocatiori
feared by certain investors did not really exist since the Mandate
could not be revoked without the agreement of the two interested
parties 2.
This statemerit was challenged on the grounds that it would be
dangerous to exclude, even in theory, the hypotliesis of revocability

in case of serious abuse-an hypothesis entirely in conformity witli
the character of the Mandate and with al1 general legal principles3.
It was then conceded that the Ilandate could, in theory, be revoked
in case of abuse, but it was stated that revocation could only be carried
out by a unaminous decision of an organ of the League, of which the
mandatory in question was a member % It tas also suggested that
revocation could only take place in the event of gross violation of
the Mandate and at the instance of the International Court 5.

The Council's Resolution of 1925on the question of loans did not
contain any conclusion on the question of revocability. It did state,
however, that the Coiincil agreed that the cessation or transfer of a

'League of Sations, Oflicial Journal, 12th Year, No. II (Novrmher 193,).
p. ZOjI.
a Permanent Mandates Coinmission, Minutes of 171thsession. pp. rg24, 155.156.
' See statement hy hir. Rappard. Minutes of fifth session. p. 156.At the sixth
smight be, its rniçdeed cauld never in any conceivahle circumstances lead to revoca-
tion, \\.aulbe to iveaken, before public opinion,that sentiment which gives ils
special value to the institutiof which \ve arethe recognizcd defenders." Jlinutçs
of sixth session, p. rj7.
31inutcs of fifth sesionp. 156.
.4notesubmitted to thefifth session ofthe Commissioii hy Sir Frederick Lugarrl
stated: "Whercver the power of revocntion (in conSequeiiçcof hreach of contrnct
hy maladministration) may exist, therï can be nu doiibt that in this almost
inconceivahle contingrncy the InternationalCourt of Justice would he the agçnïy
employed and that it mould make full provision for al1 'legitimate claims and
rights'."\linutes of fifth session. pp. 177-178. A memorandum submitted to the
sisth session of the Commission in 1925hy 3Ime Buggc-\\'icksel expressed the
opinion that revocation could only accur if the mandatory l'o!v\.had misused its
administrative rightsover the territoryto the detriment of the native populati<ii>
orof other nlemhcrs of the League of Nations. to such an estent that one of the
latter felt hound to petition tho Council or the PermanentCourt of Internatioiial
Justicc for thc transfer of the Alandntc to another country. hiinutes of sixth srssioti
ofthe Permanciit Ilandates Commission. p. rj+. STATEAIEST BY afr. KERKO (UXITED S.~T~OKS) - 17 V 50 231

mandate could not take place unless the Council had been assured
in advance that tlie financial obligations regularly assumed hy the
former mandatory Power would be carried out '.
The problem of a possible annezation of the mandated Territory
has alsobeen the subject ofprolonged debate in the Permanent Mandates

Commission. It may he noted that this question was raised with parti-
cular reference to the Territory of South-\\'est .&frica. At the sixth
session in IgZj, the attention of the Commission was caüed to certain
statements in the Press concerning a proposal to incorporate South-
West Afnca in the Union. Mr. Smit, High Commissioner for the Union
of South Afnca and its accredited representative to the Permanent
Mandates Commission. stated that the inclusion of South-West Africa

in the Union could only come about as the result of a treaty between
South-West Africa, as an independent government, and the Govern-
ment of the Union *.
Mr. Smit said there ivould come a time when South-West Africa
would reach a stage of development which would fit it to become inde-
pendent of the mandatory. \Vhen this stage was reached, the guardian-
ship of the Mandates Commission would be at an end, and it would
be for the people of South-West Africa themselves to declare whether

they desired to join the Union or not3.
Mr. Rappard in reply stated that it was not for the white minority
in a mandated territory to declare when the moment had arrived for
the territory to be able to stand alone. It would be contrary to tlie
spirit of the arrangement, he said, if. upon the demand of some ten
thousand settlers, a mandated terntory were, in fact, to be incorporated
with the temtory of the mandatory Power'.
From the 26th session in 1934 on. the question of the incorporatioii
of South-\\'est Africa into the Union as a fifth province appeared

League of Xations, Oficial Jotirnal. 35th session of Council, 6th Year, No. 10
(October 19zgJ. p. rgrr. It was stated by the Rapporteur that the Resoliition <if
the Council did not dral with questisn ofthe powcrs of the Cauncil in connexion
ivith the cessation of mandates in general. Ibid.. p. ,364.
Permanent Ilandates Commission, Alinutes of sixth session, p. 59. See alvo
statementç by Sir Frcderiçk Lugard and hfr.Van Iloes. Ibid.. pp. 59-60.
3 Permanent alandater Commission. Alinutes of sixth session, p.60. At the 9th
session, >Ir. Smia!so stated:"South-West Africa would never be actually annexed
to South Africa. even if the hIandateiverewithdrawn. There weretwo parties to he
considered in addition to South Africa, one of the" being the League ofNations
and the ather an independent South-\\'est Africa which would eventually be
associated with the Union." Minutes of ninth scssion, p. 34. See also statementç
during the twenty-second session ofthe Permanent Xlandates Cornmisiion. ~Minuteç
of twenty-second session, p. 23.
Permanent Alandates Commission. hlinutes of çixth session. p. 60. At the gtli
session. AI. Rappard observed that : "lt was necessvryto ascertain what wus mcant
by the territory being able to stand alone. The Mandates Systern had been introduced
in behalf of the peopleç not yet able to stand by themselver and ivould presumvbly
ceaçe as soon aç the inhabitantsivere able to manage their own affairs. South-\Vat
Africa, hoxrever, was being administered by asmall minority of white people and
no one doubted that thiç minority would soanbe capable of administering the
country independently of the South-.*fricanUnion. This, however. did not at al1
mean that the inhabitants. thatwas to Say. the native majority, would be able to
stand by thcmsclves. The Commision olight, thcrefore, to satisfy itself that thc
native population =,as able to stand alone beforc it could advise the Council that
the Zlandate should be terminated." alinutes of ninth session, p. 35.
18232 STATEYEST Ri' air. KERSO (USITED SATIOSS) - 17 V 50

prominently in the Commission's discussions '.Thii discussion originated
as a result of notice taken by the Commission that the Legislative
Assembly of South-West Africa had adopted a motion aiming at the
constitution of the Territory into "a fifth province of the Union. subject
to the provisions of the Mandate".

Considering whether incorporation would violate the Mandate, Lord
Lugard was of the opinion that, as long as the inaildatory Power
was bound by the Mandate and coiitinued to send to Geiieva a repre-
sentative to be interrogated as to the manner in whicli it had camed
out its hfandate, the incorporatioii of South-\\'est Africa in the Union

of South Africa would not be regarded as an attempt at annesation.
In his view, the crucial features in the Mandates System were the
obligation to carry out the provisions of the Mandate ancl the obliga-
tion to send a representative to Geneva2.
Alr.Palacios, on theother hand, expressed theopinion that thenfandate

would be violated solely by the establishment of the province. The
Mandate, he said. was not made up solely of a whole group of protective
provisions. By making these provisions the basis of a sui generis status
for the Territory and its inhabitants, it constituted a new institution
set up under Article zz of the Covenant as an historic compromise
between extremely complicated interests3.

The Commission in its report reserved its opinion as to the
compatibility of the course proposed by the Legislative Assembly with
the Mandates System until it would have been informed of the point
of view of the mandatory Government'.
The Commission reiiewed its discussion of the subject at its
27th session in 1g3j. The Commissionwas informed by Asir.te Water, the
accredited representative of the Union of South Africa. that his Govern-
ment liad appointed a special cominittee to study certain constitutional

problems raised by the motion of the Legislative Assembly of South-West
Africa concerning its incorporation as a fifth province of the Union. He
assured the Commission that the Union Government had no intention
of presenting the Commission with a /nit accompli
The report of the South-\\'est Africa Commission was communicated
to the Permanent hIandates Commission. The latter, at its 31st session
iii 1937, noted the statemeiit of the Government of the Union of South

.4frica that it was of the opinion that to administer the mandated
Territory as a fiftliprovince of the Union subjecttotheterms O/ tlzeMandate
would not be in conflict witli the terms of the hlandate itself. It also
noted that the Union felt that sufficient grounds Iiad not been adduced
for taking such a step.

' Permanent Mandates Commission. Minutes of 26th sessionp, i>.46-52. 62-64,
163-166, 167.207 :i\Linutesof 27th sm~ion,pp. Ir. 158, 159-164,180. 183, 229.239;
hlinutes of 28th session.p. 12 : Minutes of 29th session. pp. 126-128, 166, 2ii :
Alinutes of 30th sessionp. . r3; hlinutes of 31st session,pp. III-116. 175 192 ;
islinutes of 33rd sessionpp. 140-141, rîi ; Minutes of 34th session pp. 74-76.
Permanent Alandates Commission, Minutes of the 26th session. p. 163.
Ibid. .. 164.
' Ibid.p .. 207.
S 3linutes of 27th sessioii,p. 160. The Union of South Africn gave repeated
assurances to this effect.See lliniites of 28th srssion,p. 12 ; JIinuteç of29th
session p,.211.234 STATEYEST Bi' >Ir. KERSO (USITED SI\TIOSS) - 17 V 50
by themsel\res was a change consistent witli the principles of the
hlandates System.
Fourth, tlie possibility of revocation in tlie eveiit of a serious breach

of obligation by a mandatory was not completely precluded. It !vas
suggested that in the eveut of an exceptional circumstance of this
kind it would be for tlie Council or for the Permanent Court or for
both to decide.
Fiftli, annexatioii was not considered compatible with the principles
of the Mandate. It was accepted that independence could not he
achieved until the whole territory and its popiilation, and not merely
a white minority, was able to stand by itself.
Sixth, the consent of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,
as such, to termination was not judged necessary. It is to be noted,
howerer, that the approval of the Council of the League, on which
al1 these I'owers except the United States were represented, had been
given, and the United States had entered into a separate treaty.
These principles, of course, although they rcflect considered decisions
taken by international organs on cases which arose during the life
of the Leaguc, and the opinions of eminent esperts do not in themselves
solve the question of the modification of the present status now that
the organs of tlie League are no longer in existence.
How, then, can we summarize the problem with which the Court
is faced hy the General Assembly's final question ?

U. Competence to change the present statirs of the Territory

As 1 mentioned earlier, the approach to the question of the modi-
fication of the oresent status \+.il1deoend oii the ooinioii reached with
regard to what' tliat status is.
In esploring the various possihilities, it will be necessary to assume
alternative answers to certain of the ouestions which have been raised
previously.
I.Assuming that the Court should be of the opinion that there is
ail oblifalion to $lace the Territory under the Trusleeship System, and
that Chapter XII of the Charter is an internationally agreed substitute
for Article22 of the Covenant of the League, this in itself will constitute
the answer to the auestion of modification. If. on the other hand.
the Court is of the 'opinion that there is no obligation to negotiate
and conclude :Ltrusteeshi. ac-eemeIit, it will be iiecessary to explorc
otlier possihilities.
2.Assuming that the Court should he ofthe opinion that theMandate
and ils obli,oalionsare no longer in force, tliere will remain several
alternative solutions as to the nght to modify the present status,
whatever it may be.
.4 first possibility would be that the former inaiidatory, the Unioii
of South Africa, being in actual occupation of the Territory, miIl have
the right to determine and modify unilaterally the present status.
\i7ith the termination of the existence of the Lengue, the mandatory,
it may be argued, is the only remainiiig party having rights to the
Territory.
A second possibility would be that the right to dispose of the
Territory would rcvert to the Principal rlllied attd Associated Powers, STATEMEXT BY hlr. KENS0 (UKITED S*'ATIOSS) - 17 \'50 235
who might then once more deterinine the status of the Territory '.
A third possibility would be that with the termination of the Mandate
and the disappearance of the League of Nations, the United Nafiorzs,
representing the international community as at present organized, might
determine and modify the international status of the Territory. This

aould be consistent with the basic conception accepted internationally
since the end of the First \Vorld \Var that the future of the former
German colonies is a responsibility of the international community.
A fourth possibility is that the right to determine and modify the
status of the Territory has passed to the inhabitants themselves and
that, these inhabitants not having reached a stage of clevelopment
enabling them to decide on that status, it is the international com-
munity, as represented by the United Nations, which is to act on
their behalf and protect their interests until such time as they are
in a position to act for themselves.
3. Assuming that the Court should be of the opinion that the obliga-
liortsoftlreMandate continuein force,it will have to consider alternative
solutions, similar to the ones wehave just enumerated, but these solutions
wiil appearin a different form and withdifferent reasons for theirsupport.
There would first be the possibility that llslnandatory Power might
be the competent authority to determine and modify the status of the
Territory. As just indicated, it was the normal practice under the Man-
dates System that the status of a territory was modified by the Council
of the League in CO-operation with the mandatory Power. It could
perhaps be argued that, with the disappearance of the Council, the
inandatas. Power could by itself make the determination or modifica-
tion which formerly could be made only with the consent and in accord-
ance with terms adopted by the Council. But under this hypothesis
it could he contended that the inandatory, remaining bound by the
obligations of the Mandate, could only make a modification compatible
with the principles of the Mandate.
The second possibility, that of the determination of the futurestatus
hy the Allied and AssociatedPoreiers,would likewise remain to be con-
sidered. If the Mandate continues, the Council havirig disappeared,
the Principal Allied and Associated Powers could now act at least
in so far as the determination and modification of the status are con-
cerned, possibly in the same capacity as the Council of the League,
had it continued in existence.
The tliird possibility, that the Unifed Nations has succeedecl to the
position of the League of Nations with regard to the iiiandates, must
be taken into consideration also. 1 have already mentioned this possi-
bility in presenting soiiie considerations with regard to the final resolu-
tions of the League of Nations. This possibility might be considered
either from the viewpoint that the United Xations is the successor
of the Learue of 'Nations or that the Learue in relatiorr to the Alan-
dates Systëm served as the representativë of the international com-
munity, and that this position has now been taken by the United
Nations. As 1 mentioned earlier, the fate of the former German colonies
--
Itmay be rec.?llcdthaas aresult of the Second World War, only the United
States of Arnericn.the United Kingdom <ifGrrst Britairi aiid Xarthern Ireland
and France ~ould be consideredushaving retained rights as "Principal Allied and
Associated Powers" of \\'orl\Var One. Sec :\rticl39 and 40 of the Treatyof
Pace with Italy.236 STATEhlEST Bi'>Ir. KERSO (USITED XATIOSS) - 17 V 50

has been considered since the end of the First \\'orld \Var to be a matter
of international coiicern.
The fourth possibility is again that it is the iirhabitaiils'riglrtta deter-
mine and modif~~tlieir vresent status. If it is assumed that the Man-
date continues, the view'would be that thestatus quo, or an international
régimecompatible with the basic objectives oi the Nandates System,
must be maintained iintil sucli time as the inliabitants of the Terri-
tory are able to stand alone. Only at that time, under this hypothesis,
could there be a modification.
4. Whether the Court is of the opinion that the Mandate does or
does not contiiiue, it will have to consider as a possible answer to the
General Assembly's question that the determination and modificatiori
of the status of the Territory is to be brought about by agreement.

This idea of agreement has frequently recurred, as it will have heen
observed, in various passages of my statement. 1 noted that in
the practice of the League, asis shown by the case of Iraq, the normal
method of modifying or terminating a mandate amounted to a proposal
by the mandatory Power and agreed to by the Council. One of the
possibilities to be considered in this respect is therefore that of a solzr-
tion agreed betweenthe United Nations and the mandatory Power. This
requirement is emphasized in the last resolution of the League of
Nations on the subject of ~naiidates. This resolution, it will be recalled,
while taking note of theexpress intention of the hlembers ofthe League
administering lerritories under mandate ta continue to administer
them for the well-being and development of the peoples concerned,
in accordance with the obligations contained in the respective nian-
dates, noted that this would be the case until other arrangementshave
been agreed between the United Nations and the respecti~iemandatory

Powers. Here is express reference to the idea that the status of these
territories was ta be determined and modified by agreement betiveeii
the United Nations and the mandatory.
It has been noted that every mandated territory, with the excep-
tion of Palestine and South-\l'est Africa, either attained independence
with the consent of the League of Xations and of the mandatory Power.
or was placed under the Trusteeship System by ïirtue of a trusteeship
agreement approved by the General Assembly or the Security.Council
of the United Satioiis. \Vhile Syna, Lebanon and Transjordan achieved
their independence at a time when the Council of the League was not
able to meet, the League Assembly considered it appropriate in its
final resolution formally to welcome the termination of the niandate
status of these countries.
It will be recalled that in the case of I'alestine, the maiidatory Poiver
submitted the questiori of its future status to the Gcneral Assembly

-f the United Nations ' and invited it to formulate a solution. and that
' lt\<dlbc~~,,t~.lthat l<cs~,Iutr$! (Il~.Ilhcl~~n:ral :\55c,uI~ly:<fS~~vctnljtr,

::nd;io:<IdhermeSl.vnbcri ol rlie Caiired S~tioii,. chi :xdoi>tianiini>lriitic:i,t;xtiiii>
of a plan of partition with econimic union. ~he firçtparagraph of this plan stat:d
"The 3landate for Palntine shall terminale as soon aspossible. but in any case not
later than I Aujiust. 1948." Under paragraph z,the mandatary Power was "to
advise the commission estnblished under the plan. as farin advance as possible. of
its intentiontoterminate the Alandate and to evacuate each area." Official records
of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Resolutione, pp. 131 el sgg. STATE>lEST BY \Ir. KERSO (USITEI) SATIONS) - 17 V jo 237
in the case of South-\\'est Africa the maiidatory Po\ver itself brought

the questiori of the future statiis of the Territory beforc the General
Assembly of the United Xations l.
Let us recall, finally, that on five occasions the General Assembly
of the United Sations recomineiide<l iii its resolutions tliat a draft
trusteeship agreement for South-\\'est Africa slioiild be submitted
for its approval. Furthemore, we find iii tliese resolutions tivo more
geiieral references to the idca of an agreed solution between the General
Assembly and the Union of Soutli Africa. Inthe preamble of the Iiesolu-
tioii adopted at the second part of the first sessioi< the General Assem-
bly expressed itself as follows:

"Desirine that aoreentent between tlie United Xatioiis and tlie
Union of~s;uth~~fr&a wtri)lr~&/ier berencÏLed regardiig the future
status of the mandated Territory of South-\Vest Africa ...."

In the operative part of the liesolution adoptecl at the first part of the
tliird session3, the following passage may be found :
"Recommends, without prejudice to its Kesolutions of 14Decem-
ber, 1946, and I November, 1947. that the Unioii of South Africa,

ztntil agreement is reached zeiiththe United Nations regarding the
future of South-West Alrica, continue to supply annually inform-
ation on its administration of the Territory ...."
It appears therefore that the idea of a modification by agreement
has been frequently advocated from a11 sides. \Ve find it expressed
again and again in the Lcag~ie of Nations, in the United Nations and

in certain positions taken hy the mandatory Power itself. Should the
Court adopt such a point of view, it would mean that there exists an
obligation de co7~traheizdo-an obligation to come to an agreement.
Such aii agreement should ohviously be reaclied within a reasonable
time, so tliat the Territory of South-\\'est Africa is not left indefinitely
in its present unsettled position. In tlic absence of an agreement, further
points miglit have to be elucidated. It may be recalled in this respect
that the Mandate in its Article 7 rcferred not only to inodifications
with tlie consent of the Council of the League of Xations, but also to an
action by the Permanent Court of lntcrnational Jiistice in case of
difficulties of iiiterpretation or applicatioii. Could not the International
Court of Justice be put into a position to play a constructive râle ?
\Vould the General Assembly of the United Sations not be responsible

as the expression of the organizetl international community for such
arrangements as may be necessary ?

&Ir. President, itembers of the Court, 1 have come to the end of rny
statement. The Covenant of the League of Nations has treated as a
sacred trust the well-being ancl developmeiit of peoples who are not
yet capable of governing.themselves. The Charter-of the United Nations
has taken up this noble idea. You have now before you the difficulties

' Sre Part 1 of this çtaternent.
8 Folder r6.
a Folder 34.which have arisen in a special case particularly complicated aiid im-
Dortant. You mav have noted in mv statement and in the do~-ier that
ibis case has ~~&pied the Organi&tion of~$e United Natioris since
the very inception of the Or~anization and that successive Assemhlies
have aiways Eleariy expresseYitheir opinions. 1 ain sure your Opinion
will form afinn legal basis iii the light of which a solid and rapid solution
may be found.
1 thank you, Mr. President. 2. STATEMENT BY M. JOSÉ INGLES
(KEPRI;SENTATIV OFE THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
hT THE PUBLIC SITTINGS OF MAY 19th AND 20th. 1950

Ilr. President, Honourable hfembers of the Court. hly Government
wishes to thank this august tribunal for according it the privilege of
making an oral statement for the purpose of stating its position on such
an important question as that submitted by the General Assembly
Resolution of December 6th. 1949, for the advisory opinion of this
Honourable Court.
l'lit: <listiiigiiislicd r r ~ i of tlie jt~cretni!.-Gciivr;~inf LIIL.
L'IL S;itions Ii:tiI,rt:.:eiii;< c<~iiil~ri.l.ciii;$ctii:.l I~.~ck~rouii~~
:isivcll a1 sct~ol.irllc,e,tl;111:~1sifstlie ~>rubI\viit11uIii:li ttic<;c~~cral
Assembly has been"seiGd sincéits first seision. Anumber ofgovernments
have also submitted written statements. This weaith of material will
be of assistance to this Honourable Court in its deliberations. For Our
part, they have made the task of Counsel easier and have considerably
shortened the oral statement to be presented oii behalf of our Goïern-
ment. \\le shall have to draw frequently, however, on material already
made available by learned Counsel, but only for the purpose of empha-
sizing certain points or elaborating further on other matters. \Ve shall
follow the exainple of Dr. Kerno by submitting a list of our citations
to the Registrar for insertion in the records and shall dispense ivith
their rending iri our oral statement.

1. Introtluction.
\Ve propose to enquire first into the international obligations of the
Union of South Africa iith respect to the Territory of South-West
Africa under the Charter of the United Xations. This will involve a
discussion of the applicability of pertinent provisions of the Charter like
Chapters XI and XII. as u-ellas an examination of the various Resolu-
tions of the General Assemblv pertaining to mandated territories,
particularly to South-West Afnca. Thereafter, we propose to take up
the international obligations of the Union of South Africa under tlie
Handate. This ivill include an enqiiiry into the question as to whetlier
those obligations still subsist in spite of the dissolutio? of the I.eague of
Nations. and. if the re~lv to the foreeoiiic iiuestion is in the affirmatiire,
to eriquire firther in&'the questionas yo'who has the competence to
terrninate tliese obligationsor to determinc or modify the international
status of the Territzry.
It will be seen that, while we do not limit our statement to the three
questions particularized by the Kesolution of the General Assembly,
ivedo not go beyond the scope of the general question, which is :"\i'hat
is the international status of the Territory of South-West Africa and
what are the international obligations of the Union of South Africa
arising therefrom ?" That the Assembly did not expect this Honourable
Court to be restricted to the three particular questions propoundediii its Resolution is etvident from the statemeiit of one of the proponents
of the Resolution to the effect that the Court would undoubtedly under-
stand that the Assembly espected from it full clarification of al1 the
legal issues arising out of the problem of South-\\'est Alrical. Another
sponsor of the Resolution said that the time hnd come for the General
Assembly to seek a final solution for the question of South-M'est Africa
and that ail authoritative statement on the legal aspects of the question
should he sought froin the International Court of Justicez.
With the permission of tlie Court, ne open Ourargiiment by discussing
the av. .cnbilitv of Chavter SI1 of the Charter inasmuch as it has
nici-ired ilie sprci:il :ittt,iittufihe (;eiit:r:il :\sscinb:xii<1s.niorcnvcr,
tiiiLu,licd iiiuiic of tl~c;l)ciiiir c1iiritioii.i:i~ldreitiililii.; Iluiiour~hlr
Court

11. .4re the prouisio~tsof Cfzupter XII of the Clzurlerapplicable niid,
if so, in whictmnniier, to th8 Terrilory of SotilIr-Ives1Africa ?

It is Our humble submission that the provisions of Chapter XI1 of
the Charter are applicable to the Territory of South-West Africa, and
we propose to demonstrate the v?.lidity of Our contention by going
directly into a discussion of the manrier in wliicli Chapter XII of the
Charter applies to mandated territories in geiier:il, niid to Soutli-West
Africa iii particuliir.
\Ve rely priiicipnlly on the wording of Article 80, paragraph 2, of the
Charter to support the proposition that Members of the United Nations
administeriiig mandated territories Iiave ail iiiteriiational obligation,
which is tantamount ta saying that they Iiave a legal duty ta negotiate
and conclude agreements for the purpose of placilig such mandated
territories iirider the international Trosteesliip System. Article 80 of
the Charter provides as follows :

"1. Escept as may be agreed upon in iiidividual trusteeship
agreements. made under Articles 77, 79 aiid SI. placing each ter-
ritory uiider tlie Trusteeship System, ;rnd until such agreements
have been concluded, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed
in or of itself to alter in any manner tlic riglits wliatsoever of any
States or nny pcoples or the terms of esisting international instru-
ments to wliicli 1IIemhersof the United Xntioiis rnay respectively
he parties:
z. 1'ar:igrapliI of this Article shall iiot be intcrpreted as giviiig
grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiation and conclu-
sion of agreeineiits for placing mandated aiid other territories
under the 'rrusteeship System as provided for in Article 77."

Piiragraph I of Article So, known as the conservatory claiise, \vas
formerly clause j of Section B of the working paper siibmitted by the
United States delegation at the fifth meeting of Committee II/43. As
approved at the tenth meeting of Committee 1114. clause j originally
read as fol-ows :

' Statement of thc delegate of Denmark. p. 529. Sumrnvry Record, Plenary
Meetings. 4th Session of the Assembly.
Statement of the delegate of Thailand. p. 434 ibid.
3 U.N.C.I.O. Docunients, Vol. S. pp. 677, 681 ;Documeiit No. 323. "Escept as may be agrccd upon in individual trusteeship agree-
mciits made under paragraphs 4 and fi1 placirig eacli territory
uiider the Trusteeship Systen~, nothing in this Chapter sliould be
construed in aiid of itself to alter in any manncr the rights of any
States or any peoples in aiiy territory or the tenns ofany mandate."
Tlie representative of the United States, who \vas largely responsible
for this provision, wanted to have it placed on record tliat the above
safeguartlirig provision was "iiitended to meaii that al1 rights, what-
ever tliey might be, remained exnctly the same as they existed : that
thcv are iieither increased iior diminished bv the adontion of this Charter.
..\ii~change is left as a matter for subsejuent agieements. The clause
should iieither add nor detract, but safeguard a11esisting rights, what-

ever thev mav be 2."
Siihse<~iienrl~t.iu\v,,vi.r,during tlic i.{iIniveriri:. tlic rcprcs~iitnti\c
of tlie Unitr.(lSt;ites, \vli\\.:icli:iiriiiniiotliclirnltiiig 5ub-Ci>i~iiiiiitcc,
iui~i~orte~l t thoiic <,i I:r;crtce nncl chr L'IIIICC ~;~II~I~,,IIJIX~!S~IIIV,I
chynges to trie provisionally approved clause 5 so as Fo subsiitute the
words "csisting international instruments" for "mandates", aiid to
add the following sentence, whicli subsequently became paragraph 2
of Article 80 : "This pardgrapli should not be interpreted as giving
grounds for delay or postponement of the negotiatioiis and coriclusioii
of the agreements for placing mandated and other territories, as pro-
vided for in paragraph 3 untler the Trusteeship Systern."
Tlie statement presented on behalf of the Secretary-General has
quoted at length the esplanatioii made bj, the representative of the
United States in proposing this amendmeiit, but we should like to
eiiiphasize the last portion tliereof, which is as follows :
"011 tlie other hand, neither does paragraph 5 takc away at al1 froni
the other paragraphs of this Chapter as to the method by which the
negotiations of the subsequent agreements should be carned out.
IVemaiie iluery clear irethenewsentencelhat noone caa poinl toparagrnph j

in thefutrrrearirlsay, 'I refnseto negotiate. I simply stand on parngrapli .j
and I insis1 we stay there for ever' =. Bearing in mind that clause 5,
as origirially proposed and adopted by the tenth meeting, referred
specifically to mandates, it is clear that the mandatory Power caniiot
refuse to negotiate a trusteeship agreement by relying solely oii the
first sentence of clause 5, that is, paragraph I of Article 80. The words
"existing international instruinents" urere adopted because they Iiad a
broader meaning than mandates, but certainly mandate agreements
were expressly intended to be covered by these xvords.
Prime Minister Frazer of New Zealand, Chairman of Committee 1114,
speaking before the Fourth Committee of the first part of the first
session of the General Assembly on January arst, 1946, during the
discussion of the draft resolutioii calling upon al1 the States adminis-
tering mandated territories to negotiate trusteeship agreements for
the said territories, said that "in San Francisco the Committee on
Trusteeship, of which he had heen Chairman, liad attempted to avoid

' Document So. 323.
Verbatim minute of Technical Coinmittee (II/+). U.X.C.I.0.(unpublishedj.
Vol.69 (English), Running Soî.39. qo.41.43.46 (tenthrneeting):seealso U.S.C.I.O.
Ilocuments, Vol. S. p. 486.
Vol.V70 (English), RunninghXos. 23-26,tThirteenth i\leeting. Underscoring ours.). STATE~IEST BY 11. ISGLES (PHILII>I~ISES) - 19 v 50
242
al1ambiguity ;although the Committee did not go so faras some would
have liked, it had agreed that the Powers which held mandates under
the League of Nations should and would, in the first instance, recognize
the authority of tlie Trusteeship Council of the United Nations 1".
Prime Minister Smuts of the Union of South Africa, Chai-an of
Commission II, which adopted the report of Committee 1114,shared
the same view. 111introducing the report of Committee II14 to Com-
mission II, he described Section B of the Committee draft, which later
became Chapters XII and XII1 of the Charter, as follows :

"Section B deals to some estent with the old fieldalready corered
in the Covenant of the League of Nations, and tlie provision there
is this: That with regard to certain types of dependent temtones,
old mandate territories, temtones newly conquered and taken
from esisting Powers, and also colonies where the governing
Poiver is prepared voluntarily to place them under trusteeship-all
these various types of territories will fall under the Trusteeship
System, which will impose stricter conditions than those prescnbed
in Section tiP."
Prime Minister Smuts elaborated on this further when he reported
to the Union of South Africa House of Assembly or1March ~gth, 1946
Questioned on tlie meaning of paragrapli 2 of Article 80, he said :

"That was to prevent a situation where the mandatory says :
'1 do not want to make an acreement at all'. He takes thi ~osition.
that the League of ~ationchavin~ disappeared we are iow free;
that we can do what we like."
Continuing, Prime Rlinister Smuts poiiited out that that position is
in conflict with paragraph 2 of Article 80. On being asked whetlier
the Union "must enter into an agreement", he said further :

"Xo, you must take steps to enter into an agreement:. You
must be serious about it, but there is 110compulsion laid on you
to accept the terms. To my mind the position is quite simple.
\\'bat Sub-Section 2 of Article So was intended to prevent was that
a mandatory should Say: the League of Nations is dead ; 1 am
in this positioii; 1 do not want to come under U.N.O. at al1 and
1 do not waiit to come under the Trusteeship Council at al]. That
position is precluded. That is how 1 understand it ....="
It is our hiimblc submission, therelore, that paragraph 2 of Art-
icle So estahlishes a positive obligation oii the part of hfember States
administering mandated territories to negotiate and conclude agreements
forthe purpose ofplacing suchmandated territories under the Trusteeship
System. The duty to iiegotiate. as held by tlie Permanent Court of
International Justice iii its Advisory Opinion of October 15th. 1931 *.

'Onicial Records. Fourth Committee. First Part. First Session. General Asçem-
bly. p. 6.
Pp. 679-680. Verbatirn minutes of the Third Meeting ofCornmission II, 20.e
1945. U.S.C.I.O. Sçlected Documents (Washington, 1946).
3 Union of South Africa, Debates of the House of r\sçernbly. Third Session.
Sinth Parliament (1946-,947). \'ol. 56, p.3675.
P.C.I.J., Series A/B. Xo.42. See also AnnualDigesl ofl'ubliIcnternaiional
Tacna-Arica Arbitration, pp. 352-359.lorocco Clairns. p. 20; id.1924-1925.'5s iiot only to enter into negotiations but also to pursue them asfar as
possible with a view to concluding agreements", although the Court
also held that "aii obligation to iiegotiate does not imply an obligation
to reach an agreement" or to conclude an agreement in a special manner.
The Resolutioii of the Council of the League of Nations of Decem-
ber ~oth, 1927w ,hich was thesubject of interpretation by the Permanent
Court ofInternational Justice, was couched in general terms and simply
recommended tlie two Governments concerned "to enter into direct
negotiations as soon as possible iri order to establisli suc11relations
between the tivo neighbotiring States as will ensure 'the good under-
standing between nations upoii which peace depends' ".
Paragrapli 2 of Article 60 of the Charter, on the other hand, is more
specific in that it'asks for a particular kind of agreemeiit. iiamely : a
trusteeship agreement. Bcsides, it contemplates not only the "riegotia-
tion", but, more thaii tliat, also the "conclusion" of agreements for
placing inaiidated territorics under the Trusteeship Systern.
Tlie Governrnent of the UnionofSouth Africain its \\'ritten Statemcnt '
alleges tliat paragraph 2 of Article 60 "can apply only where the State
concerned h:~salready decided to submit an agreement", and that "to
hold that it could be applied in other circumstances as well, would
not only be in contradiction to the voluntary nature of Articles 75 and
77. but would also lead to obviouslv unintendecl results". Tlie contention
oi'tlie Co\~crririieiiiof tlic Ciiioii 'hl Soutli :\fric;i tlint pnragraph 2 of
,\rticlc So 'cari at>t)Ivoi11\'\\.hrr1111St.,fc coni~rncclli.unlrcad\~clruide(l
to submit an aireémeni" is. we respectfully subrnit, contra;!. to the
intention of the framers of the Charter.
Siich conteiition of tlie Government of the Union of South Africa is
contrary to tlie esplanation of the representative of the United States
at the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San
Francisco when lie proposed the adoption of paragraph j of Section B.
which became paragraph 60 of the Charter ; and when he said "no oiic
can point to paragraph 5 in the future and Say '1refuseto negotiate' ".
Such contention of the Government of the Union of South Afric;~
1sconrreir! ru tlrr tcriniuny ut rli,icpreicnr:iti\.e <ifSciv %enInnclto
tlic lJiiitc<l S:itioiis Confcreiic~uii Iiit~~rii.~riuii~lrgniiiïnlioii ~t S;in
I;r:,iici.;ci\.Ii<\\.LIS(:ii;iirni:iii of CoiiiniitrrIl 4 III t l il\,:
trusteesliip provisions of the Charter, when he saicithat the Comrnittee
"agreed tliat tlie Powers which held mandates under the League of
Nations should and would, in the hrst instance, recognize the autliority
of the Trusteeship Council of tlie United Nations".
Such coiitention of the Governinent of the Union of Soutli Africa
is contrary to tlie understanding and interpretation of its chief
representative to the United Nations Conference on International
Organization at San Fraiicisco, not only during the Conference, wheii
he said tliat "al1 mandated territories ....will fall under the Trusteeship
System" ;hiit also rvhen he esplained the Charter provisions on the floor
ofthe Unioii I'arliainent in his capacity as Prime Miiiister of the Govern-
ment ofthe Union of South Africa, ivhenhe said that under paragraph 2
of Article 60 the Government of the Union of South Africa "must take
steps to enter irito an agreernerit" and "must be serious about it" ; and
when lie said that the Government of the Union of South Africa is244 STATEaiEST RY >1. ISGLES (PHII.IPPISES) - Ig 1'j0

"precluded" from saying that "1 do not want to come under U.X.O. at
al1 aiid 1 do not want to come under the Trusteeship Council at a:l".
Such contention of the Government of the Union of South Africa,
moreover, is inconsistent with the plaiii meaning of paragraph z of
Article 80 to the effect that paragraph I of said Article does not give
mandatory Powers, among others, any riglit to dclay or postpone the
negotiation and coiiclusion of agreements for placing mandated territo-
ries under the Trusteeship System. In the words of the' Permanent
Court of International Justice in its Advisory Opinion of October 15th,
1931, above quoted, ail engagement to negotiate, standing alone, "is
not only to enter into negotiations, but also to pursiie them, as far as
possible, with a view to concluding agreements". Certainly, the additional
engagement to conclude an agreement makes it obligatory on the man-
datory Power to reach an agreement.
\Ire propose iiext to analyze the allegation of the Government of the
Union of South Africa that paragraph z of Article So is in "contradic-
tion" with Articles 7j and 77.
Article 75 provides as follows :
"The United Nations shall establish under its authority an
international truste es hi^svsteni for the administration and suDer-

vision of such territories'a&ay be placed thereuiider by subseq;ent
individual ayreements. These territories are hereinrifter referred
to as 'trust ?crritories'."
Article 77 provides as follows :

"1. The Trusteeship System shall apply to such territories in the
following categories as rnay be placed thereunder by means of
trusteeship agreements :
(a) territories now held under mandate ;
(b) territories which may be detached from enemy States as
a result of the Second \Vorld \Var; and
(6)territones voluntanly placed under the System by States
responsible for their administration.
z. It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which

territories in the foregoing categories will be brouaht under the
Trusteesliip Systein and upon ihat terms."
The use of the words "such territories as may be placed thereunder"
in Article 75 and in the first paragraph of Article 77 is, we respect-
fully submit, not iiidicative either of volition or compulsion on the part
of anybody. The two Articles refer to the territories to be placed under
truste es hi^.ut not to the ~arties who will lace such territories under
triistt.eiliip. 'l'liep1:iiit~:iriitjfIIii:iisi: uf tlic \vur<ls"siicli tcriito-
lies ;is riiiiy be pl:icc<ltlicrciintlcr" is tliat noi nll dependcmt rrrrirorii.i
\vil1nrsrssarily I>cpl.isr~1iii~dertlic Triistrcsliip Systerii. But cerr:iinly.
froiii tlii,sc \\ords. stnnding nlonc. oiie caiinot de<luce nny oblig:itiuii
ur Iack of obli:ntii,n on tlie l,.irt uf ;in\,body to i>llcccert:iin 1,-rritoiics
under the Trusteeship Systëm. . .
Taking Article 75 as a whole, ae note that there is definitely an obliga-
tion on the part of the United Nations to establish under its authority
an international trusteeship system. Thefurther use of the words "subse-
quent individual agreements" does not detract from, but 0x1 the contrary emphasizes, the obligation incumbent upon the United Nations
to establish the Trusteeship System in the first instance. On the other
hand, from the practical standpoint, it would be impossible for the
United Nations to comnlv with its oblieations in the absence of indi1.i-
dual agreements. ~ndeét<,as the ~rep;ratory Commission fouod out,
the Trusteesliip Council could not be established at al1without a certain
number of "individual agreements" which hatl to precede and not
follow the establisliiiient of the international Trusteeship System.
Therefore, the l'reparatory Commission, having in mind that, of al1
the categories listed in Article 77, only the maiidated territones have
been pre\~iously subject to international supervision, and having in
mind paragraph 2 of Article 80, found it advisable to recommend,
and the General Assernbly had to adopt, dunng the first part of its
first session,a resolotion calling upon al1 States administering territo-
ries under League of Nations mandate to uiidertake practical steps to
implement the Charter provision for the conclusion of trusteeship agree-
ments, for approval preferably not later than the second part of the
first session of the General Assembly '.
Coming to Articlc 77, we note that it applies to three categories,
namely : (a)territories riow Iield iinder mandate ; (6) territories which
may be detached from eiiemy States as ilresiilt of tlie Second World
\Var, aiid (c)territories voluntarily placed uncler the System by States
responsible for tlieir acl~iiinistration.
Talien in coiiriesion witli the words "as may be placed thereunder
by means of trusteeship agreements" used in the introductory paragrapli
of the Article, we have alreadv indicated that the plain meaning of the
Article with respect to category (a)is that not ail territories held under
mandate at the time the Charter came into force would necessarily
is so hecause of exceptions provided in the Charter itself.m. This
For. esample, Article 78 provides that "the Trusteeship System shall

not apply to territories which have become Members of the Uiiited
Nations....". This appliecl to Syria and Lebanon, wliicli, though partici-
pants in the Confereiiccand signatories to the Cliiirter, were still regarded
of Nations.o be teclinically subject to ClassA Alandate of the Leaglie
Again, the "cotiservatory clause", that is, paragraph I of Article So
of tlie Charter, cxpressly safeguards "the rights of any States or any
peoples or the tcrms of esisting international instruments to which

indicates, among other things, that the peoples of mandated territones
who have fulfilled the conditions of the mandate, that is, having qudi-
fied for independerice, were iiot to be placecl under the iiiternational
Trusteeship System. I-iencc, upon the acceptancc by the League As-
sembly of the terminalioii of the Mandate for l'ransjordan on April 18,
1946, and the consequent recognition of its independencc subseiluent
to the coming into force of tlie Charter of the United Xations, Trans-
jordan fell outsi<le the operation of the international Trusteesliip
System.

Oficial Records. l'lenarp Session, First Part, First Sessioii, Ceneral Assembly,
p. 316.246 STATEIIEST BY M. ISGLES (PHILIPPISES) - 19 ï jO

The case of the former mandated Territorv of Palestiiie mav also
be cited as another example, for in this case the General .4s&mbly
opted for independence rather than trusteeship of the Arab and Iewish
States into which the Territory was partitioned.
The foregoing exceptions explain why it was necessary for sub-
sequent agreements to determine whicli territories in category (a)
will be placed under trusteesliip and upon what terms as provided iii
paragraph 2 of Article 77. But it was not left to the arbitrary willof the
mandatory Power to leave out from tlie operation of the international
Trusteeship System a mandated territory which was not yet ready for
independence. This is evident in the intention of the framers of the
Charter, manifested during the preparatory work and reaffirmed by
them during the subsequent functioning of the Organizatioii. \\'e allude
merely at thisjuncture to the statements we have already quoted of the
propoiient of Article So of the Charter, of the Chairman of Committee
1114, \<phichdrafted the trusteeship provisions of the Charter, and
even of the chief representative of the Union of South Africa who was
Chairmaii of Commission II of the United Nations Conference on Inter-

national Organization. The conclusion is inescapable that, in conformity
with the Charter, the Mandates System of the League of Nations was
to be replaced by the international Trusteeship System provided for
in Clinpters XII and XII1 of tlie Charter 1.
Bearing in mind the distinctions which we have pointed out with
respect to mandated territories which should be placed under the
Trusteeship System and those mandated territories which should
not be so placed, particularly those who have qualified for self-govern-
ment or independence, the defeat of the Egyptian amendments iii
Committee III4 of the San Francisco Confercnce loses the significance
attributed to it by the Government of the Union of South Africa2.
The Egyptian amendments would have made automatic the placing
of al1 mandated territories under the Trusteeship System without the
negotiation and conclusioii of subsequent agreements. And the reason
for the rejection of the Egyptian amendments was precisely because
it was felt that the manclatory I'ower shoiild not be compelled to sub-
scribe to an agreement, the exact terms of whicli it had no means of
knowing iii advance. The objection of the Union of South Africa was
couched in the following terms :

"To delete the words, or the amendment rather, put forward
by the delegate from Egypt, rvould, 1 snbmit Sir, create an absurd
position. These Mandates are ordinary contracts which would
have to be entered into by the Trusteeship Council on the one
hand, and by the mandatory Power on the other. There inust,
in other words. be an aereement on the terms and not merelv a ~J
bare acceptanck of the {fandate without any terms heing agreetl
upon beforehand 3."

\\'e should like to emphasize the lact that the first Egyptian amend-
ment whictiwas to delete mention of "suhseoucnt individual agreements"
' Sce Oppenheim, 7th ed., Vol. 1,sec.1940,p. rg3.
* Par. 31.p. 80.
See verhatim minutes of Technical Comrnitt(1114)U.S.C.I.O. (unp.),\'ol. 6g
(English). Running Xo. z.Eighth hleeting:this was also quoted as a footnote to
the oral statement of the representative of the Seeretary-General.in what is now Article 75, was submitted and voted down during the
seventhnteeiingof Cornmittee II14 on May 18, 1945'. ThesecondEgyptian
amendment which was to insert the word "all" before category (a) and
to delete the words "suhsequent agreements" in what is now Article 77,
was defeated during the eighthmeetingof the Committee on May 22,
1945 On the other liand, the United States ametidment to add
paragraph 2 to what is now Article 80, was adopted at the bhirteenll?
meetiltgof the Committee on June 8, 1945 3.

Assurnine that the defeat of the EevntianL.m2ndments sliowed an ~ ~
<~l,pcsitiontu 3 'c~inl~iil~ury"rriistcc,l~ili, \\.criiicl;i clinii;<:of riiitid
\ihcii rli~i:~miii.itt~e;iil<~j~tcIiIlI?Ciiitc-dSntcs :iiiicndnii,nr rn.\rtirli50.
because here there is a definite concession to those who wanted "compul-
sory" trusteeship. Instead of providing for automatic trusteeship,
however, as the rejected Egyptian amendments would have done, the
new paragraph 2 of Article 80 creates an obligation to negotiate and
conclude trusteeship agreements, particularly with respect to mandates
with which paragraph I of Article 80 is chiefly concerned.
One writer opines that "it is clear from the San Francisco records
that to placate opposition to the voluntary theory, the Conference
deliherately accepted the compromise formula of Article 80 (z),which
seems to contradict the optional language ofArticles 80 (I),75 and 77'".
In the light of Our exposition, however, we submit that the alleged
"contradiction" is more apparent than real. We take it that the function

of interpretation is not to look for contradiction in isolated phrases,
but rather to look at the whole instrument in order to harmonize various
provisions which constitute a composite and correlated whole We
must assume that paragraph z of Article 80 was inserted in the Charter
for a definite purpose ;and therefore we should reject any interpretation
which would render it without effect $.
The reference in Articles 75 and 77 to subsequent agreements for
placing territones under the Tmsteeship System, is not inconsistent
with the requirement in paragraph z of Article 80 that there shouid he
no delay or postponement in the negotiation and conclusion of such
agreements. It is also clear that no contradiction can he read into the
terms ofArticles 75, 77 and 80hy al1the rules of logicand common sense.
\mile the mandatory Power on the one hand, and the United Nations
on the other hand, have to agree on the terms of the agreement, there
is a clear oblieation to nerrotiate and conclude such agreement. There
..
ij .ti>ur.itim.Is <-o~r/r.rlrorJ~,~tilic cng:i:cmcnr tu nepti:it<-. '>lorr thnn
tliat, tlicre ii :in ublirntii>iiin renrli ;-grecmcnt ttith< ver. ci--ngcrncnt
to conclude an agreement.
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that, because the mandatory
Power has to agree upon the terms of the agreement, it does not mean
that the terms are left to the arhitrary will of the mandatory Power.
For neither the mandatory Power nor the United Nations may agree
upon terms inconsisteiit with the objectives of the international Trustee-
---
' U.N.C.I.O. Documents, Vol. X, p. 460.
Ibid., p.469.
Ibid., p.516.
' H. Duncan Hall, Tha Trristeeshtp Systcm and the case of Sotrth-West Alrica.
B.Y.B.I.L.. Vol. XXIV, p. 388.
"eeee Hackworth,SerDigest of.Internafional Law, Vol. 1, p. 715.248 STATENENT BY nr .SGLES (PHILIPPIIIES) - 19 v 50
ship System as laid down in the Charter. As far as these principles with

which the mandatory Power should conform in the agreement are
concerned, there is no question of the mandatoryPower beiugcompelled
to agree to terms which it had no means of knowing in advance ;because
these principles are embodied in the Charter which were agreed te
unanimously, in Committee 1114,in Commission II, and in the Plenary
Session of the Conference at San Francisco, and they constituted solemn
engagements of al1 parties to the Charter.
We neednot deal at length with categories (b)and (c) underparagraph I
of Article 77. As far as paragraph 2 of Article 80 is concerned, the
emphasis is on category (a),because "mandated" territories are expressly
mentioned, while reference to categories (6)and (c)is only inferred from
the words "and other territories" in paragraph 2 of Article 80. Indeed,
the history of Article 80 shows that the future of mandated territories
was the main preoccupation of its author and proponent. Moreover,
the advisory opinion requested of this Hononrable Court specifically
concerns a mandated territory.
If we deal with categories (b) and (c), therefore, it is only in order
to refute the argument advanced bv the Union of South Africa in
iti \vri[tcil ît;~ti!;~irithat tlle iiiil,lk:eti~iof :,Icg:il ol>lig.itiuiifroiii
~i.ir"grapIi? oi i\rticlc >o.:,ri4 :ilq>lir.~tiiiiC,;IIIc;,tçgi,riiiiiitic,iicil
il1:\iticit7:. \vuiil.lead to iiiiiililrid rcsu~ts..ilid \volilIliii1csiisi;tci.t
with the é.ipressly voluntary character of category (c)'.
With respect to category (b), that is, territones detached from enerny
States as a result of the Second World War, we need only repeat that.
not al1such territories should necessarily be placed under the Trustee-.
ship System. There is the qualification made in Article 107 that :
"Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action,
in relation to any State which during the Second \Vorld \Var has been
an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized
as a ri:sult of that war by the governments having responsibility for
such action."
For example, Formosa, instead of being placed under trusteeship,.
was restored to China from whom it nas "stolen" by Japan. And when
the General Assembly was called upon to decide what should be done

with Korea, it opted for independence instead of trusteeship. But
certainly, where there is no disposition for the return of "stolen" terri-.
tories or the granting of independence to other territories, the ohligation
to negotiate and conclude a trusteeship agreement for a territory-
detached from an enemy State is clear. This is also implicit in the
Declaration hy the United Nations of January ~st, 1942, subscribing.
to the Atlantic Charter, which pledged their countries not to seek
territorial aggrandizement. Of course, independence, as we indicated,
should be recognized as an alternative, for the principle of trusteeship.
is subordinated to the principle of self-determination of peoples, respect
for which is enshrined as one of the purposes of the United Nations 2.
With respect to category (c), that is, territories voluntarily placed
under the System by States responsible for their administration, the
express use of the word "voluntary", which is iiot used in categories
(a) end (b),shows that it is only in this category where discretion is

' Para. 29 and 30. p. 80.
Art. I, para. 2. Charter. ST:~TEZIEST BY X. ISGLES (PHII.II~I~INES) - 19 V 50 249

vested in the administering Power to place or not to place any of its
territories, that is, any of its colonies, under the Trusteeship System.
There is no inconsistency between Article 77, category (c),and Article 80,
paragraph 2. Clearly, there is no room for the redtrctio iit absurdum
argument advanced by the Union of South Africa that if paragraph 2
of Article 80 carries the implication of a legal obligation, it would mean
that every State responsible for the administration of any colony is
bound ta submit a trusteeship agreement. Such administering Powers
would be bound under paragraph 2 of Article 80only from the moment
they "voltrntnrily"place any of their colonies under the Tmsteeship
System. Tlie same cannot be said with respect to administering Powers
under categories (a) and (b), who have iio option to refuse to negotiate
and conclude a trusteeship agreement for such peoples and territories
as do not fa11under the exceptions of paragraph 2 of Article I, para-
graph I of Article 80 and Article 107 of the Charter-principally for
such peoples and territories as do not qualify or have not yet qualified
for indepeiidence.
Coming back to category (u) of Article 77, that is, to territories
helù under mandate, we note for the record, as evidence of contem-
porary practice, that, with the exception of South-West Africa, al1
mandated temtories have either been emanci~ated or Dlacedunder the
iiitcriiatii~ii:ilTriisteesliil~ Systein.
Guud fnitli iof the cs;ciicc of tlic ohlijint:isiiiiitby tlieni:in<lnrory
l'u\\cr-. iin.lcr i~.iracr;?uli :\rtic: >ouf III,'il.;<rtt'r tu i.~il~ti.itcn<l
conclu<letrus&esh& igreements for the purpose of placingmandated
territories under the international Trusteeship System. Pucta seruanda
s2rnl.The principle that the enforcement of international obli ations
rests primarily on good faith 1s as true to-day as it was when Erotius
first postulated it in the sevcnteenth century. Field Marshal Smuts,
chief delegate of tlie Union of South Africa to the United Nations
Conference on International Organization at San Francisco. recognized
this clearly when, iii his valedictory address upon the completion of the
Charter, he said :
"Our work has beendone in a spirit of goodwill,good comradeship,
good faith, without which it could in fact never have been accom-
ulislied. Good will and rood faith are written or im~lied in everv
i>rovisionof this great dzcument. And in our faith in'the future wé
espect that those who come after us, and who will have to carry
ou; Charter in the generations ta conie, will show no less good
will and good faith in tliis part of the great task of peace'."

The apfilicabiliw of ChufiterSI of the Charterto the Territory of Sorith-
West Africn

\Ve propose to take up next the applicability of Cliaptcr XI of the
Charter to the Territory of South-West Africa. This point was taken
up in the \Vntten Statement submitted by the Government of the
United States.
The Statement submitted on behalf of the Secretary-General points
out tliat a specific question for inclusion in the request for advisory
opinion as to whether Chapter XI is applicable, and in what maiiner, to

U.N.C.I.O. Selected Documents (Washington, i946), ~p. 934-935. report involved a thorough questioning of the accredited representative
of the mandatory Power.
We note further that the rirht of the inhabitants of mandated terri-
tories topetition an international agency, which was recognized by the
League of Natioiis, is not guaranteed to the inhabitants of non-sell-
governing territories by Chapter XI of the Charter.
It is our humble view that these rights of the inhabitants of man-
dated territories have not been abrogatcd by Chapter SI of the Charter.
On the contrary, they have been safeguarded by the conservatory
provisions of paragraph I of Article 80 of the Charter. \ire shall discuss
this matter more fully when we take up the international obligations
of the Union of South Africa under the Mandate.
\Ire should like to stress at this stage, however, that the applicability

of Chapter SI of the Charter to the Territory of South-West Africa
simply amounts to this : that pending the placing of the Territory of
South-West Africa under the Trusteeship System by means of a trustee-
ship agreement, whicli the Government of the Union of South Africa
isrequired, in good faith, to negotiate and conclude, without delay
or postponement, the said Government is placed under direct account-
ability to the United Nations for the administration of the Territory
of South-\\'est Africa, by virtue of the provisions of Articles 73 and
74 which constitute Chapter XI of the Charter. This is, of course, apart
from the international obligations which the said Governmeiit has
assumed under the Mandate. Certainly, Cliapter XI cannot be inter-
preted to the detriment of the interests of the inhabitants of the terri-
tories to which the said Chapter applies, in view of the categorical
recognitioii in Chapter XI of the principle that "the interests of the
inhabitants of these territories are paramount".

The nlleged "reservation" to the Cliarlerby the Union of South Alricu

\!Je shoultl like to discuss next the claim made by the Union of South
Africa hefore the General Assemhly that South-West Africa wns the
only territory with respect to which a specific reservation was made
at the San Francisco Conference'. \Ve feel constrained to refute this
claim becaiise of references made in the \Vritten Statement of the
Government of the Union of South Africa which imply that the framers
of the Charter did not intend or were iiot bound to expect the Trustee-
ship System to apply to South-\Vat Africa and that therefore the
Union of South Africa has no obligation to place the Territory under
the Trusteeship System2.
The Charter of the United Nations does iiot contain any provision
similar to that of Article I of the Coveiiant of the League of Nations
which expressly preclutles the possibility of reservatiolis. Article 110
of the Charter, dealing with ratification and signature, makes nomention
of reservations.
It is Our humble subrnission that reservations may not be made
to the Charter of the United Nations, having regard to the "indivisible"
character of al1 its provisions3 and to its fundamental objective which

Paras.22-23.pp. 77-78.dSession. Plenary.19+7, pp.187-190.
a Report of Comrnittec 1.U.S.C.I.O. Documents. Document 944.is to preserve the peace of the world. The Charter (to paraphrase what
has been said by a writer 1)coiitains provisions ofgreat importance and
diversity dcsigned to accomplisli its ends, and the heated debates at
San Francisco show that not al1of them wcre acce~ted with eaual eaeer-
as satisfactory, however. and its purposes would have been defeatedëred
if reservatioiis were allowed, as for ëxample, to such an important
chapter as that establishing the international Tmsteeship System which
\vas recognized in tlie Charter to be of vital importance to the main-
tenance of international peace and security.
It is our humble submission that, if the Government of the Union
of South Africa did not want to be bound by any provision of the
Charter, its path of action was clear ;either tostay out of thc organiz-
ation if it could not in conscience accept any of the provisions of the
Charter, or to come into the Organization by waiving nll its initial
objections to some of the provisions of the Charter. This, by the way,
was a problem which was not peculiar to the Government of the Union
of South Africa, but must have beeii considered by other overnments
as well wheii they signed the Charter: and we respect ully submit
that the Government of the Union of South Africa, when it signed and
ratified the Charter, chose the latter course.
It may also be noted in passing tliat Switzerland, for example, could
have joined the Uiiited Nations Organization if a reservatioii could
be made respecting her traditional neutrality as was dotie when slie
joiued the Leagiie of Natioiis. This is merely cited in passing 1-0show
that the Charter is not susceptible of reservations.
Nevertheless, even on the assnmption that the Union of South
Africa could have made a reservation concerning the applicability of
Chapters XI and XII of the Charter to the Temtory of South-\Vest
Africa, it is Our humble submissioii that such a reservation should
have been made either at the time of its signing or its ratification of
the Charter. It appears from the record, however, that no reservation
wat the time of the signing of the Cliarter on June z6th, 1945ori.r at the
time of the deposit of its ratification on November 7th, 1945.
The Governmeiit of the Union of Soutli Africa, however, relies on
statements made by its representative in Committee III4 of the Con-
ference oii International Organizatioii at San Francisco as having
reserved its position with respect to the mandated Territory of South-
West Africa. The paper read by its representative on May 11th. 1g45,
in Committee 1114is in part as follows :

"There is no prospect of the Territory ever existing asa separate
State, and the ultimate objective of the mandatory principle is
therefore impossible of achievement.
The delegation of the Union of South Africa therefore claims
that the Mandate should be terminated and that thc Territory
should be incorporated as part of the Union of South Africa.
As territorial questions are, however, reserved for handling
at a later Peace Conferencewhere the Union of Soutli Africa intends

Report of RI. Ronault on the Declaration of London,909,A.J.I.L.. \'ol. 8.
Supp., pp. 88. rqz. STATESIEST Bi' Si.ISGLES(PHILIPPISES) - I9 1.jO
2j3
to raise this matter, it is here only mentioned for the inform-
ation of the Conference in connexion with the Blandate question '."

The Chairman of Committee II/4, however, ruled "out of order"
any reference to a specific territory except for purely illustrative pur-
pases =.Again, on May ~qth, 1945. the representative of the Union of
South Africa warned against possible alteration of the terms of existing
mandates without the consent of the mandatory Power, and when he
reached the point where he said that the case of South-\T'est Africa
was brought ta the attention of the League Council in 192j, the Chair-
man again ruled him out of order in this wise :
"1 think the delegate from South Africa is, in effect, endeavour-
ing ta get in what has been ruled out. It has been ail right up to
this point, but as far as the difficultiesof South Africa arë concerned,
1 am recommending that it be ruled out, unless the Cornmittee
States otherwise. 1 am not in the least concerned about the ambi-

tions of South Africa; therefore, 1 rule that the reference tocondi-
tions of South-West Africa or claims for taking over the Mandate
are out of order a."
It would appear from the foregoing that the alleged reservations
of tlie Government of South Africa were not in the nature of reserv-
ations but were made for information purposes only, and with respect
to portions thereof ruled out of order, the Union of South Africa never
appealed from the ruling of the Chair.
Aloreover, during the ninth meeting of Committee III4 on Bray 23rd,
rgqj, the Chairman informed the Committee that lie hoped that dele-
gatioiis would sign the documents drawii up at the Conference without
reservation. He siiggested that delegations who wished to record the
position of their respective governments on a question before the Com-
mittee miglit send in a short statenient whicli would appear in the
Summary Record of tlie Committee nieetirigs. He indicated that after
a question had been voted upon in the Committee, a delegation would
be at liberty to have an expression of its disseiit from the Committee's
action recorded in the 3linutes*.At the tenth meeting, the represeiitative
of Ethionia took advantaee of this ruline to file a statement of its
position ;vit11respect to tge application 07 the Trusteeship System to
territories which mav be detached {rom enemv States, and it \vas
recorded as a "reserGation" at the eleventh méeting
So did the representative of Guatemala object to. the brief mention
in the Rapporteur's report of his delegation's position that trusteeship

should not be applied to territories in dispute, and the Committee
and not as a mere annex to the Rapporteur's reports a "reservArgentina also

Verbatimmiiiutes of TechnicalComrnittec II/& U.N.C.I.O. (iinp.)Vol. 68
(English),Running Xo. 33,third meeting.
2 Ibid..Running Xo. 34, See alçoU.N.C.I.O. DocumentsV ,ol.X, p. 434.
J Verhatimminutes of TechnicalCornmittee1114.U.N.C.I.O.(unp.).Vol.68
(English), Runniog Nos. r-4, 4th meeting. See also U.S.C.I.O.Dacumcnts,
\'ol.x, p. 439.
4 Ibid.,Vol. S.cpp. 485. 499..X, p. 475.
Vbid., p. 602.See alsoverbatirnminutes ofTechnicalCommitteeII/4, U.S.C.I.O.
(unp.),Vol. 70 (English),Running No. 27, 16thmeeting.'j4 STATEMEST BY hl. ISGLES (PHILII'PINES) - 19 V 50
made a "reservation" similar to that of Guatemala, but it is interesting
to note that no reservation whatsoever waç duly filed and recorded
by the Union of South Africa in accordance with the ruling of the

Chaiman of Cornmittee 1114.Unlike the "reservations"' oftirgentina.
Ethiopia and Guatemala, the alleged reservation of the Union of South
Africa does not even appear in the Rapporteur's report '.
\Ve consider this formality of recording a reservation to be of the
utmost im~ortance. otherwise it inav be claimed that al1 obiections
raised hy iiiy représentative on ani question during the discussions
of the Conference should be considered as reservations. For examde.
the representativesof the United Kingdom and of the Xetherlands, iiké
the representative of the Union of South Africa, objected to the"open-
door" policy, especially a5 it affects the former "C" hfandates (which

include the territory of South-West Africa) as detrimental to the
peoples of those territories3. It is interesting to note that the Govern-
ments of the United Kingdom and the Nethe~lands have never pretended
that their objections to the "open-door" pcdicy are in the nature of
reservations.
hloreover, the chief representative of the Government of the Union
of South Africa, Field hlarshal Smuts, Chaiman of Commission II of
the Conference on International Organization, in presenting the report
of Committee 1114to Commission II,-made an express adinissioii that
Chapter XI applies to al1 territories, including mandate territories,
and moreover, that mandate territories "will fall under the Trusteeship
System" as provided for in Chapters XII and XII1 of the Charter4.
Even granting for the sake of argumeiit, but without in my way
conceding it, that the Goverilment of the Union of South Africa could,
and did, actually make a reservation of its position witli respect to the
Territory of South-West Africa during the Conference, it is our Iiurnhle
submission that the failure of the Government of the Union of South
Africa to renew it at any tirne during the signature or ratification of
the Charter,or to seciire the proper assent of other parties to the Charter,
decisively invalidates such "reservation".
It is a ~eneral principle of international law tliat a reservation to
an agree;ent maile duÎing a conference leading to an agreement is
deemed waived by the party making the reservation if it subsequently
ratifies the agreement without reservation
It is also an established rule that it is essential to the validity of a
reservation that al1 the other parties to the agreement should assent

' The word "reservation" has been enclosed in quotations for reasons which
will be ohvious in our iurther discussion of the validity of reservationç.
U.S.C.I.O. Documents.Vol. X. pp. 601-6x3.
a U.N.C.I.O. Documents, Vol. X. pp. 433-434. 440. Sec alço \'erbatim minutes
of the Technical Committee 1114. U.X.C.I.O. (unp.), Vol. G8 (English). Running
Sos. 11-16,17-18, 27-29. 3rd meeting.
Pp. 678-680. Verbatim minutes of 3rd meeting of Commission 11. Junï '20th.
1945. U.S.C.I.O. Selected Documents (\\'ashington.1946).
of the Agreement with Gemany on January20th. ,930. and refcrred to in theArticle XV
Final Act of the Hague Conferencc of ,929 and 1931, delivereon Fehruary 16th.
1933 ; Reports of I~zternolional Arbilral Atuardr. U.S. Publication.Vol. III.
PP. 1371, 3384-1385.c
STATEXENT BY 31.INGLES (PHILIPPINES) - 19 V 50 255

to the making of the reservation, either expressly or by implication
arising from acquiescence l.
There is also considerable authority for the view that. just as it is
the full treaty-making authority of the State which must ultimately
participate in the making of effective reservations on its own behalf,
so it is the same authority which must, in the end, participate in the
acceptance of, or consent to, reservations made by other StatesP.
There is not on record any assent, tacit or implied, on the part of
the other parties to the Charter to any "reservation" whatsoever and
howsoever made hy the Government of the Union of South Africa.
On the contrary, repeated resolutions of the General Assembly by an
overwhelming vote, ranging from more than the requisite two-thirds
majority to unanimity, asking the Union of South Africa to negotiate
and conclude a truste es hi^ aereement for South-West Africa. neeates
even the possibility of any ihplied assent by the other hlembers of
the United Xations to the alle~ed reservations claimed bv the Union
of South Africa. -
Leaving aside the question as to whether or not the Charter is suscep

tible of reservations. it is our humble submission that it follows from
our exposition that whatever statements might have been made by
the representative of the Union of South Africa in Committee III4 of
tlie United Nations Conference on International Organization at San
Francisco. such statements do not have and cannot have the nature
and effect of "reserving" the position of the Union of South Africa
with respect to Soiith-\\'est Africa: first, hecause, in so far as they
claim that the Mandate shoulà be terminated and that the Territory
shoiild be incorporatecl intothe Union, they weremade for"information"
purposes only ; seco?~db, ecause, in so far as they might evidence any
intention on the part of the Uiiion of South Africa not to place South-
\Vest Africa under the operation of the 'Trusteeship System, they were
ruled out of order by the Cliairman of Committee II14 ancl iio appeal
from the said ruling was made by the representative of the Union of
South Africa ; lliird, because those statements were not duly filed and
recorded as a reservation either in the minutes or in the report of Com-
mittee III4 ; fourlh, because those statements were contradicted and
hence repudiated by the chief representative of the Union of South
Africa (incideiitally, the Prime hlinister of the said Government) when
he presented the report of Committee II14 to Commission II, of which

he was Chairman ;fifth. because tliose statements were not rcnewed
at the time the Union of South Africa signed or ratified the Charter ;
and sixth, because tlie other parties to the Charter never assented to
those statemerits, whether through their representatives to the Con-
ference or through their respective treaty-making authorities.
The Government of the Union of South Africa is fully bound to
comply, therefore, with the obligation it has assumed under paragraph z
of Article So of the Charter, to negotiate and conclude a trusteeship
agreement for tlie purpose of placiiig the Territory of South-\Vest
Africa under the international Trusteeship System.
--
1McNair : The Lam of Treaties (Oxford,938). p.106 ;Hackworth: Digesa t/
48%.rpp. 130elsqq.; Oppenheim: Inferriofional Law. 7thed.. Vol. 1, p822.ec.
Harvard Resïarch on the Law ofTreaties.A. J.I.L., \'ol.9,No. 4,October.
1935.Supp. Sec. II, p. 851. S~ATEJIEST BY nr.IXGI.ES (PHILIPPISES) - 19 v 50
256
\\'e propose nest to take up tlie iiitemational obligntions incumbent
upon the Government of the Union of South Afric:) witli respect to the
Territory of Soutli-\l'est Africa in view of the repeated rcsolutions of
the Geiieral Assembly asking the said Government to negotiate and
conclude a trusteeship agreement for the said Territory.

III. If'hntare the internatio~ralobligationsof the Uni071of South Africa,
if any, arisiit: /rom the Hesolirtiolis O/ //te Geireral Assembly of
rebrziury ytlt, 1946, Llecember rqtlt, 1946, Nouember 1s1, 1947,
!\oueinber26th, 1948, uttd December6tlt. 1949 ?
During the first part of tlie I'irst Session of the GenerzilAssembly,

a Kesolution on Xon-Self-Governing Peoples was iiclopted on 9th
I'ebruary, 1946, in which it was provided among othcrs that :
"IYitlz respect to Chapters 'III and SI1 l O/ the Charter, the
GeneralAssembly :

4. Iitvites the States administering territories now held under
mandate to ~~dertake or~ ~ical steos. in.cc,cert wit~~the other
~t:ites directly conceriiéd, for the implementatioii of Articlc 79
of tlie Charter (which i~rovidesfor the conclusioii of arrreemeiits
on the termç of'truste&1iil>for each territory to be l>laFedunder
the Trusteesbip System), in order ta submit tliese agreements
for approval, preferably iiot later than during the second part
of the First Session of the General Assembly."
hIr. Dulles (U.S.A.), in inoving the adoption of the foregoing Resolu-
.tion, said :

"13y tliis resolution, the United Xations calls upon the manda-
tory States, in concert witli the other States clirectly concerned,
to conclude trusteeship agreements for subsequcnt submission
to tliis Assembly, preferably not later than our nest meeting1."

This Resolution was adopted unanimously, together with the affirm-
ative vote of the Government of the Union of South t\frica2.
hlr. Xicholls, the represeiitative of the Government of the Union
of South Africa, participated in the deliberations of Committee 4 of
the Preparatory Commission whicli recommended the foregoiiig Resolu-
tion, although he later reserved his position until the General Assembly
met. At the tenth meeting on December roth, 1945l, ie commented on
the time-limit for the submission of trusteeship agreements which lie

considered insufficient. He preferred that the United ICingdom modifi-
cation, reading "at the earliest possible opportunity thereafter", should
take the place of the original \'ugoslav wording whicli required sub-
mission of the trusteeship agreement by "the secoiid part of the First
Session of the General Assembly 3".

' P. 368, Oficial Records, Plenary Aleetings, First Part, First Se~sion. General
Assembly.
' P. 376, id.
P. 20.Summary Record, Committee q.The U.N. Preparntory Commission. STATE.\IEST Bi' JI. ISGLES (PHILIPPISES) - Ig I' jO 257

The corresoondine ~araerauh of tlie draft resolution. as favourablv
~ecommended by th; \>rcIGra'toryCommission to tlie first part of tlqe
Second Session of the General Assembly, provitles :

"The General Assembly of the United Nations calls on the
States administering territories under League of Nations mandate
to undertake practical steps, in concert witli tlie other States
clirectly concerned, for tlie implementation of Article 79 of the
Charter (which provides for the conclusion of agreements on the
terms of trusteeship for each territory to be placed under the
Trusteeship System), in order to submit these agreements for
approval preferably iiot later tlian during the second part of the
I'irst Session of the Gener:il Assembly 1.''

lt is interesting to note tliat altliough in the genernl debate on tlie
report of the Preparatory Commission, the representative of Soutli
Africa, on January 17tl1, 1g4G."reservecl" the position of his Govern-
inent."concerniiig the future of tlie Mandate, together with its riglit
of full liberty of action, as provided for iri paragraph I of Article So
of the Charter*", no reservation was made hy the Soutli-African delega-
tioii when subsequeiitly, on l'ebruary 4th, 194G,the vote %,as takeii
uiianimously in the Fourtli Committee3, and oii February gtli, 1946.
ivlien the vote was also taken unanimously in the Gerieral .4ssembly '.

011 tlic contrary, the Goveriiment of the Union of Soutli Africa voted
nffirmatively for the Resolution, which was unanimously adopted. In
coiincsion with the first statement made by the representative of the
Uiiioii of South Africa oii J:liiuary 17th, 1946, for tlie purpose of reser-
ving the position of the Govcrnment, it should he noted that this position
of tlie Government of tlie Union of Soutli Africa was immediately
questioned by the representative of Neu, Zealand and other repre-
sentatives
It is Our humble submission that, by analogy \vitIl reference to our
cliscussion of the validity of reservations to multipartite treaties, reserv-
atioiis to resolutio~is passed at international conferences should be
formally recorded or reiterated at the tinie the vote oii the resolution

is takeii. Moreover, we respectfully suhmit that tlie practice of making
reservations to resolutioiis passed by international conferences, as
observed in the United Nations. is to record sucli rcservations at the
riinc u.l.i:r.i voie un rlii:rt>~oliiii~,ii I:I~I:II.\\'e ie~p~'ctf~1Iy ii~I>ii~ir,
ll~crcforc, 1li;ilc:v<11if 11~ r~~)r~~~i~i:~ioif v~5uiilti :\fric:, iilac:iresrrv-
ation in ~lenarv session durine the eeneral debate even before the
I:oiirrli ~u;iiii~itt,.rcoinineiicr.tld;~iiisii"ti uf tlic ilrafr rcsolutiirii ri:coiii-
int.ii<lc<lI>y rlie I1ri:)i:li-;tli>Coiiiiiiijsii,ii$vitfircspc.ct tg, iiianfl:iI~~~l
r r i iltar Illis I I I t~e rc~:irdi.il :IS ivai\.etl ur ~~~~li~lr:~~vi~,
because it was not reiteratcd wlienvthe final vote on the Resolution

P. qg. Report of the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations.
* P. 185,Official Records, Plenary Srssians, First Part. Ilirst Sessionof the
General Açsembly.
V. 35, Official Records, Fourth Committee. First Part of tlie Eïnt Session of
theGeneral Assembly.
P. 376,Official Records, I'lenary bleetings, First Part of the First Session of
the Generiil Assembly.
6 >leetinps of January zist and 22nd. ,946, pp. 6 el ryg. Oficial Records.
Fourth Committee, ibid.\$-astaken both in tlie Foiirth Committee and in the General Assernbly,
and because the Unioii of South Africa voted affirmatively for the
Resolution.
tions of the General Assembly and votes affirmatively for a particular
resolution adopted by the Assembly, is legally bound hy tlie terms of
that resolution. 1 quote the following statement from the Digest of
International Law, edited by Judge Hackworth ': "Resolutious of
international conferences, depending upon their character, may be
regarded as types of international agreements between States voting
in favour of thern." As held by the Permanent Court of International
JusticeinitsAd\isory Opinion of October 15th. 1931 ': "As the represent-
atives of Lithuania and Poland participated in the ado tion of the
Resolution ofthe Council of December 10th. 1927, the two 8 overnments
were hound by their acceptance of the Council's Resoliition, which
constituted an engagement between them3."
\Ve respectfully submit, therefore, that apart from its obligations
under the Charter, particularly paragraph 2 of Article 80, the Govern-
inent of the Union of South Africa is hound by its acceptance of the
General Assembly Resolution of February 9th, 1946,to subniit a trustee-
ship agreement for the Territory of South-West Africa for the approval
of the Geiieral Assembly, in accordance with the terms of the said
Resolution.
\\'e do not consider it necessary to discuss at length the binding
eflect of the subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly which,
ainong other things, merely reiterate the Resolutioii of February 9th.
1946, insofar as the Territory of South-iVest Africa is concerned.
Sufficeit for us to indicate that pending the conclusion of a trusteeship
agreement for the Territory of Çouth-West Africa, the General Assem-
hly had recommended in its Resolutioii of November 26th, 1948, that
the Union of South Africa continue to supply annually information
on its administration of the Territory, in the same spirit as the Union
of South Africa had trnnsmitted to the General Assembly its report
on its administration of the Territory for the year 1946. Aiid when the
annual information. the General Assembly urged it to resume the sub-
mission of reports to the Assembly in a Resolution datcd Deceinber 6th.

'9The resolutions of the General Assembly passed subsequent to that
of I'ebruary gth, 1946, Iiaving been approved by at lcast two-thirds
of the Mcmbers of the United Nations as required by Article 18 of the
Charter, they areas much bitiding for those Memberswho voted against
them as they are for tliose hlembers who voted for them. The obliga-
tion resting on Member States to carry out resolutions of the General
Assembly is more than a moral obligation, because it is explicit il1the
Charter and is therefore in the nature of an international obligation.
This obligation may well be regarded as the foundation stone of the
Organization.

' Vol.\'.Sec. 466,p. 33.
' P.C.I.JS.eries A/B, So. 42.
Lauterpacht,Annual Digorf ofPublic Int.rnationL alw Cases.1931-1932
(London1938). pp.403.406. STATEhlEXT BY hr. IXGLES (PHILIPPIXI~S) - 20 V jO 2jg
Ir1a communication to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
dated July ~3rd. 1947. the Government of,the Union of South Africa
informed him that it was not going to proceed with the incorporation
of South-\\'est Africa into the Union, which decision agreed in that
respect with the terms of the General Assembly Kesolution of Decem-
ber qth, 1946.The Union of South Afnca, however, \vould not comply
with the Resolutioii insofar as it invited the Union to propose a trustee-
ship agreement for South-West Afnca. By its partial compliance with
the second Resolution of the General Asseinbly, the Union of South
Africa has to that extent recognized the binding effect of Assembly
resolutions passed by the requisite majority of the Members of the
United Nations. This partial compliance, however, is not the full measure
of the binding effect of General Assembly resolutions, inasmuch as it
faiis short of the obligation incumbent upon each and every hlember
of the United Nations to give "cvery assistaiice" to the Organization.
This august tribunal, in its Advisory Opinion of April rrth, 1949,
had occasion to stress "the importance of the duty to render to the
Organization 'every assistance' which is acceptcd by the Members in
Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Charter", and to note "that the effective
working of the Organization ....requires, that these undertakings should
be strictly observed'".

[Pwblicsitting of May 20th. rgjo, n~oriziitg]
hfay it please the Court.

We now come to an examination of the international obligat'ions
of the Union of South Africa under the hfandate, which is the first
particular question asked by the General Assernbly.
IV. Does the Union of South Africa continue tohure iizternalional
obligntioizsn~zderthe Mandate/or Sorrtli-WestAfrica, and ifso,ruhat
are thoseobligations ?
It hehooves us, in the first instance, to examine the contention of
the Union of South Africa that the Mandate for South-IVest Africa
has ceased to exist as a legally enforceable iiistrument and that, there-
fore, she has no-more iriternational obligations tliereunderP. It is inter-
esting to note that the Union of South Africa rests its case simply
upon an attempt to disprove tliat "either the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers, in favour of ivhom Gennany renounced her over-
seas territories, or the United Nations, by virtue of succession to, or
assumption of, the functions of the League of Nations, can claim legal
rights in respect of the mandate*".
This line of argumentation is, we respectfully submit, negntive in
character. Evidently, the Union of South Africa intends to prove by
this that it has a right to the Territory of South-West Africa. because
in its view neither the Principal Allied and Associated Powers nor the
United Nations can claim any similar right. We respectfnlly submit,
however, that the burden of proof is on him who claims a right, and he
who asserts a right over something must prove the existence of that
right by a clear title and not by the mere circumstance that some-
body else may have no such title.

' I.C.J. Reports1949.p. 174.
= Id.as.2-20,pp. 72-77.260 STATEYES.~ BY 51. ISGLES (PHILIPPINES) - 20 v 50
It was in favour of the Principal Allied alid Associated Powers that
Turkey and Gerinany renoiinced al1rights with respect to their colonies
which were later assigncd as mandates to the iiiandatory Powers.
lt isclear that the maridatory Powers never acquired al1the rights arid
titles of the Principalllied and Associated Powers over those territories.
This is evident from the fact that there were maiiy things which the
mandatories conld not do at al1 in those mandated territones, which
they could have done if they had acquired al1 the nghts of the Princi-
pal Allied and Associated Powers. There were also many things which
the mandatones could not do in tliose territories without the consent
of the Council of tlic League of Nations. Examples may be obtaincd
from the statement preseiited on behalf of the Secretary-General.
Moreover, the mandatories never acquired sovereignty over those
territories, as me shall show later in the course of our argument.
Starting witli the premise that the Union of South Afnca acquired
a certain "nght" over the Territory of South-West Africa by virtue
of the obligations it lias assiimed under the Mandate -4greement and
the Covenant of the League of Xations, the Union of South Africa
must prove first that the Mandate Agreement and the Covenant have
beeii terminated before it can exclude other "rightç" to the Territory.
There is more point, tlierefore, in the argumeritation of the Union
of South Africa in connexion with the third question asked by the
Assembly as to who has competence to modify the international statiis
of the Territory, to the effect that the dissolution of the League of
Nations carned with it the abrogation of the Covenant, includiiig
Article 22, which is the foundation of the Mandates System, and conse-
quently, of the hlandate Agreement '.
\Ve are, how-erer, unable to share tliis point of view of the Unioii
of South Africa. In the first place, we sliould like to stress that the
Coveiiant of the League is not an ordinary contract. It is a law-making
treaty in the full sense of the term. The ordinary rules on the termina-
tion of contractual obligations do not hold good for a great constitu-
tional instrument of this kind.
As one writer has aptly observed, it is legally significant that, when
by its Resolution of April ~zth, 1946, the Assembly "dissolred" the
Lengue of Xations, it clid not abrogate, denounce, declare iiull and
void, or otherwise pronouiice on the status of the Covenant. It is also
observed that the Covenant contains no provision for its cessation
eithcr in itself or as Part 1 of the four Treaties of Pence a.
It is even more significant that when the I-eague Assembly adopted
its resolution on maridatcs on the same day, it merely noted that "its
fuiictionswith respect to the mandated territories willcome to an end".
Nowhere did the Assembly make any pronouncement that the Mandates
tion noted the declarations of al1 the mandatory Powers that they \\.il1
continue to administer the territones entrusted to them "in accordaiice
with the obligations contained in the respective mandates, until other
arraiigements have been agreed upon between the United Nations and
the respective mandatory Powers". 1 shall not quote the declarations
made by each of the maiidatory Powers, including the Union of Soiitli
--

a See Denys P. Alyers, pp. 320. 331.332, A. J.I.LVol.42, So. 2Africa, inasmuch as they have alrcady been reproduced in the oral
statement presented on behalf of the Secretary-General.
In so far as the mandates are concerned, we are merely faced with
a situation where the machiner). for international supervision provideci
for in the Colvenanthasceased to esist. But there is no reason to assume,
in the absence of a positive agreement to that effect, that the interna-
tional obligations arising from the Covenant have also ceased.
It cannot even be said that the dissolution of the Leagiie has
extinguished the other party to the hlandate Agreement, because, as
stated in the preamble of the Agreement, the Council of the League
merely confirmed the mandate given by the Principal Allied and
Associated Powers and the terms proposed by them. In the debates in
the Union House of Assembly, which we had occasion to quote in the
first part of our statement, Prime Minister Smuts, himself one of the
framers of the mandate provisions of the Covenant, correctly stated
the legal position of the mandatory vis-à-vis the Principal Allied and
Associated I'owers : "these five Allied Powers distributed these colonies
under mandate to other countries and we to-day hold South-West
Africa under maridate from the Principal Allied Powers, not from the
League of Nations, but from the Allicd Powers under the trust tliat
we shall be accountable to the League of Nations for the carrying out
of these trusts. That is the only point at which the League of Nations
comes into the matter at ail."
The following paragraphs of Article 22 of the Covenant constituce
the constitutional justification and raisod'ttreof the Mandates System :
"To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the
late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States
wliich formerly governed them, and which are inhabitated by
peoples riot yet able to stand by themselves under thestrenuous
conditions of the modern world, there should be applied tlie principle
that the well-heing and development of such peoples form a sacred
trust of ci\rilisation and that securities for the performance of
this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The hest method of giving practical effect to this principle is
that tlie tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advancecl
nations who by reason of their resources, their expenence or their
geographical position, can best undertake this responsiblity and
who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage shoiild be
exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the 1-eague."
How can it he argued that the dissolution of the League has also
extinguished thc "sacred trust of civilisation" entrusted tothe mandatory
Powers ? The purpose underlying the tutelage of "peoples not yet able
to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern
world" is that those peoples should be brought into a condition necessary
for independence.
The Permanent Mandates Conimission, in a rcsoliition which had
been quoted hy the distinguished representative of thesecretary-General,
envisaged orily two conditions for the termination of a mandate, which.
we should like to emphasize, are conditions for emancipation, and the
Council of the League in its Kesolution of September 4th, 1931,approved
the opinion of the Permanent Mandates Commission and decided :
"....that the degree of maturity of mandated territories which it may infuture be proposed to emancipate shall be determined in the light of the
principles thus laid down, though only after a searching investigation
of each particular case."
hIoreover, the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and those
of the AlaiiclateAgreement clearly show that the peoples of the man-
dated territories are the main beneficiaries of the System. They may
therefore be said to enjoy rights under iriternational law correlative
to the duties imnosed bv the Mandates unon the mandatories for theii-
ment of the mandatory Powers, includiii~ the Uiiion of South Africa.el
in parayraph 1,Article 80 of the Charte<
The mere dissolution of the Leagne, therefore,cannot Iiave the effect
of abrogating those rights or obligations consecrated in the Covenaiit.
The rights of the peoples of the mandated territories are, we respect-
fully submit, capable of enforcement or at least of protection under
international la\\,. Although not signatones to the Covenant or the
Mandate Agreement, the nghts guaranteed them hy those international
instruments should be protected. The Permanent Court of International
Justice lias held that if it is shown that the parties intended to confer
a right to enforce a treaty on a State not a party to it, there is nothing
in international law to prevent effect being given to that intentionz.
IVhile it is believed that mandated territories are not States but only
States in the makingg, it may be possible to draw an analogy in order
to protect the rights guaranteed the peoples of mandated territories
and to enforce the obligations of the mandatory I'ower. At any rate,
the United Nations, as the new guarantor of those nghts, would be
the proper agencFto protect those rights and enforce the international
obligations of the mandatory Power.
Chief among the international rights of the peoples of mandated
temtories is. of course, their right to be ileveloped along the road to
independence, and to be emancipated when they Iiave fulfilled the
of Nations of September 4th, 1931.ion of the Council of the League
There are also the right of petition and the right to have the admin-
istration by the mandatory overseered by an international agency.
The Union of South Africa has repeatedly asserted that their obliga-
tion to transmit petitions from the inhabitants, as well as to supply
annual reports, has become inoperative because of the disappearance
of the League and the Permanent Mandates Commission. But is it
impossible for the Union of South Africa to transmit such petitions
and annual reports to the United Nations, which lias succeeded the
League of Nations as the personification of the international com-
....".,. .
IVith respect to annual reports, the Union of South Africa had already
undertaken to submit them to the United Nations, although thev .
discontinued the practice after rendering only one annual-report.
\Ve shall merely refer to the argument in the IVritten Statement sub-
mitted by the Government of the United States which demonstrates

See Wright. Alandalesunder the League of Nalions (Chicago~gjo),pp. 457,
~.,,~
Free Zones of Upper Savoyandthe District of Gex, Series A/B. No. 46, p. 147,
Hyde, Iniermtionnl Law. 2nd rev. ed.. Vol1. p. 102. STATE~IEST BY nr.ISGLES (PHILIPPISES) - 20 v 50 263

that by virtue of tlie autliority assiimed by the Geiicral tlsseiiibly
under Section C of Kesolution XIV-1 (I), of February rztli, 1946, to
exercise fuiictioiis or powers entrustcd to the League of Nations by inter-
iiational instmments of a political character, at thc request of any
party, the Gcneral Assembly of the United Nations has in fact assiimed
the function of examining annual reports from the Uiiion of South
Africa with respect to the administration of South-Il'cst Africa. These
reports are by express undertaking of the Union of Soiith Africa to be
of the same iiatiire as those it Iiad heretofore rendered iincler the Man-
date '.
Tlie same argumciit may be followc<lin the case of the examination
of petitions froin the inhabitants of the trust territories. in vicw of the
Kesolution of Novcmber 13th. 1949. passeci by the 4th Committee
during the last General Assembly, to grant a Iiearing to a rcpresentative
of the indigcnous population of the Territory5 If any members of the
Court are interested, the testimony of tlie representatire of tlie indi-
genous population is a matter of official record and forms an annex to
tlie records of the Foiirth Session ci the General Assembly transmitted
to this Honourable Court togcthcr witli thc rrquest by the iissemhly
for an advisory opinion.
After having solemnly guaranteed undcr paragraph I of Article 80
not to alter tlie rights of the peoplcs ofthe mandated Territory of South-
West Africa pending tlie negotiation of a trusteeship agreement, the
next step required of the Uiiion of South Africa is to enforce tliose rights,
the most immediate of wliich is the submission of petitions from the
inhabitants and of annnal reports rendering an account of its steward-
ship, as it had done heretofore under the Mandate.
Tliese are the more important international obligations of the Union
of South ilfrica under the Mandate, which we have endeavoured to
show still subsist in spite of the dissolution of the League of Nations.
All the obligations of the Union of South Africa under the Mandate, al1
of which subsist in their eutirety, have already been enurnerated in the
oral statement presented on behalf of the Secretary General. We shall
not burden the Court with a repetitioii of ivhat is, after all, a matter
of official and histoncal record, but by ~iay of footnote, ive should like
to add that those obligations include, in addition to the observance of
the principles embodied in Articles 22 and 23 of the Lovenant of the
League, the observance of the specific obligations in al1 the articles of
the Mandate Agreement.

V. Nas the Union of South Africa Ihe cornpetenceto rnodifyIhe inter-
national statzts of the Territory of Sonth-West Africa, or, in the
emnt of a negaiive reply, wliere does competencerest Io determine
and rnodifythe interilalio?ialstatr~sof the Territory?

The last particular question asked by the General Assernbly, that
is :"Has the Union of South Africa the cornpetence to modify the inter-
national status of the Temtory of South-West Africa, or, in the event
of a negative reply, where does competence rest to determine and modify
--
' See \Xrritten Statcmïntpp. 107-ri~.
and annexes.58-267 .ficiaRecords, 4th Committee. 4tSesion, GçneraAssrmbly,

20264 ST.ATE"EST BY M. ISCLES (PHILIFPISES) - 20 v 50

the international status of the Territory ?", may best be answered by
an enquiry, first, as to whether South-West Africa possesses sovereignty
over the mandated Territory and, if not, as to how and by whom a
Mandate may be modified or terminated. Obviously, if the Union of
South Africa has full sovereignty over South-West Africa, tlien slie
alone has the competence to modify or determine the status of that
Territory.
It is our humble submission that the Government of the Union of
South Africa does not possess sovereignty over the Territory of South-
\L'estAfrica under its Mandate from the Principal Allied and Associated
Powers of the First World \Var and the League of Nations.
\\'hile, as pointed out by the distinguished representative of the
Secretary-General, therehas been no unanimous nor even a preponderant
opinion among jurists as to where sovereignty really resides in the case
of mandated temtories, the authoritative interpretation of the law of
mandates is to the effect that the mandatory is not sovereign of the
niandated territory '.
The majority opinion of the Appellate Division of the Suprenie
Court of South Africa in the case of liex v. Christian (1924A.D., p. IOI}
cited by the Goverument of the Union of South Africa iri supporting~
its contention that the Principal and Allied Powers duriiig the First
\\rorld \\'ar divested themselves of whatever title they niight have had
over the Territory of South-West Africa the moment they assigned the
Mandate to the Union of South Africa aiid the said assignment together
ivith the terms of the Mandate were confirmed by the League of Nations.
admitted that the mandatory was not fully sovereign over the Territory
in the international sense.
Summarizing a study made on the practice of the Government of
the Union of South .4frica as mandatory Power for the Temtory of
South-\Vest Airica, Professor Wright came to the conclusion that~
"In South Africa there thus seems to be a tendency greater than else-
where for the legislature, the executive, and the courts to regard the
maiidated Territory as under the mandatory's sovereignty, but neither
legislative, executive, nor judicial authorities have been unanimously
or even in a majority of that opinion, and there has been unusual
recognition of the limitations imposed by the Mandate." Going further,
the same author concluded that "In general, the British Dominions
have formally recognued in their legislation that their authority to
administer the Territory flows not from sovereignty but from their
designation as mandatories and have enacted the mandate limitations
aslawapplicableby their courts*."The exposémade by the distinguished
representative of the Secretary-General on the decisions by the various
view.s respecting the mandated territories serves but to confirm this.
The League of Nations had emphasized that the legal relations

not those as between a sovereign Power and one of its territories.
The question of the legal relationship between the Union Govern-.
ment and the mandated Territory of South-\\'est Africa first came to.
a head in the League of Nations, when the Permanent Mandates Corn--
mission questioned, during its nintli session, the interpretation of:

\Irright. Mandateunder the Lcoguc of A'otias (Chicago, 193p. 407.
2 Id..pp. 427-428. STATEMENT BY hl. INGLES (PHILIPPINES) - 20 v 50 265

the "integral part" clause of the Mandate Agreement given in the
Parliament of the Union of South Africa in July, 1925 .he accredited
representative of the Union Government then gave the formal assu-
rance before the Permanent Mandates Commission that South-West
Africa would never be actually annexed to South Africa, even if the
Mandate were withdrawn ;that the procedure wnuld probahly be for
South Africa to come to the League with a request for the termination
of the Mandate when South-West Africa was sufficiently advanced
to govern itself; and that two parties were ta be considered in addi-
tion to South Africa, one of them being the League of Nations and
the other an independent South-West Africa which would eventually
be associated with the Union 1.
In the report for its tenth session, the Permanent Mandates Com-
mission called the attention of the League to a clause used in the Pream-
ble of two agreements hetween the Government of South Africa on
hehalf of the mandated Territory of South-West Afnca and the Govern-
ment of Portugal on hehalf of Angola. The Preamble said in part :
"And wliereas under a Mandate issued by the Council of the League
of Nations in pursuance of Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles the
Government of the Union of South Africa, snbject to the terms of the
said Mandate, possesses souereigi6tym8erthe Territory of Sozrlh-West
Africa, lately under the sovereignty of Germany ...."
The Commission douhted whether the term "possesses sovereignty",
even when limited by sucli a phrase as that used in the Preamhle,
could be said correctly to define, having regard to the terms of the
Covenant, the relations existing between the mandatory Power and
the Territory placed under its mandate. The Commission felt in duty
hound to bring ta the notice of the Council its opinion that a man-
datory is not in possession of sovereignt over a mandated arca a.
The Council instmcted the secretary-zeneral to fonvard the relevant
passage of the Commission's report to the Union Government. The
Union Govemment, however, refrained from commenting on this
passage of the report, reserving its right ta express its views should
there be further need3.
The matter was again brought up in the report of the eleventh session
of the Permanent Mandates Commission, and in the fourth meeting
of the Forty-sixth Session of the Council of the League of Nations,
held on September 8th. 1927 . r. van Rees, the Netherlands represen-
tative, read a report of the Permanent Mandates Commission which
stated in part :
"lt seems to me that, from ail practical points of view, the
situation is qnite clear. The Covenant, as well as other articles of
the Treaty of Versailles, the mandates themselves, and the decisions
already adopted by the Council on such points aç the national
status of the native inhabitants of mandated territories, the
extension to mandated temtories of international conventions
which were applicable to the neighbouring coloniesof the mandatory
Powers, the question of loans and the investment of public and
private capital in mandated temtones, and that of State lands

Minutes of the Ninth Session, P.M.C.. pp. 33-35.
Minutes ofthe Tenth Session, P.M.C., p. 182.
a League ofNations Doc. No. 292.1927,VI. C.P.31. 570.266 STATEhlENT Bi' Al. ISGLES (PHILIPPIKES) - 20 V 50

formerlv beloneine to the German Government. al1have had their
part inddetermyniig or in giving precision ta the legai relationship
between the mandatories and the territories under their mandate.
This relationship, to my mind, is clearly a new one in international
law, and for this reason the use of some of the time-honoured
terminology in the same way as previously is perhaps sometimes
inappropriate to the new conditions '."

The Cozrnciladopted the foregoi+igreport on Seplember 8th. 1927.
This was noted bv the Government of the Union of South-West Africa
in a letter to the $ecretary-Geiieral dated February ~oth, 19~8,without
comment *.
The question was raised again dunng the fourteenth and fifteenth
sessionsof the Permanent AlandatesCommission,because the Commission
regarded as unsatisfactory the replies receired from the Union Go\rern-
ment. Finally, the High Commissioner for the Union answered, in a
letter dated July ~3rd. 19~9,that this matter appeared to have beeii
finally disposed of by the Council of the League in its Resolutioii oii
September Sth, 1927
Subsequently, hlr. Procope, representative of Finland, reported
to the Council, during its session of September Gth, 1929,thatthe Union
Government had no remarks to make on the report of the Xetherlands
representative. He stated : "There is no reason to modify, in any way.
this opinion, which states implicitly that sovereignty, in the traditional
sense of the word, doesn't reside in the mandatory Power." This wns
approved 6y a Resolution of the League of the same date, Seplember 6th.
'929 3.
The matter was also taken up in the tenth session of the Assembly
of the League of Nations, and the Sixth Committee adopted a report
to the Assembly espressing the general opinion of al1the members of the
Committee who participated in the debate, escept the representati\.e
of the Union of South Africa, that there was no reason to depart from
the decision made by the Council on the question of sovereignty iri
mandated areas in its report adopted in September 1927,and reaffirmed
at its meetirig on September 6th. 1929'.
Finally, in aletterdatedMay roth, 1930, the Union Governmentstated
that it accepted the defiiiition of the powers of mandatory contained in
the report submilted to the Coz~ncil6y the hTefherlandsreprese~ctative on
September8th. 1927, as well as in the reportof the Finnish represeiilntit>e
laid before the Coniicil oti September 6th, 1929, and coiifirnted by the
Resolutioii of the Council on Jaizirary 13th, 1930.
It is evident from the foregoing proceedings of tlie Permanent Man-
dates Commission and both the Assembly and the Council of the League
of Nations, tliat the League of Nations was of the opinion that the
Government of the Union of South Africa does not possess sovereignty
over the mandated Territory of South-West Africa, aiid that the Govern-
ment of the Union of South Africa itself has espressly acquiesced in
that view.

Alinutesofthe Council, 45-47. Sessions, 11ry-1120.
League of Xations Document No. 73, 1928,VI.
a Annex67z.p.38,OficialalJournal,LeagueoofNations. 1929. ST.ATE.\IES Bi'II. ISGLES (PHILIPPISES) - 20 \. 50
267
It is respectfully submitted that an interpretation agreed upon by
the parties to an instrument is conclusive and binding upon the parties
both by the principles of law and by principles of good faith which the
law enforces '.
From the foregoing premises, the conclusion is irresistible that the
Union of South Africa, not being sovereign over the Territory of South-
\Vest Africa, cannot, by itself and under its sole authority, modify
the international status of the Territory.
The Union of South Africa claims, however, that the Mandate has
lapsed, that there is no international legal document presently in force
limiting its administrative powers with respect to the Territory of
South-\\'est Africa, and that therefore it has now the sole competence
to determine and modify the international status of the Territory

It is, however, Our humble submission that if tlie Government of
the Union of South Afnca does not recognize any legal obligations
under the Mandate, it cannot claim any legal rights whatsoever over
the Territory of South-\\'est Africa.
One cannot claim the lapse of an international agreement for the
purpose of repudiating obligations arising thereunder, and at the same
time claim rights arising under tlie same international agreement.
The very essence of the terms "inandate", "tutelage" and "trust"
used in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, connotes
obligations rather than nghts. It has been aptly stated : ".... the man-
datory's rights, like the trustee's, have their foundation in his obliga-
tions; they are tlie tools given Iiimin order to achieve the work assigned
to him; he has 'al1the tools necessary for such end, but only those' 3".
The terms and conditions of the Mandate indicate the measure of
authority of the mandatories and emphasizes tlie obligations of each
of them '.In otlier words, the Government of thc Union of South Africa
cannot claim rights under the Mandate, and at the saine time repudiate
the obligations arising thereuiider. Neither can the Governinent of
the Union of South Africa claim more rights than what is actually
conferred upon it by the Mandate, or more than is necessary to carry
out the obligations imposed upon it by the Mandate.
If, as the Government of the Union of South Africa claims, the
Mandate has lapsed, under what right then does it now Iiold the Terri-
tory of South-M'est -4frica ? If, as the Government of the Union of
South Africa contends, there is no existing legal instrument limiting
its powers with respect to South-West Africa, then under what legal
instrument does it now claim authonty to administer South-West
Alrica at al1 ?
The Government of the Union of South Africa can claim authority

over South-\\'est Afnca only in virtue of the Mandate by which that
Gorernment was entrusted with the administration of the Territory
in the first instance. If, as the Government of the Union of South
Africa alleges, the Mandate has Iapsed, then the Government of the
Union of South Africa can have no inore rights or authority over South-
-
John Basset hloore, Collecled I'np(Sew Haven, 1944). \'oV, pp. I79-181,;
çee also CrandallZreoties(2nded..\t7ashington,1916).pp. 383-387.
' P. Sj; !\'rittStaternents.
J. 1..Brierly: B.Y.B.I.L.1929, p.219.
4 Hyde. 2nd rev. ed., Vol.1. p. ioz.268 STATEAIENT BY AI. ISGLES (PHILIPPINES) - 20 V 50
West .4frica ; in short, whatever rights and authority it might have
had over the Territory have, by the same token, also lapsed.
AIere possession of the Territory by the Government of the Unioii
of South Africa cannot ripen into de ja&retitle without the consent
of the original granter, or unless aiid until it is recognized by the inter-
national community.
When the Principal Allied aiid Associated Powers assigned the man-
date over South-West Africa to the Union of South Africa, they never
intended that the title which they acquired from Germany should vest
in the Union of South Africa. Othemise, they would have made an
outright cession of theTemtory to the Union of South Africa, assuming
they could do so under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which
ive contend they could not do. Since then, no affirmative act on the
part of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, either singly or .
collectively, may be cited to show that they have swerved from that
intention. As a matter of fact, the Principal AUied and Associated
Powers could not have changed their minds even if they wanted to,
if we adopt the theory advanced by the Union of South Africa that
they became fa~ncti o@cio the momeiit the Council of the League of
Nations approved the Mandate Agreement.
The League of Nations, during its lifetime, either in its capacity
of principal in whose behalf the Mandate was exercised by the Union
of South Africa, or as quondain representative of the international
community, never recognized that the Union of South Africa possessed
sovereignty over South-\\'est Africa or that the Union of South Africa
had authority to annex the Territory.
members of the international community, has withheld recognition of the
of any title or sovereignty on the part of the Union of South Africa
by categoncally refusing to accept its proposa1 for the incorporation
of South-West Africa into the Union, and by reiterating in four Assem-
hly resolutions its recommendation that the Union of South Africa
should submit a trusteeship agreement for South-West Africa.
The Union of South Africa cannot eveii claim title or sovereignty
by prescription, because of the lack of aii.imusessential to adverse
possession, firstly because of its recognition of the authority of the
United Nations to approve or disapprove its proposal for the incor-
poration of South-West Africa into the Union, and secondly because
of its decision communicated to the United Nations that it was not
going to proceed uith such incorporation in deference to the wishes
of the General Assembly.
Accordingly, if we concede, as the Government of the Union of South
Africa contends, that the Mandate has lapsed, and that the Principal
Allied and Associated Powers have divested themselves of their title
to the mandated Territory, then the Territory of South-\Vest Africa
must revert to the international community.
Therefore, the Governrnent of the Union of South Africa caiinot by
a ilnilateral act pres~ime to exercise authority over the Territory or
to determine or modify its status as a ward of the international com-
munity, except by an act contrary to interiiational law.
It is obvious that we have been proceeding al1along on the proposi-
tion that the Temtory of South-West Africa is a mandated territory
and that it continues to be so until it islaced under the international STATEhIEPITBi' hl.INGLES (PHILII'I'INES) - 20 V 50 269
Trnsteeship System established by the United Nations. This is the
logical coÏiîe~~ueiiccuf our :iftirmatire reply to ttic first parriciil;tr
que.stion asked by the Geiieral hssemblv as to \i.lictliertlir Lnion ofSuutli
tllrica cuntinues to ti:ic.e intcriintionlil ohli~ations uridcr tlic .\landate.
This is also the logical conseqnence of ouf demonstration that it was
never the intention of the framers of the Covenant, or of the League
of Nations at the time of its dissolution, or of tlie fraiiien of the Charter
of the United Nations. that the mandated territories shall revert to
the status of mere coloiiies.
The Union of South Africa armes that the Territorv of South-West
Africa "is not a colony, oran idependent State or pa;t of the temtory
of the Union of South Africa".
But does not its claim that it alone is competent to modify the status
of the Territory indicate that the Territory lias either become a colony
or part of the Union ? The Union devises a new and anomalous category
of territories and then says that the statns of South-\l'est Africa in
international law is siii geiierisand that it is administering the Territory
in accordance with a system which is sui geiieris'. \fie should like to
know what is a temtory stci generis in international law. How is it
created ? \Vhat are its relations to tlie international community ? Who
determines itsstatns in international law ? At the preseiit stage of the
development of international law, we respectfuily submit that no State
may claim rights over any area "which is not a colony or an indepeudent
State or part of its temtory", simply hy calling it sui geiieris. Most
certainly not with respect to territory with the international status of
a mandated territory.
Who, then, has the competence to inodify the international status
of the Territorv ? We res~ectfullv submit that we have alreadv eiven
;iiiaiiswer iiidir ieply t<;tlie seCondp;irticular quç>tioii nskcd 11: tlre
Geiiernl Asseinbly, iiiirihat is. tliinttrusteestiil> agieemeiit slioulcl I)e
nceotinted and conclutlcd bv th(, Uriion of Soiitli Africn \vit11the Çerirral
AGembly for the purpose ~f'~lacingSouth-\\'estAfrica nnder the Trustee-
ship System.
We have also indicated that in the League Assembly liesolution on
Mandates of April 18th, 1946, passed on the eve of its dissolution, it
contemplated that an agreement should be reached hetween the
mandatorv Powers concerned and the United Nations with resoect to
niandare<fterritoiies. \\'liile the Le~giie<lidnot slierify \vli:it :ijir&,nieiit
sCnitztl Nations. it iiutcd tlie similarit\, iri ur-ir-scti~.c:crtihc \l;oidate
Syitcm an~ltlic 'TrustccsliipSystciii. :iiiil ~>l.ic~ili record ttie fact tlint
Iliniancl;itur\.IJi>\\~<~rsr.lliiiriueto atlniiniitcr tlie iiinnrl;itctlterritiflries
in accordanci with the oblieations contained in the res~ecti\.e mandates
until such agreement was Gached.
As the distinpished representative of the Secretary-General has
also pointed out, the General Assembly has repeatedly urged the Union
of South Africa to come to an agreement with respect to the future
statns of the Territory.
The obligation of the Union of South Africa to come toan agreement
with the United Xations for the determination or modification of the
international status of South-\\'est Africa rests on three loundations.270 STATEZIEST BY 31. ISGLES (PHILIPPISES) - 20 v jo
namely : (1)the obligation it has assumed under paragraph 2 of -4rticle80
of the Charter to negotiate and conclude, without delay, a trusteeship
agreement for the Territory ;(2)the injunction of the League of Nations
which alone under the terms of the Mandate Agreement could consent
to a modification of the terms of the Mandate ;and (3) the obligation
of the Union of South Africa to comply ivith the will of the General
Assembly as the representative of the international community which
has espressly taken the Territory under its protection.
\Ve respectfully submit, further, that the agreement to determine
and modify the international status of the Territory of South-\\'est
Africa must he in the form of a trusteeship agreement as clearly contem-
plated hy the Charter in view of the finding of the General Assembly,
when it disapproved iucorporation of the Territory into tlie Union of
South Africa, that the inhabitants have not yet secured their political
autonomy or reached a stage of political developmeiit enahliiig them to
express a considered opinion on such an important question as to the
future status of their Territory.
At this juncture, we should like to stress once again what a
distinguished memher of this august tribunal has often drawn attention
to, and that is "the character of the international community and the
place in it occupied" by the United Nations as "an institution \rithin
the universal international society" whose aims are "of a world-wide
nature '".
The Preamble of the Cliarter embodies the quintessence of the
aspiratioiis of mankind for a better world. The "purposes" and
"principles" in Articles I and 2 constitute in practice the test of the
effectiveiiess of the Organization and the expected faithful compliance
with the provisions of the Charter2. In the words of the International
Law Commission, "a great majority of the States of the worlclhave ....
established a neiv international order under the Charter of the United
Xations, and most of the other States of the world have declared their
desire to live within this order =".
Surely this representative of tlie international community and
guarantor of the new world order should have its voice heard in any-
thing which concerns the disposition of mandated territories, especially
in view of the recoenition of the framers ofthe Charter that their admin-
istration and futuye status is vital to the maintenance of international
peace and security. \Ire hold the view, therefore, that the United Xations,
actine under thé Charter or in its ca~acitv as re~reseiitative of the
international community, may, in a prc$er &se, de6de on the reversion
of a mandated terntory to the international community-that inter-
national community to which the supervision and guardianship of
mandated territories were committed in the first place hy those who
had the authority to dispose of tliem. Moreover, tlie United Nations
may at the proper time decide that the territory has fulfilled the cori-
ditions of the Covenant or of the Charter so as to eiititle it to occupy its
proper place in the family of nations.

' Cancurring opinion of Judge ;\lvarez. Advisory Opinion of 3lay zSth1948.
I.C.J. Reports, \'ol. 1947.1948p. 68.
Report of Committee I/I, Junc 17, 1945,U.N.C.I.O. Uoc. So. 944.
Prearnble of the draftdeclaration of Ri~hts and Duties and States prepared
by the International Law CommissionVI. Szcmmutiot~ und co?zcZt~siort

Having stated our premises, we respectfully submit to the carelul
consideration of this honourable tribunal the following conclusions :
(1) That the Territory of South-\\'est Africa is a mandated Territory
and as such is under the protection of the international community.
(2) That the Government of the Union of South Africa has the
folioking continuing international obligations towanls the Territory
of South-West Africa under the Mandate :
(a) to follow tlie principles emhodied in Article 22 of the Covenant :
(6) to observe the provisions of the Mandate .4greement ; and
(c) to comply with the terms of the Resolutions of the Council of
the League of Xations and of the Permanent Mandates Com-
mission aith respect to mandated territories in general and to
the Territory of South-West Africa in particular.

(3) That the Uiiited Nations, in accordance with the Resolution
of the General Assembly of February ~zth, 1946, has, by virtue of the
liesolution of the General Assembly of November ~st, 1947. and No-
vember 26th. 1948, authorizing the Trusteeship Council to examine
annual reports of the Union of South Afnca, and of tlie Kesolution of
the Fourth Committee of Novemher 13th, 1949, giving a hearing to the
representatives of the indigenous population of the Territory of South-
\\'est Africa-that the United Nations, by virtue of tliese Resolutions,
has in fact assùmed the functions formerly exercised by the Permanent
Mandates Commission to examine annual reports by the Union of
South Africa on its administration of the Territory of Soutli-West
Africa :uid to receive and examine petitions from the inhabitants of
the Territory.
(4) 'rhat the Union of South Africa cannot exercise more rights or
authority over the Territory of South-\\'est Africa, escept as may have
been entrusted to it by reason of, and in accordance with, the Mandate.
(j)That the Union of South Africa cannot renounce its international
obligationstowards the Territory of South-West Africa without reiiounc-
ing whatever rights or authority it may have over the Territory hy
reason of its having been assigned the Mandate for tlie said Territory.
(6) That the Union of South Africa has the international obligation,
in accordance with the Mandate, the Resolution of tlie Assembly of
the League of Nations of April 18th. 1946, on mandates, the Charter
of the United Nations, and the 1Zesolutionsof the General Assembly
of February gtli, 1946, December qth, 1946, Xovember rst, 1947,
Xovember 26th, 1948, and December 6th. 1949, not to modify the inter-
national status of the Territory of South-\\'est Africa, except tp place
agreement with the United Nations.rnational Trusteeship System, by
(7) Tliat the Union of South Africa lias the international obligatioii
to observe thc principles of Chapter SI of the Charter with respect
to the Territory of South-\\'est Africa.
(8) That the Union of South Africa has the international obligation
pursuant to Chapter XII of the Charter-paragraph 2 of Article 80
in particular-in good faith to negotiate and conclude without delay
or postponement a tmsteesh'ip agreement with the United Xations STATE~IEST BY nr .KGLES (PHILIPPISES) - 20 v 50
272
for the purpose of placing the Territory of South-ifTest Africa under
the international Trusteeship System.
(9).And finally, that the United Nations, as the representative of
the international community and as guarantor of the new world
order, may, in a proper case, decide on the reversion of tlie Territory
of South-West Africa to the international community, and at the proper
time decide that the Territory has fulfilled the conditions for independ-
ence, whether under the terms of the original Mandate and the Covenant
of the League of Natioiis, or under the tems of such trusteeship agree-
ment as may be concluded under the Charter of the United Nations.
As we conclude our argument, we cannot but stress the fact that
what wnll be decided here will affect the fate of the voiceless peoples
of the Temtory of South-\\'est Africa, whose interests the Charter has
recognized to be "paramount" and whose well-being the Covenant
describes as a "sacred trust of civilization".Ve have appeared before
this honourable tribunal, conscious of our limitations, biit only in
ari endeavour to present a point of view which has been reiterated
tinie and again by the overwhelming majority of the Mernbers of the
United Nations.
\Vit11the permission of the Court, we should like to make a few further
observations to emphasize tliat the Charter, like the Covenant, is not
an ordinary contract, but is a law-making treaty, and more than that,
in the words of a great junst', it is a great constitutioiial document
and may require a broader approach than tliat usually adopted in
thThe tmsteeship provisions of the Charter have been characterized
as the charter of human liberty, because the spirit of the formula is
independence for al1 dependent peoplesz. These provisions are, more-
over, part and parcel of tlie Grand Design that is the United Nations.
\Z1ehumbly urge that in the interpretation of the Charter, the construc-
tion should incline agaiiist that interpretation which would nullify
its great objectives or stultify the Organization and should be in favour
of carrying out its provisions and inaking of the Charter what it is-a
living instrumeiit.
Ive realize that the Court is faced with a tremendous responsibility,
for the task entrusted to it by the General Assembly is an extremely
difficult one. But we are confident an equitable solution will be found
in accordance with the pniiciples of justice and international law.
In concluding our statement, we reiterate our thanks for the atten-
tion of the Court. 3. STATEMENT BY Dr. STEYX
(REPRESESTATIV O F THE U'ION OF SOUTH AFRICA)

AT THE I'UBLIC SITiliiCS OF MAY 20th. 2znd ,\?ID~3rd~IgjO

[I'z~blicsittitzO/ May aolh, 1950, rnori~it8gl

I. Mr. President. on this our first acouaintance with this Court. vou

\\III 11eriiiiriiic, oii betinlf of niyself aiid'iii!. collengiiiapp+:i;iiig
\iirliinc. ro esprcss uiir apl>icciation of rlic Iiigli pri\.ilcge of nl~l>enring
I)cforcrtiis Court-t~cfore Illeintzrii;iti<iiialrribiiii:il to \vhicli tlic co\.c~ii-
ments and the peoples of the world are looking for a dispassionate and
objective exposition of the rule of international law, the rule of law
which is only too often imperfectly iinderstood ancl npplied or even
overlooked altogether in the lient of political debates aiid in political
decisions in other places.
2. hlay 1, at the same time, express our pleasure at being able to
appear before this Court in this land of Grotius and I3ijnkershoek and
the other great jurists who have always placed this country in the
forefront of legal science and legal practice, and from whom mein South
Afnca, under a kindred system of law, have always derived so much
fruitful assistance.
3. In regard to the \Vntteii Stntements before tlie Court, 1 propose,
hlr. Presideiit, with your permission, to deal mainly with the State-
ment of tlie United States of Anierica. 1 propose to do so not because
1 aish in anv,wav~,o i~nlv& ,at the o~ ~~ Statements before the Court
are less weighty or less worthy of consideration, but inerely as a matter
of conl-enieiice-a matter of convenience arising from the fact that
the Statement of the United States is the most elaborate of the State-
ments placed before the Court by the other governments. With the
exception of one or two matters with which 1 shall deal separately,
it covers al1the ground covered bythe otherStatements. If 1can succeed
in answering the Statement of the United States on those matters
on which the Government of the United States do iiot agree with the
Union Government, 1 feel that 1may claim to have ansivered also the
other Statements, except, as 1 have already said, on certain other
matters which will still remain for separate attentioii.

4. But before 1 deal with the \Vritten Statements, you will permit
me, Ur. President, a passing reference to the very informative oral
statement of my learned friend, Dr. Kerno, the representative of tlie
Secretaqr-General of the United Nations. In regard ta his statement,
there is really very little that 1 wish to Say. He has referred at some
length to certain political discussions before the United Nations. In
that, 1 do not desire to follow him, because 1 believe that those discus-
sions are irrelevant to the purely legal questions before the Court,
and because, 1 submit, this Court will not besitate to treat them as such.
j. He has also dealt in some detail, as the distiiiguished represent-
ative of the Philippines has likewise done, iyitli the question of sover-
eignty under the mandates. Now, also in this, 1do iiot propose to follow274 STATEXEST BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 20 V 50

him. The location of sovereignty under the Mandates System has been
invcstigated by many emineiit jurists for many years. 'Sheyhave been
uiiable to come to any agreement as to where it might be found. 1
would submit, Mr. President, that it would serve little purpose to pursue
that enquiry further for the solution of the matters before this Court.
So\.ereignty-wherever it may have resided in the case of mandates-
was soniething to be deduced /rom the aclzial relatio~tshipsîcrtderthe
mar~dates.It was a conclusion to be drawn by jurists from the inter-
national rights and obligations iinder the hlandates System. The
converse procedure, that is, to deduce the relevant international rights
and obligations from the location of sovereigrity, would have been
both illogical and unrealistic. As sovereignty itself depended on these
rights aiid obligations, these rights and obligations could not be deduced
from sovereignty. It is not apparent, therefore, wliat purpose the con-
sideration of these theories as to sovereignty can now serve. They were
based upon the relationship existing under the mandates at a tirne
when the League of Nations was still in existence. \Vith the disappear-
ance of the League, these relationships have undergone a radical
change, so that conclusions drawn from them, as they esisted before
the dissolution of the League. cannot command acceptance to-day.
\\Je are faced with new relationsliips of which a definition has still
to be given, and wheii thc nature of these new relationships bas been
established, theorists will pertiaps begin a new quest after this elusive
locatiori of sovereignty. But that, in my submission, is not the task of
this Court. \\'liat the Court has been asked to dois to express an opinion
upon the international obligatioiis indicated in the Assernbly Resolii-
tion before tlie Court. Tliese obligations cannot be <leduce<lfrom any
precoiiceived ideas of sovereignty. based upon con<litions which have
undergonc such important changes. It is the concept of sovereignty
itself whicli would have to bc dcduced from these obligations or the
absence of them. 1 do not believe, therefore, tliat it would be of any
assistance to the Court if 1were to enter into a discussion of sovereignty
uiider the hlandates System.
6. The rcpresentative of the Secretary-General lias touched also
upon a number of other points with which 1 need not deal separately,
homever, as the views of the Union Government on these points will,
1 hope, appear from the gerieral line of my argument.
7. May 1 now return. hlr. President, to the \Vritteii Statements.
In dealing, then, more particularly, with the very exhaustive argu-
ment out forward bv the Government of the United States. there
ii a Ix~~liii~i~i;t)~iiir(;~ltliougi>erh;iliiiot oiivo;III!fircxt iiil);t;incc)
\i.iiiclit 13 ilcic.5-ni?tu iii~litloii Livay of ci:iri~cntioil011 ~..lgc;i,2
i l O I I \~it r:tiiiiit I I r i 1 r ~ c 0 II SI)VCI.I~
positl~ii of tlie United States in &ard to mandates. It is out
tliere that although the United States did not ratify the Treaty of
\'ersailles, it was, by the Treaty of Berlin, accorded al1 the rights and
advantages stipulated for the benefit of the United States in the Treaty
of \'ersailles. That is, of course, correct as far as it goes. There are,
howevcr, other facts which might be mentioiied in this connexion.
They are the following : The Treaty of Versailles (by Article 1x9 of
which Germany renounced al1 her rights and titles over her oversea
possessioiis) \vent into effect on January xoth, 1920. The Mandate for
South-\\'est Africa was confirmed and its terms werc defined by the STATEAIENT BY Dr. STEYK (SOUTH AFRICII) - 20 v jO 275

Council of the League of Nations oii Ilecember 17tli, 1920. The Treaty
of Berlin was signed only on August ~jtli, 1921, and ratifications urere
exchanged on November r~tli, 1921. When the Treaty of Berlin came
into force, tlierefore, South-\\'est Africa had already beeii disposed
of and Germaiiy retained no riglits in respect of tliis Territory wliich
ingly, not aflect the locils sta~idiof the United States in relation to
this Territory. As already poiiited out in paragrapli g of the Union
Goveriimeiit's \\'ritten Statement, no subseiliient agreement was
entered into between tlie Uniori Government and the Governmeiit
of the Unitetl States in regard to this Territory. It is not, Iiowever,
tlie coiiteiition of the Union Govcrnnient that thesc facts do in aiiy way
invalidate or weaken the mandatory dispositioiis made iii respect of
South-\\'est Africa at tlie time. There would be no necd, thereforc,
for me to elaborate this point any further.
S. Coming to the substaiice of the arguments by whicli the Unitecl
States has endeavoured to show that the Union of South Africa lias
certain international obligatioiis in respect of South-West A'frica, it
will be apparent tliat these arguments are to a very large extcnt based
upon the contention-perhaps 1 should Say the assumption-that the
Mandate is still in force.
9. In dealing with the coritinued existence of the Mandate, the United
States has put fonvard inter nka the propositions, firstly, that tlie
Mandate has not espired according to its ternis, inasmuch as it lias
not been tcrminated under tirticle 7 of the 3lanclate and inasmuch
as Soutli-\\'est Africa has not been incor~orated into anv other coun-
try ; and secondly, tliat the Mandate was iot tcrminatcd by the Second
World \Var. These propositions tlie Union Government do not propose
to refute. Thev ha;e onlv one comment to make :in r~uttine foriard
the contention tliat the "Mandate was not terminated'by the Second
\irorld \Var, tlie Government of the United States refer to the Mandate
as a "multipartite" agreement. It is not quite clear \vhat is meant by
"multipartite" in this connexion. If by that expression it is meant
to convey that every Member of the League \vas a party to the 31an-
date, the Union Governmeiit would wish to point out that that woiild
be a proposition which could not be justified, either in factor in law.
The Mandate was not an agreement between the Union Governmcnt
and every individual Rfember of tlie League, but between theUnioii
Government and the League as a distinct international entity. Govern-
ments of States which were hlembers of the League did not sign the
Mandate or signify in any other way their acceptalice as individual
parties to it, as they naturally would have done had they been such
individual parties. Xeither did they, as far as the Union Governmeiit
are aware, observe the ordinary processes of ratification. The Union
Government, at any rate, have never been notified of any such ratifica-
tion by individual States. Their mere participation as Member States
parties to tlie Mandate. In fact, those who became Members of theparatc
League after the hlandate had been confirmed had no part at al1 in the
procedures culminating in the Mandate. As Jlembers of the League,
they al1had, of course, a certain loctcsstandi in regard to the Mandate,
but when tliey ceased to be members, as al1 of them eventually did,
upon dissolution of the League, they lost also that loncs stnadi. The276 STATEJIEXT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 20 V 50
Union Government cannot agrec, therefore, that the Mandate for
South-West Africa was a multipartite agreement in the sense that

Members of the League were individual parties to it who would then
continue to be parties to it even after they had ceased to be Xlembers.
IO. There is, however, hlr. President, also a third proposition put
fonvard by the United States, namely, that the dissolution of the League
of Kations aiid the establishment of the United Nations did not end
the Mandate.
II: In regard to the establishment of the United Nations, the Uiiion
Government do not propose to argue that that in itself had any effect
upon the existence or otherwise of the Mandate. They nevertheless
would draw attention to what appears to them to be the tme meaning
of the so-called "conservatory clause", that is, Article 60 of the Charter,
~vhichprovides that until trusteeship agreements have been concluded,
nothing in Chapter XII "shall be constmed in or of itself to alter in any
manner the rights whatsoever of any States or any peoples or the terms

of existine international instruments to which Members of the United
Nations Gay respectively be parties". There seems to be an impression
that bv this provision the United Nations ensured that the mandates.
which ;vere Ùndoubtedlv ~~~2orce a~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. would continue in force ~ ~ ~
until tniswzsliip ngreemciirs\i.crc coiicliidzd.wl;atcvcr clsc iiiiglittiappçii.
In the subniisiioii of tlic biiioii Govcriiment. tliis iiii~)rcssiunis eiitirel\'
erroneous.
12. Article 60, in so far as it relates to mandates, does not Sayany
more, and caiiiiot possibly mean any more, thaii that the provisions
of Chapter XII-and those proaisions only-should not be construed
as altering the rights under the then existing mandates, or the terms
of those mandates. Article 60 does not mean, and the United Nation;
were not competent to make it mean, that subsequent action taken by
the then still existent League should not be construed as altering such
rights or terms. Action taken by the League, witliin its omnsphere of

competence, could in no way be affectedby any provision in the Charter
of the United Nations. Article 80operates, then, as a conservatory clause
only iii so far as it safeguardsrights'from being altered by the terms of
Chapter XII itself, and no further. It cannot safeguard rights which
depend upon the terms of other international instmments from alteratioil
by the parties to those instmments. It would remain for those parties
to decide whether or not, and to what extent, those instruments are
to be altered as a result of the establishment of the United Nations and
the adoption of the Charter. The United Xations had no authority to
take that decision for those parties. Accordingly, by Article 80, they
could not and did not purport to provide that inandates would continue
in existence iiispite of any subsequent action whicli might be taken by
the Leaguc.
13. And that, 3Ir. Presidcnt, brings us to tlic crus of the whole
question, namely, the effect upon the mandates of the dissolution of

the League. In considering this aspect of the matter, it is necessary
to recall that the Principal Allied and Associated Powers were fzrizcti
oficio after the mandate had been conferred and confirmed. Between
the Union Government and these Powers, in their capacity as such,
there was no further relatioiiship, affecting the position of the Union
Government, in regard to South-West Africa. They had fulfilled tlieir STATEMEXT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 20 V 50 277

function and had passed out of the picture, except of course as Mem-
bers of the League. There were then left in the field of recognized inter-
national entities only the tao parties, the League on the one hand,
of the.Covenant, mandates were held on behalf of the League, and 22
in terms of the Mandate for South-West Africa itself, tlie Union Govern-
ment esplicitly undertook to exercise the Mandate on behalf of tlie
League. The League was the mandator ;the Union Government the
mandatory. From its very nature, this mandatory relatioiiship, in
which ever way we construe it, requires more than one party, one of
whom must be the mandator. It could not stand with only a mandatory
as a party to it. That, 1 \\rould submit, would be a legal impossibility.
IA.The mandate instrument. definine this relationshio. is snhiect
to the same limitation. If, during the litsime of the ~ea&e', the uiiion
Government should have renounced the Xandate, or sliould have been
deprived of it by the League (assuming that the League was competent
to do so), then, of necessity, the Mandate would have lapsed. for the
simple reason thai it could not have remained in force without the
mandatory named in it. And in the very same way, the Mandate must
of necessity lapse upon the disappearance of the mandator, who is as
essential as the mandatory to the esistence of the mandatory relation-
ship. With the dissolution of the League, without the effective substitu-
tion of another mandator, it was inevitable that also this relationship
should automatically be dissolvcd. \\'ith the mandator occupying
such an essential place in the whole arrangement, there was no way
of avoiding such a result, except the substitution, before the hlan-
date lapsed, of another mandator. that is to Say, if such a substitution
could validly be made. As 1 will endeavour to show in more detail
later on, such a substitution did in fact not take place. As between
the League and the Union Government, the Mandate therefore came
to an end, and that means that, as from the dissolution of theleague,
there has been no mandate.
15. If the Mandate is ta be held to be still in force, the question
would have to be answered : ta which organization or to which States
is the Union Government responsible under the Mandate, now that
Government was, of course, responsible to the League. Articlehe Un22nof
the Covenant, it is true, spoke of a "sacred trust of civilization". On
page zg of the Written Statement of the United States, tliere is alsa
a quotation from what had been said by President \i7ilson, when he
referred to the world as acting as trustee through a mandatory. AIS>
the representative of the Secretary-General has referred to tliis concept
of the world community as being tlie ultimate holder of the ilandate.
Noiv, these phrases-"sacred trust of civilization", "the world acting
as trustee through a mandatory", and "the world community as the
ultimate holder of the Mandatew-are, 1would submit, political phrases,
from which 1 must confess 1 see no way of extracting any precise legal
meaning.
16.Mandatories were never responsible to the world at large. The
international community, i.e. the community of dl recognized States,
1 would submit, is not a distinct legal entity, capable as such of
having any rights or obligations. As such, it is no more than an unor-
ganized collection of States, and it is only by a far-fetched legal fiction 21. The legal iiievitability in these circumstances of the lapsing of
the Mandate and of the riglits and obligations arising from it is not
dealt with directly in any of the Wrritten Statemcrits before the Court.
Apart from this concept of the world community, no Government has
attempted to explain how a mandatory relationship is to be continued
without a mandator or to whom the obligations of the mandatory would
in sucli a case be owing, or by whom or how thcse obligations could
be invoked against the mandatory. And yet, Mr. President, these are
the questions which must needs be ansmered if the Mandate is to be
reaarded as still beina in force.l1that we have in this reaard is. firstlv.
th; broad contention that tlie parties never intended the mandates to
lapse, andsecondly, that the fiirictionsofthe Leaeue have bcen transferred
to the United Xitions.
22. Now, to Say thnt tlic parties never intended the mandates to
lapsc could in itself not change the legal positioii. AI1that that would
would be that the parties acted under a misapprehension as to whatult,
the legal results of their action would b;that is to say, of courseifthey
actually did have the intention ascribed to them.
23.As to that, it is true that at the first part of the First Session of
the General Assembly and at the final session of the League, varions
mandatories spoke in terms of their obligations under the Mandate. It
inust be borne in mind, however, that when they spoke, also at the final
session of the League. the rnaiidates were still in force. The moment of
dissolution had not vet arrived. It was ~erfectlv natural. therefore. at

ail, were iiot speakingas lawyers expressing themselves in exact legal
terminology, describing the legal position as it mould be after the
dissolution of the League. They were not attemptiiig to define the legal
situation which the dissolution would create. Without analyzing the
legal results, they were describing their intentions inanguage which \vas
perfectly well understood. although no more exact than the phraseology,
for instance, of Articlezz of tlie League Covenant. What they intended
to convey, 1 would submit iri more precise legal terms, was that on the
dissolutiori of the Lcaguc tlicy would contiiiue, as far as the altered
which had existed bcforc the dissolution.ligations of their mandates
24.The assurance which tliey desired to give was that in their actual
conduct of the affairs of the mandated territories tliere \vould be no
change. They would, iiithiii the limits of the new situation created
hy the dissolution of the League, continue to act as if their obligations
still existed. In giving this assurance, they were quite evidently not
concerned \vith precise legnl terininology, and one should therefore
iiot read into their words a legal constmction which tliey may or may
not have had in mind. In nny case, even if they had n particular legal
constructioii in mind, that would not prove that that construction is
the right constructiori, nor would the fact that thcy may have had a
i~articular leral construction in mind be a reason for ado~tin. -hat
construction:f it is the wrong coristruction.
~j. In the result, it is submitted, >Ir. President, that from the state-
meiits of intention here iii ouestion. no clear infereiicc can be drawn to
tlie effcct that the parties'concern'ed had in fact decided by a mere
21280 STATEalEST Bi' Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFHICA) - 22 l' 50

declaration of inteiition to achiex-e the extremely difficult and elusive
result of continuing the mandates as vnlid legal instruments in spite
-- ~ - -~ ~ ~ ~ ~on of the Leae"e arid the conseauent disar~ne..ance of
an essential part of it.
26. 1 would submit that a matter of such great difficulty and import-
ance would never have been left to a <-loubtfulinference from general:
statements of future intentions, nor coiild it, with any legal efficacy,.
have beeii left to such statements. l'liese statement~, MI. President,
be it remembered, were made to tlie espiring League. They could not
have been made with the intentioii of entering into a binding arraiige-.
ment with the League. Such an arrangement would have been impos-
sible with an organization about to be dissolved. The dissolution would
immediately liave put an end to the arrangement. Nor werc thesc state-
meiits madc nith the intention of enteriiig into a bindiiig arrriiigerneiit
with the United Nations, and they were not accepted by tlie United
made to iiidividiial Members of the League with any sucli intentiony
or accepted at any time by hfembers of tlie League on that basis. They
were iiot couclied in terms conveying any legal bindiiig unclertaking
and were not iioted by the League as coiiveying any siich uiidertaking,
but merely as expressions of intentioii. Xowhere in these stateinents
is a iiew mandator mentioned.
27. One is at a loss to discover by what precise legal constriiction
these statemeiits could be said to have resrilted iii tlie coritiiiiiance
of the mniidatcs upon a legally valid basis or in tlie crcatioii of legnl
obligatioiis towards any State or international organizntion. There
is no indication of the identity of the future parties to sucli oblig t'ns,
that is, the parties wlio would take the place of the Leagiie or of Mem-
bers of the League, the only parties witti any locus sfaridi in regard
to mandates. It is submitted, therelore, that these statements did not
have the effect of continuing the mandates on a legally valid basis,
or of creatine an\' oblie-tions in terms of the mandates. toivards sub-
stituted I~ar<es.'
28. As a corollary, apparently, to tlie propositioii that the maiiàat-
ories and the hfembers of the Leatrue never intended the iiinndates
fo lapse, the Court's attention is nïso drawn, in the Writtcii State-
ment of the United States, and also iri the oral statements, to the fact
that certain alembers of the United Nations, and also the Ilnitecl
Nations itself iii certain resoliitions, have accepted tlie continued
existence of the mandates. Xow that again, 311. President, does not
seem to take tlie matter any further. In fact, 1 find it difficult to under-
stand \vhy these vievrs are referred to at nll in tliis connexion. At the
most, they are mere expressioiis of opinion. These expressions of opinioii
cannot change the realities of the legal situation. They cannot make
new law. If iii Iaw the mandates lapsed upon the dissolution of the
League, a coiitrary opinion, however ofteii it may be espressed in the
United Nations, could not alter the law, and revive the inandates.
Or is it to be siipposed that the underlyiiig idea is that \'.hercthe United
Nations liave espressed an opinion, tlie Court should not differ,escept
for very good reasons? That the United Nations could always load
the dice, as it were, by espressing definite convictioris beforehand ?
'That. &Ir.President, it is submitted, would be an approach which this
Court would reject iri no uncertaiii terms. .And that, 1 hope, will also282 STATEZIEST BY Dr. STIPYS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 \'50
detailed in paragraphs A, B and C of l'art 1 of the Resolutiori. These
were : - --
(1)Functions relating ta the custody of the original signed texts of
certain instruments, the receipt of additional signatures and of instru-
ments of ratification, accession aiid deiiunciatioii, and such like matters.
(2) Functions and powers of a technical and non-political character,
under instruments intimatelv coiinected with activities which the United
Nations, willor may continué.It was necessary to examine these carefully,
and the matter was referred to tlie Ecoiiomic and Social Council.
(3) Functions aiid powers iinder instruments having a political
character. Here it \vas decided that the General Assembly would itself
examine, or submit to the appropriate organ of the United Nations, any
request from the parties that the United Xations should assume the
exercise of functions or polvers entrusted ta the League of Xations by
such instruments. In view of certain submissions made to the Court, it
isimportant to note Iierethat before tlie assumptioii ofaiiy such functions
there was to hc a rcgucstby the parties, which would he a%a?nined by the
General Assembly. Mandates as soch are nowhcrc rcfcrrcd ta.
33. By l'art 11 of this Resolutioii. it is stated, inler alia,that the
Economic and Social Councilshould, "oii or before the dissolution of the
League", assuine and coiitinue provisionally the work hitherto done
bythe Economic, Financial and Transit Department, the Health Section,
and the Opiuin Section of the League, and the secretariats of the Perma-
nent Central Opium Board and Superrisory Body. There is no meiition
of the Xandates Commission. The Resolution then goes on to deal witli
such matters as the taking over of the library aiid archives. and other
assets of the League.
34. There are two thiiigs iii l'art II of this Resolutioii which are, iii
my submission, of particular significaiice. The one is that, while the
Resolution deals espressly witli the assumption of certain functions of
specified departments of the League, tliere is no mention of mandates
as such, of any League functions relating ta mandates, or of the depart-
ment of the League dealing with iiiaiidates. The other is that, in dealing
with the fuiictioiis of these specified departments of the League, the
United Nations directs the Economic aiid SocialCouncil to make arrarige-
ments for the assumption of these functions "on or before the dissolutioii
of the League". In al1other cases, the Resolution seems to contemplate
action nfterthe dissolution of the League. It is only in the case of thc
functions of tliese departments of the League that the precaution is
taken to provide for their assumption oti or beforthe dissolution. Now,
why this special precaution ? One can only presume that the United
Nations realized that they were here dealing with fiinctions exercised
by the 1-eaguc,iiiider the Covciiarit of the League ; that with the disso-
lution of the League the Covenant would cease to he i~perative ; tliat
tliese functions would accordiiigly lapse, and that, if they were to be
taken over bv anv orean of the Uiiited Xations. thev woiild have to be
tnkcii ovei01;or bcfn;; tlic dissolutioi(iftlirI.e:ig.ue~~flicsct:iiitu Ii:i!c
I)ecii:ili\c, tliercfore. to tlir pos.iible Icgnl ~.uiiipliciotIJCt.\-pvct~.d
Aiid yet, in regard to mandate fiinctions, we look in vaiii for any similarioii;.
precautioii calculated to ensure that lhose functions would pass to the
United Natioiis by an unqucstioii:ihle procedure. l'liere is certainly
no evidence kiercof any contemplated substitution of the Uiiited Nations, STATENEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH .-\FRICA) - 22 \' 50
263
as mandator in the place of the League, or of any transfer of func-
tions, on or before the dissolution of the League.
3j. Let us now turn to the final resolutions of the League. The Assern-
bly of tlie Leaguc liad hefore it Resolution STV of the United Xations,
and proceeded to deal witli the assumption by the United Nations,
in tenns of tliiit liesolution, of certain functioiis and powcrs of the
League. It atlopted certain corresponding resolutions, in regard to
tlie custody of the original tests of international agreements, and in
regard to its fiinctions and powers of a techiiical ancl non-political
character. It macleprovision for the trarisfer of certain rights of property
to the United Nations, and appointed a Board of Liquidation to wind
up its affairs. Xowhcre rvas any provision made, in regard to mandates,
for any direct substitution of the United Nations for the League, or
for any transfer to the United Xations of any fnnction of the League.
Unlike the United Nations, the League dealt specifically with man-
dates. but in thc liesolution dealine with the mandates. there is not
even a reference to the possible assGption by tlie United Nations, iri
tenns of Rcsolution SIV. of anv function of the Leaaue. In substance.
the League did threc things ohy:
(1) It recognizctl tliat its own functioris woul<lcome to nn end.
(2) It noted that thc Charter embodics principles corresponding
to those declared in Article 22 of the Covcnant.
(3) It took note of the expressed iiztenlioizsof tlic llembers of the
League then administering territories under mandate.
Xone of these thirigs, 1 would submit, ;\Ir. President, could efiect
any substitution or transfer.
36. From an examination of the relative resolutions of the United
Katioiis and of the League, therefore, one can only conclude that it
\vas not thouglit necessary to arrange for the immediate substitutioii
of the United Nations as mandator, or for the iinmediate transfer of
any mandate fiinctioiis to the United Xations, or to take any steps
corresponding to tliose takcn in the case of other Leagiie [lepartments,
to ensure that inandatcs would be keot alivc. If it is riaht -o sav. as 1
sii1:iiiiit 1s. 11,;ir:iiiiiiicl.it~~ryrrl;i;it,iiilii[i, i<it;iirini~~l.itur13
1ni1i111 juridicill!.iio.iIl it iiiiiiifollo\i rli.irilic iii.inil.it~~i
I;xl>.i.il\i.I.~,iitlic I.cngiie ili,:,l,lI<riilO~~~iiii/.:~tii)i\.I<,i:oiiirnt
iu rt.ly,i~isi~~.î<ii11uiiilic cxj)r<,s;~(lin1~~1111n u1s1111I:II.~II~I~~I~~II~~~,
:tiictlicir @>o(flxilli11cwrviiig oiii ~IioscIII~CII~IU~S.
37. In any case, even the most ardent supporters of such a substitu-
tion or transfer woiild no doiibt concede tliat no arrangement haring
any such effect coulcl validly have beeii made riitliout the consent
of the mandatorics. 7he Union Government is iiot a\irare of any sucli
arrangement having been made, and d'idnot at any time consent to it.
It is rvith snme surprise, therefore, that the Union Government learns
from the Writtcn Statement of the United States (p. 97) that the Union,
together with tlie othcr remaining iilembers of the League and other
States, has generally (Le. also in regard to mandates) entrusted the
United Nations nitli fuiictions formcrly esïrcise<l by tlic League.
Only the functioiis of specified departments, otlicr tlinn the Mandates
Department, coiild be said to have bcen so critrusted. As to the rest,
that rvas left to si~bsetluent action, where sircli action would be both
possible and espcclient.2S4 STATELIEXT %Y Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V 50

38. llr. President, that hrings us to the subsequent events in the
United Nations. The question wliich is here raised in the \irritten
Statemeiits is whether the United Nations have at any time after the
dissolution of the League, in terms of Resolution XIV, paragrapli I
(c),assumed any of its functions in regard to mandate s iis question
could really only be examined on the assumption that the Mandate
for South-\\'est Africa Iias not lapsed. If it ceased to exist, there would
be no functions to assume under it. \Vliat Resolution XIV contemplates,
1submit, Rlr. President, is not the assumption of functions under agree-
ments which have lapsed, but the assumption of functions under a ree
rneiits \!.hich continue in force, notwithstanding the dissolution of the
Mandate did not lapse. Has the United Nations, then, assumed anyt the
such functions ?
39. As already pointed out, Resolution XIV-I (c)postulates a request

Assembly. The Government of the United States have advanced theral
argiimeiit that the furnishing of a report oii South-West Africa for
the year 1946, by the Union Government, was such a request. They
say, at page log of the Written Statements : "it would seem that the
Union of South Africa has takeii the necessary steps to place the matter
before the General Assembly, and that the Assembly has provided for
assumption of the League of Nations function in mandate reporting".
40. The Union Government are sure that other Members of the
United Nations would he as surprised as they themselves are to learn
now, forthe first time, that a request has been addressed to the General
Assembly, in tcrms of Resolution XIV-I (c),that that request Iias beeii
esainined by the General Assembly, and has been granted by it-al1
this without a single word of reference to the Resolution itself and
without any indication whatsoever that hIembers of the United Kations.
(including the United States of America) were purporting to act in terms
of that Resolution. There certainly has never been a specific request,
or anexamination of any such rcquest, or any resolution by the General
Assembly assentiiig to any such request.
41. It is very significant, moreover, tliat in the Statement of the
Government of the United States the e'rceedingly wide proposition
on page 97, that the United Nations Iias generally been entrusted with
functions formerly exercised by the League, should, on pages rog et sgq.,
be qualified to this extent, at any rate. that, allegedly in terms of IZeso-
lution XIV-I (c)the function actually entrusted was only the function
to examine reports.
42.In view of the United States contention, it becornes necessary
to reiterate what \vas stated by the South-African Government iri
the past in connexion with reports, and to show that the furnisliiiig
of iiiformation on South-West Africa to the United Nations, although
it arose out of the desire to give effect to the expressed intentionof
administering the Territory in the spirit of the Mandate, did not imply
in any way that the United Nations uras being requestecl to invest
itself with the supervisory functions of the League.
43. At the 19th meeting of the l'ourth Committee, Field Rlarshal
Smuts stated that "the Union would, in accordance with Article 73,
paragraph (e), of the Charter, transinit regularly to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations for information purposes, subject to STATEJIENT Bï Dr. STEïS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V jO 2Sj

such limitations as security and constitutional considerations might
require, statistical and other information of a technical nature relating
to economic, social inid educational conditions in South-IVest Africal".
That, hfr. President, was the first statement made by a Soutli-African
representative, before the United Nations, on tlie subject of reports.
44. Now, for reasoiis wliich are readily apparent, this statement
could not qualify as :irequest to the United Nations to invest itself
with the supervisory functions which the League exercised in respect
of mandates. In tlie first place. the reports to be subiriitted would be
"for information purposes". not for any supervisory purpose, such as
was served by reports to the League. In fact, the limitation contained
in the words "for information purposes", in tlieir context, is entirely
irreconcilable \vit11anything in the nature of the supervisory function
exercised by the Permanent Alandates Commission and the Council
of the League in respect of mandates. In the second place, the reports
were to contaiii onlv statistical and other information of a technical
n:LturL.r<?li~tiiotgL>COIIO sociIl .iild education:~I ioiiditiun~III1l.e
Tvrritor?, aiid nu riii~rc.Sucli rq,orts,\Ir I'rejidc~it.\voiil<lof iicceîsity
1 s!clIlite ln:l~~~~lll:urftllvcxcrci~c of any ~lll~er~~ls~f~ 1r11cti01i. c
reports to be made to the League, on thé ot\;er iland, related to al1
possible aspects of the administration of tlie Territory, as indeed they
had to if tlie supervisory functions of the Leagiie were to have any real
contemplated in the statement made by Field hlarslial Smuts, and thets
reports to the League, differ fotodo. There is no room Iiere, tlierefore,
for any construction by which it might be said that the Union Govern-
ment, by this statement, requested the United Nations to assume the
functions of the League, in regard to reports under the hlandate. It
is only by ignoring the essential differences tliat such a construction
could be made to appear at al1 plausible.

45. But, however that may be, this so-called request (if it is this
statement which the Government of the United States have in mind)
was not examined at al1at the 1946session. It was made to the Fourth
Committee, which was not the competent organ for the assumption
of any League function, and it was not repeated in the Assembly.
The Resolution passed by the General Assembly in that year made no
mention of reports. The 1946session, therefore, leaves iiswith noevidence
at al1of aiiy assumption of any League function in regard to mandates.
46. hlr. President, in a communication dated 23rd July, 1947 (Doc.
A/334), the Union Government informed the United Nations that the
Union Parliament had adopted a resolution inter aiia expressing the
opinion that the Union Government should continue to render reports
to the United Xations Organization, as it had done heretofore under the
Mandate. In expressing, in this communication, their confidence that
tlieir continued administratioii of the Territory in the spirit of the
hlandate would merit the satisfaction of the United Nations, the Union
Government added that, "to that end, they had already undertaken to
submit reports on tlieir administration for the information of the United
Nations". Perhaps it is this statement which the United States has in
mind.

' Official Records. General Assembly. Fourth Committee, 1946,p. 102.286 STATEIIEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V jO

47. If so, it will be observed that the expression of opinion by the
Union Parliament was iiot in this letter followedup by any new approach
to the United Nations on the subject of reports. All the Government
did was to refer to the undertaking \\.hich had already beeii given, i.e.
to the statement made to the Fourth Committee in 1946, and to which
1 have alreadv referred. This communication. therefore. addecl iiothine u
which could tirn tliat statement to the ~ourth ~ommittéeiiito a request
forthe assumption of Lea~ue functions. As far as that was coiiccrned.
it left the matter exnctly%liere it had been in 1946.
48. Before the 1947session of the United Nations, ;ireport oii Soiith-
\Vest Africa was in fact siibmitted. The relevant resolutioii adopted
at that session (Resolution 227 (III)) referred, in its Prearnble, to this
letter of ~3rd July, 1947. and to the statement in this letter that the
Union Government had undertaken to submit reports. It espressed the
hope that the Union of South Africa might find it possible to submit
a tmsteeship agreement in time for consideration at the 1948 session,
and authorized the Trusteeship Council, à?,the meantiii~e,to examine
the report and to submit its observations thereon to the Assembly.
49. Here, it may be argued, we at last have, in fact, at any rate, the
assumption by the United Nations, in terms of its Resolution XIV-I (c)
of the supervisory functions of the League in regard to tliis Territory.
But, Mr. President, what are the facts ?
50. Before this Resolution was adopted by the General tlsseinbly,
the representative of the Union of South Africa had made a further
statement in regard to reports. He rcminded the Assembly that the
Union Government had expressed their readiness to submit annz~nl
reports for the information of the United Nations, and addcd tliat that
undertaking still stood. He then went on to Say this : "Although these
reports, if accepted, will he rendered on thebasis that the United h'ations
has no supervisoryjurisdiction in respectof this Territory, they will serve
to keep the United Nations informed, in much the same way as they
\viU be kept informed in relation to non-self-governing territories uiider
Article 73 (e)of the Charter." This, kir. President, was, ofcourse,nothing
new. \Vhat was said here was already clearly implied in the statement
made to the Fourth Committee in 1946. The important point is that \ve
have here an express reservation in regard to any supervisory jurisdic-
tion which the United Nations might attempt to exercise in coni~exion
with reports on South-West Africa. Instead of a request. therefore, to
assume the functions of the League in regard to this l'erritory, we have
here the clearest possible request not to assume those functions. In the
face of this, Mr. Presideiit, one is at a loss to understand Iiow it could
be contended thnt tliis Kesolution of 1947 constitutes the assumption
by the United Nations, at the request of the parties conceriicd, of the
supervisory functions of the 1-eague.
51. Such a contention is contradicted not only by this specific reser-
vation in regard to supervisory jurisdiction, but also by the terms of
the Resolution itself. The Resolution makes no mention of aiiy functioii
of the League, or of Resolution XII7 of 1946, or of nnirzialreports, that
is, reports for an indefinite period. It mentions only the one report,
which was then before the Assemblv. and no 0th. Tliat. surelv.
hIr. President, could not, by any knom~~recept of logicor reaso", passai
an assumption by the United Xations of the reezilnr i~ri~ctiono sf the
League, to be exercised in respect of each and eveÏy annual report. And STATEAIEST BY Dr. ST1:YS (SOUTH .AFRICI\) - 22 V 5q 287

tliat, according to the contentiori of the United St;itcs, if I understand
it correctly, is the fuiiction whicli the United Xatioiis is supposed to have
assumed. It is submitted that there is not a trace of ;iny evidence upon
whicli the Court could Iiold that we have here, in this 1947 Resolutiori,
an assumption of the regular 1.eaye functions, in pursiiance of Resolii-
tion XI\'.
j2. Xow, wliat other evidencc is there of such ail assumption of
functions ? Before the ncxt session of the Assembly, that is, before
the 1948 session, the Union Government, in forwardirig their answers
to the questiorinaire on this Territory issued hy tlic Trusteeship Council,
while they were considcring the report submitted by the Union Govern-
inent, made the folloaing observations in paragraph 2 of the coveriiig

lctter dated May 31st, 1948, addressed to the Secretary-General : "Tlic
Union Governmeiit, in forwarding these replies, dcsirc to reiterate tliat
the transrnissioii to the United Nations of information on South-\Vest
Africa irithe form of an annual report or any other form, is on a voluntary
basis, and is for purposes of information only. They have on several
occasions madc it clear tliat tliey recognize no obligation to transmit
this information to the United Nations, but in view of the widespread
interest in the adniinistration of the Territory, and iii accordance with
normal democratic practice, tliey are willing ancl ansious to make
availablc to the world such facts and figures as are readily at their
disposal, aiid wliicli can bc collated and CO-ordiiiated, ivithoiit placing
excessive biirdens on staff resources, to the detriment of urgent tasks
of aclrninistration."

53. In paragraph 3 of tliis letter of 3Iay 31st.1948. tlic Uiiion Govern-
ment rccalled that, in offering to submit a report on South-\\'est Africa,
they did so on the basis of the provisions of Article 73 (e) of the Charter,
which calls for statistical and other information of a technical nature
and makes no reference to information on questions of policy. The
Union Government then proceeded to malie it clear that the replies
which they were nevertheless giving on certain matters of policy "should
not be construed as a commitment as to future policy or as implyirig
any measure of accountability to the United Nations on the part of the
Union Government".
54. After this letter, &Ir. IJresident. with its si~ecificreiection of anv
i~h~i~:ill~~1iisli1,niil rt.l,<8rl,,il;c.~li:tlly;llcciiic r~j~c[i~ii,,~.~.titlll:-
..,biIir\, tl.;15,(di~~iiy=iipcrvijury ~iir~s(I~cIiontIn<.iccn11I~li:~r(lIII:,~~

I8rrii :tiiv oiietioii>I rt,oiicit to ~hc:l'iiil~.(lSalions 11,.is;u~ii,: t1.c
supervisbri functious of the League. The erercise of those functioris
would of necessity imply an obligation to submit regular annual reports.
as ivell as accountability, the very things which the Union Government
had rejected iii express terms. The Union Government did not at any
time abandon the position taken up in this letter, and there is iio
eviderice of any riature indicating that they have done so. It could ~iot
be allegecl, therefore, that tlhe i\ssembly, at the subsequcnt sessions ot
1948 and 1949, had any request of tlic nature in questioii before it. The
resolutions passed in tliose ycars in regard to tliis Territory certainly
do not give the slightest indicatioii of the assumption of any fnnctioii
of the League.
jj. 1 submit, therefore, that there is no groiincl whatsoever for aiiy

suc11alleged assumption of functions.258 STATIC,\IENT BY Dr. STEYX (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 ï'jO

jG. But if, hlr. i'resident, in spite of the consideratioiis which 1 have
advanced, it should rievertheless be Iieldtliat the Maridate lias contiiiuecl
to exist, 1 would submit that there coiild scarcely be found a more
appropriate set of circumstances on the basis of whicli the doctrine of
rcbitssicstn~itibzcould be invoked. 1tbeingclear that tlie United Xatioris
bas neither succeeded to, nor assumed, the functions of the League of
Nations relating to the hlandates System, certain essential elements
of that System must necessarily have ceased to esist in consequence of
the dissolution of the League. ISven ifthe Mandate still exists, there is
now no interriational organ coinpetent to exercisc thc supervisory
functionsand control of the League. There is no iiiternational organ to
which the Union Government are obliged to submit reports. There is no
international organ whose consent is legally required for modificatioris
of the terms of the Mandate. The League having espired, there are no
Members of the League who caii claim rights in respect of the administra-
tion of the Territory. And finally, there is no State legally competent
to refer disputes relating to the interpretation or the application of the
provisions of the hlandate to the Interriational Court of Justice, the
competence to do so having been limited by Article 7 of the hlandate
to AIembers of the League. All these circumstances indicate a change
of so radical a nature in the application of,and in the method of imple-
menting, the Mandates System, that the Union Government would, in
my submission, be fully justified in claiming that tliey are no longer
bound by the terms of the Mandate.

ji. It may also be argued, as the representatiae of the Secretary-
General has pointed out, that even though the hIandate has lapsed as
between the Union of South Africa and the League of Xations, it never-
theless continues to exist as between the Union and the peoples of
South-West Africa. \i7ith your permission, 1 shall now deal with that
argument.
jS. In order that the peoples of South-West Africa should continue
to possess such international legal rights as they may have had under
the Mandate, or, conversely, in order that the Unioii should continue
to have any international legal obligations under the Mandate towards
these peoples, it is essential that these peoples, as a community, should
either have become party to Article 22 of the Covenant or to the Man-
date itself, or have accepted what might be regarded in Article 22,
and in the Mandate, as a stipulation in favour of a third party, narnely,
themselves.
59. There is, however, nothing to show that either of those essential
requiremeiits has been met. South-West Africa was not a party to the
Peace Treaty, or the Mandate, iior could it have become a party to
the Treaty or to the Covenant itself or to the hlaiidate lacking, as it
does, the necessary capacity to enter into an internatioiial agreement.
For the same reason, even if it is admitted that Article 22 and the
Mandate contained a stipulation in favour of the peoples of the Tern-
tory, that stipulation could not be, and nerer was. accepted by the
peoples concerned in such a manrier as to give rise to international
legal rights and obligations. That left the League aiid the Union of
South Africa as the only parties to the Mandate. STATEAIENT Bi' Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V jO
289
60. In th'isconiiexion, Articlezz of the Covenaiit would itself appear
to proride aii adequate answer to the contention that the peoples of
South-\\'est Africa were, or are, competent to acquire internatioiial
legal rights the implementatioii of which tliey, as a community, coiild
claim on the interiiational lan ne.Paraara~h 4 of that Article. which

recognized". ?'lie word "communi'ties", coupled with t6e staternei;t
tliat they, the communities, can be prorisionally recognized as independ-
ent nations, white not necessarily meaning "States", does, however,
seem to imply entities to rvhich may be attributed legal personality.
And it is oiily necessary to refer to the Treaty of 1922 betwccn Great
13ritain and Iraq and to the various treaties to wliicli Palestine was an
origitial Party, in order to confirm the legal personality of tlie A Mandate
communities. The next paragraph of Article 22, relating to the B Man-
dates. refers to other "~eo~les". The word "~eonles" does not. in itself.
neces~aril~imply aiiinieriational entity, so'that factual consideration;
are to be taken iiito account in determining whether, in any former
B mandated territory, tlie peoples thereof form a communiiy corre-
sponding to the communities metitioned in paragrapli 4 of Article 22.
In paragrapli 6. Iiowever, where we come to C Mandates, the emphasis
is placed on the word "territories". and the words "communities"
and "peoples" are not mentioned at all.
61. The C Mandates are described as territories which, owing to
the sparseness of their population, or theirsmall size, or their reinoteness
from the centres of ci\ilization, or their geographical contiguity to the
territory of the mandatory, and other circumstanccs, can be best admin-
istered under the laws of the mandatory as integral portions of its
territory, subject to the safeguards provided in the interests of tbe
indigenous population. In so far as South-\l'est Africa is conceriied,
it would have been entirety inappropriate to have described its popula-
tion as a commuiiity, or as peoples in the sense of a more or less homo-
geneous entity. The population, &Ir. President, consisted of separate
collections of tribes of divergent racial origins. having very little in
comrnon with each other and in some cases representiiig what arc really
primitive survivais of the human race. It could not be said, therefore,
that there was anything approaching a nation in this Territory which
coiild claim to rcpresent al1 the peoples thereof in a broad sense, and
which might bc regarded as having an international legal personality.
'The Mandate, moreover, was not accepted by the peoples of South-
West Africa, but was imposed upon them from without ; and the rigtits
which they acquired under thc Mandate they 'acquired as indi\~idaals
aiid not as a legally competent community. Shat this is so is coniirmed
by the circurnstaricc that in paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the Cosenant
relating to C Mandates, there is no provision corresponding to the
provision in paragraph 4, relating to the A Mandates, that the wishes
of the communitieç concerned must be a principal consideration in the
selection of the inandatory.
62. \Vliite the League of Nations was in existence, third States,
if they were Meinbcrs of the League, Iiad legal rigtits in respect of man-
dated territories. The procedure envisaged in Articles Ir (2) aiid ig 290 STATEUEST BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRIC.~) - 22 V jO

of the Coveiiant could be invoked iicase a mandatory fniled to imple-
ment its obligations. Rloreover. any dispute between :i mandatory
and another hlember of the League relating ta the interpretation or the
application of the provisions of tlie btandate could be suhmitted to
the Permanent Coiirt of Internatioiial Justice. The League of Xations
itself, asail organization, had supervisory powers in respect of the
administration of mandated territories and granted to the inliabitants
the right ta petition in a prescribed manner.
63. It must be clear, however, hfr. President, as 1 have already
poiiited out, tliat witli the disappeararice of the Leaguc, tlic riglits
of third States who were Members of the League must riecessarily have
ceased ta exist. Obviously, also, the riglits of the League itself must
Iiave disappeared with it. At the moment of dissolution of the League,
as 1 have alreacly endeavoured to show, the mandates lapsed and the
Covenant itself ceased to be alegally valid document. It follows, there-
fore, that such international legal rights as the inhabitants of man-
.dated territories miglit have claimed during the existence ofthe League,
ceased ta exist iipon the dissolution of the League. Tlie Leitgue itself
was no longer tliere ta exercise its supervisory functions, and third
States who were Jfembers of the Leligue had lost their locz~sstand;
wlien the League dissolved itself. It was only in their capacity as Mem-
bers of the League that third States were competent to uphold the
rights of the inhabitants of maiidated territories or to claim nghts
for themselves in those territories. Tlius wlien Germaiiy-if we may
once more refer to that example-not yet a member of the League,
protested that the Belgiaii law organizing Ruanda-Urundi as a part
of the Congo \vas contrary to the Covenarit and stated that "as a signa-
tory of the Treaty of Versailles, the German Governmeiit may claim
the proper application of Article zz", the Belgian Government correctly
replied that "al1 fuiictions relating ta the application of Article 22 of
the Coveriant are within the exclusive comDetence of the Leaeue of
Xations, and so long as Germany is not a member of tlie ~ea@e she
has no right or title ta intervene iii siich questions1". The Lea-ue itself
refused tg answer German complaints offiiially.
64. As 1 have already pointed out. Mr. President, the United Nations
lias not assumed aiiy of the functions of the League relziting to the
Mandates System. The United Nations has, therefore, no supervisory
jurisdiction in respect of South-West Africa and is not in a position
ta claim the enforcement of these rights of the inhabitants, tlie enforce-
ment of which could have been claimed dunng the existence of the
League. Xor have iiidividual Members of the United Nations any
locz<sstaxdi in respect of the administration of South-\Vest Africa.
'Cheycould have had such a locus sta~idorily as hlemhers of the League.

65. It must be concliided, therefore, that the dissolution of the
League had the effect of extinguishing al1 internatiorial legal rights
and obligations uiider the Mandates System. The peoples of South-
\\'est Africa, not being a community with international legal person-
ality, derived no rights from the Peace Treaty. The Permanent Man-
dates Commission ruled that petitions from the inliahitants of man-
dated territories alleging incompatibility of the Mandate with Article zz

' T.eague of Sationç, OficiJotirrtal\'III,316, 317 STATEMEXT BY 11~. STEYN (SOUTII AFRICA) - 22 v 50 291

would not be received, but tliat petitioiis alleging violatioii of the Mail-
date would, tlius apparently recognizing tliat the iiihabitants acquirecl
rights only through the latter document.
66. Rut if the Mandate lias lapsed, which we conteiid is undoubtedly
the case, then al1the riglits and obligations to which it gave rise, including
tlieriglit of individuals to petitioii, whicli was recogiiized by the League
althougli iiot provided for in the Alandate, have lapsed with it. Tliere
can, therefore, be no force in the contention that the Uriion of Soutli
Afncacontiiiues to have international legal obligations zrtiderthe~Vlaitdate
towards the peoples of Soiith-\\'est Africa. That, of course, you will
allow me to emphasize, Ur. President, does not mcan that the Union
Government do not recogiiize any obligatioiis at al1tow:irtls these peoples.

1Vhat we submit is that tliere are no obli-ations whicli are international
legal obligations under the Mandate.
67. \\'ith your permission, i\k. Presideiit, 1 now come to the second
specific question, the question ivhether or iiot there is a legal obligation
upon the Uiiion of South Africa to submit a trusteeship agreement in
respect of this Territory. Tliere is little that could be usefully added to
what is nlreridy before the Court in the Written Statcmcnts of the
Governments of the United States, Egypt and the Union of South Africa.
The Governmeiit of Poland, in supporting such an obligation to enter
into a trusteeship agreement. seems to rely upon the spirit of the Charter
and the resolutions taken by the General Assembly. The terms of the
Charter, in my submissioii, Mr. President, afford the best evidence of
its spirit. They leave no doubt that there is no such obligatioii. AS to
the resoliitioris of tlie Gcneral Assembly, they cannot create a legal
obligation wlicre the Cliarter imposes noiie. A recommendation of the
General t\ssembly is no more than a recommendatioii. To say. as tlie
represeiitative of the I'hilippines has done, that a vote in favour of
a resolution creates a legal obligation to comply witli that resolution,
would be to make a binding convention of every resolution.The represent-
ative of the I'hilippines goes even furtlicr. Ile says t1i:it the vote givcn
by the Union Governnierit in 1946 in favour of a gemual invitatiolt to
submit trusteeship agreements, createcl a legal obligatiori to accept the
invitation, and this not\rithstaiiding the fact that it inust have beeri

clear from a previous statement made by the Union Goveriiment at the
time that tliey did not themselves intend to accept the invitation. That
surely, Mr. lJresident, is so startling a proposition as Iiardly to require
any refutation on my part. A resolution of the General Assembly is not.
and lias never been untlerstood to be, a binding convention or ail act
of a lcgislative nature, creating legal obligations, and cannot become
such a convention or act by the mere process of repetition. These resolu-
tions, however much they inight becalculated to prejudice the considera-
tion of the purely legal issues, cannot change the Charter, the only
authority which the United Xations has for taking any resolution at all.
68. The Government of India and tlie representative oftlie Philippines
also support ail obligation in the nature of a legal dut),. They seem to
rely rnainly upon Article So, paragraplis I aiid z, of the Charter. That
Article hrisbcen fully dealt \\pithin the \\'ritten Statements of the Govern-
ments of the United States, Egypt and the Union of South Africa. These
Statements, in my submission, dispose effectively of the Indian Goverri-
ment's contention, and 1 do iiot fccl tliat 1 could takc tlie matter any
further, cscept perhaps to point out that the contention of the represent-292 STATEIIIENT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V 50
ative of the Philippines that Article 80 (2) contains a pactum de
coiitrahendo,seems to proceed from a wrong reading of that Article.
In arriving at this l>actumde cottlrahendo,the representative of the
Philippines seems to read Article 80 (2)as laying down iii general that
there shall be no delay or postponement in the negotiation and conclusion
of trusteeship agreements. It is only by reading it in sucli a general way
that such a pactum becomes plausible. But that is not what Article So
(2) says. It does not say in general terms that there shall be no delriy
or postponement in the negotiation and conclusion of trusteeship agree-
ments. All it says is that paragraph (1) of Article 80. i.e. the so-called
conservatory provision, with which 1 have already had occasion to deal,
shall not be interprcted asgiving grounds forsuch delay or postponement.
In other words, having made this conservatory provision, the Charter
-oes on to sav that this conservatorv provision is not to be used as ail
exciise for not neeotiatine or conciudiie a trusteeshiu agreement wheri
suc11an agreemen; woulduothenvise have been concludcd~This does not,
of course, preclude delay or postponement on ~rotrndsother than the
coiiservalorj provision, aRà is -somëthing far removed from a general
pacllrm de conlrahendo.
69. !part from this, this contention by the representative of the
Philippines finds a complete answer in the very clear words of Article
77 (2).That Article, by providing that it will be a matter for suhse-
quent agreement as lo which teryitoyies in the categories mentioned
in Article 77 (1) will be brought under the tmsteeship system, aiid
upon what terms, makes it abundantly clear that it is not merely the
terms which are to be agreed upon, as would be the case here with such
a general paclum decostrahendo,but also the identity of the territory
to be selected from the categories in question. Subsequent agreement
is to determine not onlv the terms. but also the narticular temtories
to be brought under fhe system.'
70. The representative of the Philippines tries to meet this by saying
that there are certain exce~tions to the terntones whicli can be brougfit
under tmsteeship, and thai that explains this provisioii in Article 7ïz).
One class of such exceptions is provided for in Article 7s and another,
he says, is to be deduced from the provisions of Article 80 (1). But
these exceptions, MI. President, \vould be territories which faIl out-
side the Trusteeship System altogether. Article 77 (2) would not apply
to them at all. IVhat the representative of the Philippines is nowasking
the Court to do, is to interpret Article 77 (z) ,ot in the light of the
territories to which ites apply, but in the light of the territories which
fall outside its scope altogether. Article 77 (does not apply to tliese
exceptions. Its meaning cannot therefore be ascertaine? from these
exceptions. The words "suhsequent agreement as to which territories
in the foree"ine cateeo"ies will be brought under the Trusteeship
System" can have a bearing only upon such-territories as can be brouglit
under that svstem, and it is in relatioii to such territories that these
words have fo be interpreted, and not in relation to tcrritories which
are by the Charter itself placed outside the scope of the Tmsteeship
System. These exceptions, therefore, cannot serve the purpose for
which they have been invoked by the representati\.e of the Philip-
pines. They cannot give Article 77 (2)the meaning put forurard by him.
Indeed, MI. President, this alleged pactzrm de co~ilrnhetidocannot be296 STATEJIENT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V 50
whicli the delegation of the Uiiion of South Africa is there said to have
given in regard to the administration of the 'l'erritory, pending agrce-
ment as to its future status, in the spirit of the principles laid down
in the Mandate. Had such an acceptance, with the resulting binding
agreement, been inteiided in the second paragraph of the Preamble,
the reference to sucli a furtlier assurance would surely have been quite
redundant.
So. Let us now esainine this alleged furtlier assurance. Al1 tliat
was said in this regard is contained in the following sentence iii the
statement made by Iiieltl Marsha1 Smuts to tlie Fourtli Committec
(wliicli, incidentally, would not be the competeiit organ to enter iiito
any binding arrange~nent) : "If, however, tlie Assembly did not ngree
that the clear wishes of the inhabitants should be implementecl, no
other course is left the Union Government but to abide by the decla-
ration it made at Geneva, that it would continue to administer the
Territory as heretofore as an integral part of the Union, and to do sa
in the spirit of the principles laid dowii iii the Alandate." This does
iiot purport to make aiiy nexvoffer or to give any uew undertaking..
It merely takes us back to the declaration of policy made at Geiievn,.
witli which 1 have already dealt. Neither does it purport to repeat
the whole of the relevant portion of that declaration. In particulnr.
it makes no mention of any future agreement ;is to the status of tlie
Tcrritory, and cannot be read to give any undertaking or as accept-
iiig any legal limitation in that regard. The l'rime Alinister limited
himself in this statement to the continued aclmiiiistration of the Terri-
tory in the spirit of the Mandate. There is no assurance here xvhichcould
possibly be regarded as a statement intended for acceptance by way
of establishing a binding legal relationship in terms of which the Uiiion
of South Africa would not be free to act witliout the concurrence of
the United Nations.
SI. Uefore the Assembly, on this occasion, al1 tliat was said by tlie
Unioii representative in the same connexion was the following :"The
South-Afncan delegatioii will report back to the peoples of South-
\\'est Africa and will acquaint them with the contents of any resolu-
tion passed. For the rest (and this, Mr. President, 1submit, is importaiit).
the Union Government reserx-esthe position on behalf of the peoples
istering authonty. In the meantime, as our leader, the Pnme Ministeriii-
of tlie Union of Soutli Africa, stated on the Fourth Committee, the
Union Government will continue to administer the Territory iri tlie
spirit of the Mandate." It willbe observed,Mr. President, that the words
"in the meantime" do not refer to any penod which may elapse before
agreement is reached with the United Kations. The possibility or pros-
pect of such an agreement is iiot here referred to at all. Tliese words
follow on the specific reservation of the position of the Union Govern-
ment, wliich shows that, in thiscontext, they refer to the period preced-
ing such subsequent steps as the Union Government, having reserved
their freedom of action, may decide to take, after having reported
b:ick to the peoples of tlie Territory. They are not connected in any
way with the period which may elapse before tlie Union arrives at ariy
agreement with the United Nations.
Sz. It follolvs from this that the statement in the penultimate para-
graph of the Preamble to this Resolution to theeffect thatthe Assembly STATEMEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V jO 297

had been assured by the delegation of the Union of South Africa
that. $ending agreementwith the United Nations as to the /uture status
ofthe ïèr~ifory, the Union Government would continue to administer
the Territory in the spirit of the principles laid down in the Mandate,
is incorrect. In fact, no such assurance hacl been given. No reference
had been made at al1 to any prospective agreement with the United
Nations. Also this statement, in the Preamble, therefore, incorrect
as it is, cannot serve as an acceptance of any statement made with the
intention of entering into a binding arrangement. Xo such statement
had explicitly reserved their freedom of action in regard to incorpora-
tion belore the Resolution Iiad been adopted. If at any time before
the adoption of this Kesolutioii any statement had been made, whether
at Geneva or in the United Nations, which could be construed as an
ofier to enter into a bindiiig arrangement with the United Nations,
then it was withdrawn, before acceptance, by this reservation.
83. It is significant, Mr. President, that in subsequent debates in
which it waç aileged by some that the Union had, to al1 intents and
purpases, incorporated tlie lèrritor)?, no reliance was at any time placed
by anybody upon any alleqed binding arrangement between the Union
and the United Rations. The alleged incorporation was criticized, but
it was criticized rather as a breach of the Mandate than as a violation
of any agreement with the United Nations, from which one can only
conclude that the United Nations, like the Union Government, were
nt no time aware of any sucli agreement.
84.There is a further fact which argues against the existence of such
an a reement Had it come into existence, it should, 1 would submit,
Mr. gresident: have been registered, as required by Article IO= of the
Charter. In terms of that Article, every international agreement entered
into by a Member of tlie United Nations is to be registered with the
Secretariat and published by it. This applies also to agreements between
Blembers and non-members, or between Members and international
organizations, including the United Nations. In fact, in terms of the
detailed rules laid down by the first General Assembly in 1946,concern-
ing the registration of treaties, the United Nations itself is required
to register ex officioevery treaty or agreement to which it is a party.
It may be argued that this does not apply to purely verbal agreements.
But the terms of this agreement, Mr. President, if it exists, are to be
found in the recorded statements and resolutions. It would therefore
not be a purely verbal agreeineiit, and would, 1 submit, fa11within
the terms of this Article.o steps have been taken to have it registered.
And tliat, 1 would submit, shows that it was not regarded as a bindiiig
agreement, either by the Union of South Africa or by the United Nations
itself.
85. Even if it esists, tlierefore, it could in terms of Articl102 (2)
not bc invoked by any party to it before this Court, wliicli is an organ
of tlic United Xations. It could not be invoked by the United Nations
or by the Union of South Africa. It would be anomalous if it could
iievertheless be invoked by a Memberoftlie United Nations in connexion
witli an advisory opinion sought by the one party, the United Nations,
in a matter in whicli tlie other party, the Union of South Africa, has a
particular concern. The adoptiori of such a procedure would mean that
wliile the parties themselves cannot invoke such an agreement, a third298 STATEJIEST BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 Y 50

party which may forsome reason have a locrrs stai~din a dispute between
the parties, could always do so, aiid the effect, as hetween the parties,
\'ould be the same as if they had theinsel\res been allowed to iiivoke
their unregistered agreement.
86. It is accordingly submitted, Mr. l)resident, that oii a proper
construction of the facts, the contention made by the United States
nature of a binding agreement, cannot be supported. The Court will the
not impose iipon the United Xations and the Union of South tlfrica, the
parties to tliis alleged understaiiding. a binding agreement of which
hotli have at al1 times been unaware. If the Coiirt should iiot agree
with this submission. it is further submitted that because of non-
compliance with Article 102, this alleged agreement cannot be invoked
before tliis Court.
S7. The second contention of tlie United States in connexion with
modifications iii thestatus of this Territory on which 1have to comment
is to be found oii page 137 of tlie \Vritteii Statement. The contention
there is tliis:"that the General Assembly, upon request from Soiitli
Africa and otlier parties, has assumed the cxercise of the League of
Nations fuiiction of consenting or withlioldingconsent tothe modificntioii
of tlie South-West Afnca Mandate, pursuant to Resolution XIV-I (1)
of tlie Assembly". \Ve come back, therelore, to Resolution SIV, and to
Article 7 of the hlandate, the Article which required the consent of
the League Council for any modification of the terms of the Ilandate.
58. As 1have alreadyexplained, when dealing with asimilar contentioii
iii connexion with supervisory lunctions, a contention of this nature
cati only be examined on the assumption that the Mandate did not lapse
upon the dissolution of the League. There certainly was no transfer or
assiimption of the fuiiction Iiere in question beforethe dissolution of the
League, aiid if the Mandate did lapse (as in my suhmission it did), theii
there would he no function left under the relevant paragraph of .4rticle 7
of the Mandate, urhichcould be assumed in terms of this Resolution SI\'.
wliicli, insofar as it is here relevant, is a resolution dealing with inter-
national agreements whicli contiiiuc in force after the dissolution of tlic
Lengue. and not a resolution which dcals witli agreements which went
out of existence with the League.
Sg. The assumption that tliis parngrüph of Article 7 of the Maiidati:
continued in force after the dissolution of the League is a particularly
prrcarious assumption to make, inasmuch as tliis paragraph deals only
witli the requirement of the consent of the League Council to modifica-
tions of the hlandate, and with nothing else.\frithout the League Council.
it becomes meaningless. But let us inake this assumption, impossible
as it seems, and examine the contention u~liichhas been raised.
go. Let me say at once that also here tlie Union Government have no
kiiowledge of any request for the assumption by the United Natioiis of
the League's function in regard to modifications of the Mandate ever
Iiaving been made, either by themsclves or by any other party. Neitlier
is tliere, as far as 1 have been able to ascertain, ariy scintilla of evidence
that the United Nations have at any tiinc beeii made aware of any sucli
request, or have betrayed any knowledgeof the assumption of any siicli
lunction. in pursuance of this Resolutioii.
91. As already pointed out, a similnr contention was advanced iii
connexion with an alleged assumptioii of the supervisory functions of ST.4TElIEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH ~IFRICA) - 22 V jO 299

tlic I.c:,guc. l'lie argiinients \r,liicli1put forivard in tlint connexion also
apply Iirrc. Hut let us :ic.iin ex;iniinc tlic s.ept-y\vliiclisiicli:in assiimt).
tbn-might be said to have taken place.
qz. Tliere would be, then, first of all, the presentation of the Union's
case for international recognition of incorporation. That, we take it,
would have to qualify as the request. The strange thing would then be,
here as also iii tlie case of the supervisory functions, that Resolution XIV
\vas never mentioned, and that no function of the League \vas ever
referred to in the whole debate. The Union Government were seeking
international recognitioii for ivhat they proposed to do, not the assump-
tion by the United Xations of any League function. The function in
auestion. moreover lin~ so far as it mav be said to have esistedb. ,.as ~,
iis \,Cr) iiciturï:i ioiitiriiioii; fiiiistinii, to he csi.rcisc<l wlicncver o
iiiodiiic:itio<nfilie tatiisvl rtic Tcrrirory \v:isin I>ceffc.cre<lI.)y\i.linte\.er
it:ic<-s iiiivli;itc\,cr direiiioi\\'h;i\r.;isi>utbcfurr tlic (.'niteciS:itioris
\vara single ad hoc proposal. A decision <s sought only in regard tothe
particular questiori of iiicorporatioii. The desirability of assuming tlie
relative alleged fiinction of the League, ad hoc or to be exercised as and
when occasion may require, was never esamiricd or discussed.
93. The Resolution which was passed (and which, 1 takc it, would
have to qualify as the assumption of the fuiictioii in question) did not
mention the League or any of its functions, or Resolution XIV. 111fact,
Mr. Presideiit, before the Kesolution was passed, the Union Government
Iiad, as 1 have pointed out in another connexion, reserved its freedom
of action in regard to incorporation. That, surely, is conclusive proof
that anything in the nature of such a request. if it \vas ever made, was
ivithdrawri before therequfst could begranted. If anything, the Assembiy
had before it, nfter tlie Union Government had reserved their whole
position in connexion with incorporation, a very positive intimation
tliat the Uiiion Government did not desire any assuinption of any such
function by the Asseinbly, and \vas making no such request. Here also,
therefore, one is ratlier at a loss to find any facts which will bear the
construction wliich the United States is asking the Court to place upon
them. It is accordingly my submissioii, Mr. President, that the Court
will dismiss also this contention, as eiitirely unfounded.

91. So far, 311. President, 1 have confiried myself to what appear
to the Union Government to be the matters before the Court.
In the Written Statements submitted hy the Government of the
United States and by tlie Government of Poland, and also in the oral
statements made .by the representatives of the Secretary-General
and the I'hilippines, there are references also to the applicability of
Chapter XI of the Charter. These Goveriiments to which 1 have just
referred have arrived at the conclusioii tliat this Chapter applies to
the Te~ritory of South-\\'est Afnca.
gj. In regard to this aspect of the matter, the Government of the
Union of South Africa assumed that Chapter SI would not be before
the Court. The reasons for this assumptioii were the following :
(a) The Kesolution by which the Court is being asked for an advisory
opinion contaiiis a very specificrefereiice to Chapter XII of the Charter,300 STATEhIEST Bi' Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 V 50

and requires the Secretary-General to include amongst the documents
to be submitted to the Court the texts of Articles 77 and 60 of the
Charter as well as the data on the discussion of thcse Articles in the
San Francisco Coiiference and the General Assemblv. This Resolution
makes no reference at al1 to Chapter XI, or to thetext of Article 73,
or to the discussion of that Article in the San 1;rancisco Conference.
There seemed to the Uiiion Government to be a pointed difference here,
to which some significance had to be attached. 'l'lierepresentative of
the Philippines explains the omission to mention Cliapter XI by saying
that the Assembly either had no doubt in regard to that Chapter or
did not think it of sufficient importance.
fbl The i~roceedines before the Fourth Committee and before the
~LnéralAs;embly, wYhichculminated in this Resolution, seem to show
that the omission to refer to Cha~ter XI was not accidental but inten-
tional. The Fourth Committee h'ad before it a joint draft resolution
proposed by the delegations of Denmark, India, Xorway, Syria and
Thailand (A/C. 4/L 64). Paragraphs I (b) and (c) of tliat draft resolu-
tion posed the following questions :
"(b) 1s the Union of South Africa under the obligation to negotiate
and conclude a trusteeship agreement for placing the Territory of
South-West Africa under the Trusteeship System ?
"(c) In the event of a negative reply to the question under (b) :
1s South-West Africa a terntorv to which the orovisions of Cha~ter XI
of the Charter apply ?"
The delegation of Brazil proposed the deletioii of these questions
from the clraft resolution. This Brazilian proposal was adopted. Accord-
ingly, the draft resolution submitted to the General Assembly contained
no reference at al1 either to Chapter XII or to Chapter XI. Before the
General Assembly, Iiowever, an amendment \vas proposed by seventeen
delegations (including Brazil) (Doc. A/II~~), by which the question
now appearing as sub-paragraph (b)of the Kesolutioii before the Court
was inserted. This sub-paragraph refers to Chaptcr XII only, and signi-
ficantly ornits any mention of Chapter XI. It is difficult, &Ir.President,
to avoid the conclusion that the reference to Cha~ter XI was omitted
not by inadverteiice but by deliberate design. A
(c)The discussions before the Fourth Committee and the General
As'sembly seem to confirm the view that it \vas never the intention
to include tliis Chapter amongst the matters on which the Court's
advisory opinion was desired. In the Fourtli Committee, the delegate
of France poiiited out that the inclusion of Chapter XI would open the
very wide question of what constituted a non-self-governing territory.
Iii order to reply to question (c) of the joint draft resolution before the
Fourth Committee which contained the reference to Chapter XI, the
Court would have to determine the meaning of the term "non-self-
governing territory", in otlier words, to give a definition which did
not occur in the Charter. If the Court were to give such a definition,
the delegate of l'rance contended, that would probably lead to a revi-
sion of the list of these territories and the inclusion of territories not at
present included.
At a later stage, in esplaining his vote agaiiist a l'liilippine amend-
ment which contained a reference to Chapter XI, he stated that Chap-
ter XI had nothing to do with the cluestion, STATE.\IEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 22 Y jo 30i

Tlie tlelegate of Brazil raised the following objection : The admin-
miiie \vliicliterritories were non-self-governing. If, therefore, Cliapter XI
shoiild I)c held to apply in respect of Soutli-\Vest Africa, the Union of
South tlfrica xvouldbe entirely free to furnisli or riot to furnish informa-
tion on South-ii1est Africa. Brforc the General Assernhly, the Hrazilian
delegatc, iiiexpressing his satisfaction at the deletion of the reference
to CIi:iptcrSI, said ttie following: "Paragrapli (c)(that is, tlie para-
gr:lph refcrring to tliis Chapter) appearcd to ils to be extremely danger-
ous since, after all, in referririg to Chapter XI of the Charter,the General
Asscinbly would practically arrive at the recognition for the Union
of South Africn of a right of sovcreignty wliich it lias never possessed
over the rnandated Territory of South West Africa."
The represcntative of the Dominican Republic (also one of the joint
sponsors of the amendment in the General Assembly), introducing
tlie specific reference to Chapter XII, contended, before the Fourth
Committee, that the Charter does not provide tliat former mandated
territories sliould be turned into colonies. He did not think that Chapter
XI was applicable, and agreed that paragrapli (c) of the joint draft
resolution before the Fourth Committee should be deleted.
Xow, these discussions, Mr. President, seem to show that for vanous
reasons-on the one hand, the contention tliat oiily the colonial Powers
are competent to decide whether or not a territory is non-self-govern-
ing for the purposes of Article 73 ;on the other Iiand, the reluctance
to have a formermandated territory classified amongst colonial posses-
sions-for these various reasons it was decided not to include any
reference to Chapter XI. The Union Government could only conclude
thnt the object of this decision was to exclude this Chapter from
consideration by the Court. Its iiiclusion would have raised other major
contentious issues, more particularly the coinpetcncy of the colonial
l'owcrs to determine the territories in respect of which reports are
to be made under Article 73 (e). These issues, apparciitly, the United
Xatioris did not want to raise for decisioii by the Court in connexion
witli the matter of South-West Africa.
(d) The Union Government were also influenceclby the fact that on
the information to be submitted to the Court, tlie Court would in any
case, even if it were the competent orgaii for that purpose, hardly be
in a position to determine whether or not South-\Vest Africa enjoys
a full measure of self-government. In order to detemiine that question,
the Court would require detailed information in regard to the manner
in wbicli the constitution of the Territory functions in practice and
also iri regard to the legislation afiecting the measure of self-govem-
ment eiijoyed by local communities of the iiidigenous inhabitants in
tlieir reserved areas and the extent to wliich, in the actual application
of this legislation, they are left to govern themselves. As far as the
Union Government are aware, tlie Court is not in possession of this
information,and without it, the Court could not come to any conclusion
as to the applicability of Chapter XI to South-West Africa. In this
Chapter, moreover, we have to do exclusively, or at any rate-even
has to be interpreted, therefore, with due regard to the relationship It
betwcen colonies and tlieir rnetropolitan Poners. That relationship,
hlr. I'resident, in my submission, is a domestic relationship of undisputed302 STATEJIEXT Bi' Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRIC:~) - 22 2 \-O
sovereignty. The interpretation of tliat relationshiptliat is, tlie ques-
tion whether or not a colony enjoys a fullmeasure of self-government-
would, it is respectfully submitted, be a matter for tlie metropolitan

Power, aiid not for the General Assembly or even for the Court. And
if this Cliapter is to be appliecl also in respect of a former mandated
territory, that principle iii regard to the interpretation of the relation-
ship aould have to be exteiided to cover also the case of sucli a fornier
niandated temitory.
It would then be for tlie admiiiistering authority to decide whether
or not the territory enjoys a full measure of self-governinent. It is
respectfully submittcd that the Court would, in any case. not attempt
to defirie the relationship between an administering authority and a
mandated territory except upon the fullest information regarding all
aspects of that relationship.
(e) But even, Mr. Presidcnt. if the Court should regard the information
before it as sufficient for the purpose of determining whetlier or not
South-West Africa is a non-self-goveruing territory, there would still
remain the question whether or not the Union Goverument, if this
Chapter applies, would be bouiid to transmit reports under Article 73 (e).
Also this question, it is iny respectful submission, would be a question
for the Union Government to decide, and not for the Asseinbly or the
Court, on the issues at present before the Court. 1 make this siibmission
for the following reasons :
In the first place, it will be noticed that the transmission of reports
under Article 73 (e) is made "subject to such limitation as security and
constitutional considerations may require". Of these considerations,
security cousiderations would certainly fall to bc determined by the
adininistering authority concerned. That, 1 takeit, could not be disputed.
And that being so, it would followthat also constitutionai considerations,
which are mentioued in the same breath in the same context, would fa11
to be determined in the same way. The administering autliority must
be recognized to be the best jiidge of the extent to wliich economic,
social and educational matters are in actual constitutional ~ractice-
which, Mr. President, may be something very different from'constitu-
tional theory-left tothe local le~slature and administrative authorities.
wliatever the theorv of the consfitution of the territorv coiicerned mav
be. \Vhere these m&ters are by law or in practice left todthelocal gover<-
inent, it would be constitutionally inappropriate to report on such
matters to the United Nations. Indeed. such reDorts would im~lv a
derogation from the measure of self-government enjoyed by tlie ter;i<ory
concerned. These are matters of which the administerin~ authority
would be the best iudee. matters concernine which the acïministerink
aiitliority is, accord;ng&, just as in the caseuof secunty consideration<
not required by Article 73.-)., defer to the views of other States or of
the Uiited Nations.
under Article 73 (e) would involve a further question which, in rnyn
submission. is auite clearlv not covered bv the Kesolution before the:
Court. tlic queSrion, riarnély,\vhetlier or "or ihc Ciiioii Gu\,eriiinriit
ivoiild br riititled. on the asjumption of ttic applicxbility of this hrticlc.
Io !\ittiliold rruorts bccaiiseuf tlie mnnneii\i,liiclithe rt:i>orttrarijinittecl
in 1947 has bien dealt with by the United Nations. ' ST.lTE3IEST Bi' Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFRIC:\) - 22 V 50 303

It would. hlr. President. be the contention of the Unioii Government
tli;,iirl$::ilhigii.itr1i;ircpait rlic I:nirc(l S:itioiic escecclcdils .iiitliorir!
t~nclt:r:\rtit:l:.{ by uaii,g the teport iic~tfor ii~~~rin:~tiopi~ilrp,>ses,
:ii ,,r,,\~clcdIII11.;1.-\rticlc. biir for tloc\i.lii;Ilyiiii:iiitliorizcd purposii of
c\criisiiig a sup~~visury ji~risdictinii iii r<!jl><:ctf tliii 'I'crritory; ïnd
tli.11Ily rcajon of lliis iinaullionïe~i liseof illis rr.yort. the Ijnioil C;uvcrii-
ment ivould in any case not be bound to transmit any further reports.
There is nothing in the Resolution before the Court to indicate that
the Court is asked for its views also on this issue, wliich is an issue
between the United Nations arid thc Union Government arising from
proceedings within the United Nations and not from the status of the
Territory as sucli.
(i) There is, Mr. President, also the further consideratioii that in
terms of Article 65 (2) of the Statute of the Court a request for ail advisory
opinion must contain an exact statemeiit of the question upon which
an opinion is required. The very general question, "\\'bat is the inter-
national status of the Territory of South-\Vest Africa and what are the
iiiternational obligations of the Union of South Africa arising therefrom",
did not appear to the Union Government to be such an exact statement.
This general question is so wide in its scope that, in itself, it gives no
iiidication as to whicli of the many possible questions which might be
raised, the Court is desired to ansurer.The exact statemetits are contained
in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), iii which the specific questions are
formulated. The Union Government took it. therefore. that the Court
ivoiild dcsirt: to xiis\it.r tlie gencr;,l iliiestioii by rc:fi.reiicecsclusi\-t4y
te ilil: .s~~eciciicjtions. \vliicliarcflic only qiiestions ],ut iii;iccordnnt.t:
WII~I ;\rficl,:T>(2) of the Sfafiiti:.;iridthnt furtli~srt,lsi,n nlsonocorriiiieiit
on Chapter 21' \vas called for.

In al1 these circumstances. the Union Government refrained from
making any such coniment in the Written Statement wbich they have
subrnitted. They assurned that Chapter Xl would not be before the Court.
1 do not propose to deal with Chapter XI, therefore, unless the Court
wisheçme to do so. If the Court does wish me to do so, 1shall, of course,
be happy to place before it the views of the Union Government on the
applicability of this Chapter.
06. There is also another matter of a similar nature. which 1 have to
inv~itiuii.Iii tlic \?riircii Sr:~teriicntof the ~overnnic"r of iiidia rhm:
is tl~ccontention iiip:2r..grapli26, li:~gerjo, that the Ciiiùii(;overririieiir.
tinvinc hcrccd to subiiiit reoortj uii tlieir :iilmiriistr;itiuri of Soutli-\\'est
ilfric; f& the information' of the United Nations, were incompetent
to withdraw this undertaking and are obliged to continue supplying
such reports. Tliat raises another distinct question, unconnected with
the specific questions formulated in the Resolution of the General
Asse~nbly.
97. This question seems to be unconnected, moreover, also with the
general question regarding the status of South-\\'est Africa. It is not
apparent how the alleged obligation to submit reports, if it is to be
based upon a separate undertakiiig, and not upon the Mandate, could
be said to affect the status of the Territory. Such an undertaking could
be given in regard to any temtory, whatever its status might be, and
can in itself givc no indication of what that status iç. The resulting
obligation would certainly not be an obligation arising from the status
of the Territory. Ex confesso it would arise from an alleged undertaking304 STATEJIEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOIITH AFRICA) - 23 V jo

\\,hich cannot be withdrawn. III my submission, therefore, this further
question does not fall within the scope either of the specific questions
or of tlie general question.
would Acontend that, even if sucli an agreement did exist (which, it is
submitted, is not the case), the Union Government would be entitled
to resile from it,ecause the United Nations have used tlie report trans-
mitted in 1948in a manner wliich would be contrary to the clear stipu-
lations of this aileged agreement. Also the consideration of this conten-
tion as to an agreement, therefore, tvould lead to this further question,
in that way extending the scope of the matters before the Court in a
maiiner not contemplated by the Kesolution. Here, Alr. President, as
in the case of the applicability of Chapter XJ. 1 accordingly do not
propose to enter into the merits of the contention of the Government
of India, unless it is the wish of the Court that 1 should do so.
99. As 1 have said, 1 do not propose to deal with the applicability
of Chapter XI or with this contention of the Goverri~nent of India,
uoless the Court wishes me to do so, in which case 1should be happy
to place the vieivs of the Union Government before the Court. If the
Court does not. 1 have no further submissions to make, and would close
my argument by thanking you, AIr. President, and the members of
the Court, for the patient and attentiveheanng the Court has giaen me.

[PzrblicsitlingO/ May njrd, 19j0, moriciicg]

roo. Ir1 compliance witli your invitation, 1 come now to the appli-
cability of Chapter XI to former mandated territories. The submission
1 would make here is that Chapter XI does not apply in respect of
such territories.
101. It is true, of course, that Article 73 is framed in wide terms.
It refers to "territones whose peoples have not yet attaiiied a full measure
of self-government". Literally, this would include even territories within
metropolitan areas which are inhabited by peoples who have not yet
attained such a degree of advancement as to be able to participate
fully in the government of tlie metropolitan areas coiicerned. (Such
territories may be foiind in various parts of the world.) It is obvions,
howeirer, that it could not have been intended to include such territo-
ries, and ob\rious, therefore, that the words "territories wliose peoples
have not yet attained a full measure of self-government" canoot be
given their literal meaning. The generality of these words lias to be cut
dowii to exclude at least these territories within metronolitan areas.
This already shows that a literal construction could not Be maintained
aiid that we have to start with a me an i- ^ hich is not quite the literal
meaning.
102. Chapter SI also cannot, of course, be construed in an isolated
compartment, unrelated to the other provisions of the Charter. Originally
in the draft rvhich rvns before Commission II at San Fraiicisco, the
present Chapters XI and XII appeared as Sections A and 13of a general
scheme, compnsed within one chapter, each section giving expression
to a different aspect of ivhat \vas basically the same conception. At the STr\TESlEIIT Bi'Dr. STEYX (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 j0 30j

least, therefore, Chapter SI cannot be isolated from Chapter XII. In
order to ascertaiii its true meaning, it has to be read with Chapter XII,
aiid more particularly for Our present purposes with Article 77. If that
is done, AIr.I'resident, it will be apparent, 1 submit, that the generality
of the openirig worclsin Article 73 lias to be cut dowii further than has
alreüùy been inùicntcd in connexion with metro >olitan areas .
103, Article 77 (1) refers to threc categories 01 territories :'
(1) territorics Iield under mandate when the Charter was signed ;
(2) territories whicli may be detached from eiiemy States as a result
of the Second \\'orld War ;
(3) territories voluiitarily placed under the Trusteeship System by
States responsible for their administration.
The Charter itself, in Article 77 (z), refers to these as "categories".
They are separate and distinct categories. In this Article, the founders
of the United Nations were at pains to enurnerate, with no possibility
of misunderstanding. al1 the categories of territories which could be
brought under the Trusteeship System. No such enumeration is to be
found in Article 73. Now, Mr. President, if in Article 73 they had in
mind precisely the same territories as in Article 77,this omission becomes
difficult indeed to explnin, especially in regard to such obvious and
important categories as the former maiidüted tcrritories and the ex-
enemv territories which are so s~ecificallv mentioned in Article ,..
~herécertainly was no lesser needfor clarity in Article 73.
As was perfectly well known at San Francisco, tlie'rrusteeship System
is a voluitary system, dependent upon subsequent agreemenis. There
was the obvious possibility, therefore, that some of the mandated
territones and some of the territories detached from enemy States
might not be brought under the Trusteeship Systern. In fact, the
Conference had before it the most unequivocal intimation that it was
not the intention to bring South-West Africa into the new system of
trusteeship. There were compelling reasons, therefore, Iiad it been the
intention to bring also mandated territories and ex-enemy territories
into Article 73, for enumerating the differerit cntegories as specifically
in Article 7,- as was done in Article , , In fact. not to sav sowould be to
iiiiirc.<Ii,sciisioiif iior cunfu,ioii. III t1.v i;ic,: of sus11cugviii rt..i?oiii
it lieionici iiic~p~ic:iblwliy LIIL i~ii~~~coriiniirtcr.-iiiitlic,c t\wi;\rriclv,
it 1i;1(1 iniiiid tlic iil~iitic:ilcnte~~.ori~:s-slio~~I(lsort tu siicli (11ficrc.iit
terniiiii!lugyiii<Icnliiig\vit11rlir stIf-ixni~.tcrrituriej. I;iotliijilirlt~rciice
in \r.oriliiig.\vlicrcsiicliitrucoii~i~lcriltiuiisclcnrlycnlledfor ;isiriipuluiii
;i\.ui<l;iiiccof tcxtual ~li\.ïrzericics. one cari onlv cunclu<le-inderxi
&Ir.President, one must corkude-tliat there is ik fact a difierence in
meaning.
104. IVhich territories, then, are referred to in Article 73 ? To this
question, Article 77 (1) (c) seems to provide the answer : The category
there referred to is described as"territories voluntarily placed under the
System (i.e. thc Trusteeship System) by States responsible for their
"States responsible for their administration". They are, 1 submit, ofds

~articular sienificarice. If one reads with these words the ooeninrr words
8f Article 7f-"~embers of the United Kations which ha;e orYassume
resbonsibilities /or the administration of territoriesW-the connexion
and the territories dealt with in .4rticle 73 becomes apparent. Article 77306 STATEZIEST Bi' Dr. STEYS (SOUTH .AFRIc:\) - 23 V jO
tlescribes the third catceorv bv reference to States res+orisiblefor the

Iiavc or assume respoiuibililies /or lhe adm~nistralioof certuit~lerritaries.
\Vc have here, Mr. Presiclent, the two phrases-"St:ites responsible
for the administration of certain territories" in Article 77 and "Afembers
whiC1ihave or assume responsibilities for the administration of certain
territories" in Article 73. This similarity of wordiiig caiiiiot be merely
accidental. Basically the description is the same. The coiiclusioii must
be thatthe territories dealt with in Article 73 are the territories referred
to inArticle77 (1) (c)and as thelatterconstituteacategory quitedifferent,
bot11from territones held under mandate when the Charter was signed
ancl from territories which may be detached from enemy States, it
follou~sthat these latter categories, namely, the former mandated
territones and the ex-enemy territories, are not included in Article 77
(1) (c)and do not fall to be [lealt with under Chapter II, inasmuch.as the
cntcgorv there dealt with coiiicides with the category nientioned in
t\rtiile-77 (1) (c).
105. That this, MI. Presideiit, is the nght conclusion to draw from
tlie text is supported by certain inferences which inay be drawn from
Article 74. That Article distinguishes between territories to which
Chapter XI applies, on the one hand, and;on the other hand, the
metropolitan areas of the responsible hlembers of the United Xations.
Xow. the expression "metro~olitan area". Mr. President, in its ordinarv
aiid naturalAmeaning, rathe; suggests the mother country of a colon?.
It rather implies a relationship such as exists between a State and
its dependencies and possessioiis, a reiationship which is closer than
tliat between a mandatory and a mandated territory, or hetween aiiy
State and an ex-eiiemy territory. which has not been incorporated
in its metropolitan area or nttached as a colony. In relation to a man-
dated territory, or such ailex-encmy territory, the expression "metro-
politan area" could hardly be regarded as quite appropriate, and
woiild, it is submitted, ordinarily not be used. for the simple reason
that it might be said to carry with it implications of a type or mesure
of so\rereignty on the part of the responsible State wliicli is generally
iiot admitted to esist in the case of such territories. Because of this,
itis not to be supposed that Aleinbersof the United Xations, who have
shown such a meticulous regard for the niceties of sovereignty, especialiy
where a mandated territory is concerned, woiild Iiave wanted to use
sucli an expression in relation to territories amongst wtiich mandated
territories or unincorporated ex-enemy territories would be included.
'l'liefact that they did use this expression-and used it, as far as one
can gatlier from the discussions at San Francisco, witlioiit the slightest
liesitation-is some indicatioii that they did not have such territones
in mind. It is subinitted that from the ordinary meaning of the expres-
sion "metropolitan areas" and from the fact that, in al1 the circum-
stances, it is not likely to Iia\,e been used in relation to such terntories,
it may fairly be inferred that tlie conclusion arri\.ed at by a comparison
of the phraseology of :irticles 73 and 77 is the right conclusion.
IOG.Against the view that Article 73 applies only in respect ot the
territories described in Article 77 (1) (c), it may be argued that Article
77 (1)merely breaks down the general category of territories contem-
plated in Article 73 into its three component parts. Article 77 (I), STATEMENT BY Ur. STEYN (SOUTH AFRIC.~) - 23 Y 50 307

however. affords iio evidence whatsoever of any such breaking down.
It deals with tlie three categories of territories not as sub-heads of
a more general category, but as entirely separate categories. Had there
been any such breaking down, paragraph (c) of Article 77 (1) would,
1 submit, undoubtedly have read very differeiitly. It would then, 1
suggest, have been phrased somewhat as follows : "other territories
voluntanly be placed under the System". The wordssible an"olherhterritories
for the administration of whidi Statesare responsible" would then have
given the iiccessary indication that also the catcgorics in paragraphs
(a)and (b) are conceived of as territories for the administration of
which States have responsihilities iii the sense contemplated in Art-
icle 73. In the absence of some such wording, there is no justification,
ex facie Articles 73 and 77, for identifying the territories described iii
Article 73 with al1 the categories detailed in Article 77.
107. \Vhere the founders of the United Nations intended to provide
for terntories then held under mandate, or for territones whicb may
be detaclied from enemy States, they did so specifically, as was done
in Article 77. It must be presumed, tlierefore, that whcre they did not
do so, asin Article 73-where, as already explained, there was every
reason to do so-they had no intention of referririg in that Article to
any such territories.
108. The Government of the United States have advanced another
textiial argument for including former mandated territories in Art-
icle73. The argument is that such an inclusion "is demonstrated by the
careful exception in Article 73 (e)to the obligation to transmit inform-
ation thereunder where Chapters XII and XII1 apply, in order
to avoid duplication of reporting". This argument, it is submitted,
is entirely fallacious. The applicahility of the exception in Article 73
(e) does not depend iii any way, or in any degree, upon the inclusion
of former mandated temtories within the ambit of Chauter XI. That
exception was necessary not in order to avoid duplicat'ion of report-
ing in regard to mandated territories. but in order to avoid such dupli-
cation in regard to colonial territories which may be placed under
trusteeship in pursuance of the provisions of Article 77 (1)(c). As 1
have already pointed out, there is a clear identity of subject ~natter
iii Article 77 (1)(c) and Article 73. It is this identity which called
for an exception in Article 73 (e). Even if maiiùated territories had
noivherebeen referred to in the wholeCharter, the geiieral schemcfor colo-
nial territories wouldstill have required this exception. The fact, there-
fore, that siich an exception has been pro\-ided for in Article 73 (e)
cannot possibly justify the conclusion which the Government of the
United States seek to draw from it. The exception was necessary in
the general framework for colonial terntories. The exclusion of maii-
dated territories from Article 73 would not render this exception reduii-
dant or any tlie less intelligible. In regard to lnandated territories,
therefore, Mr. President, this careful exception does iiot demonstrate
anything at all.
rog. The Government of the United States also contend that "by
reason of the continuing existence of the Mandate, South-\\'est Afnca
is a non-self-governing temtory within the meaniiig of Chapter XI".
In this connexion, they seem to put forward the following proposi-
tion :308 STATEMENT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 \, 50
(a)South-West Africa is a mandated territory whose people cannot
stand by themselves.
(b) It is therefore ipso facto a temtory "whose peoples have not
yet attained a full measure of self-government".
It is submitted, 311. President, that this is quite evidently a +loir
sequittrr based, in part at any rate, upon false premises. The Govern-
ment of the United States accept for the purposes of this proposition
that the Mandate iç still in existence. As 1 have endeavoured to show,
this is incorrect. The Mandate has lapsed, and to the extent to which
this proposition rests upon the continued existence of the Mandate,
it cannot be supported. It is admitted, however, that the peoples of
this territory cannot stand by themselves. But it would ?lotfollow from
that that they do not enjoy a full measure of self-government and that
the Territory on that account falls to be dealt with under Article 73.
A full measure of self-government does not necessarily mean independ-
ence. Even with the fullest self-government, the material resources,
the manpower, the geographic situation and the other circumstances
of a territory may be such as to make it impracticable, or impossible,
for its people to stand by themselves. It was for that very reason that
independence was not conceived of as the only possible goal of the
Ilandates System. It ivas realized that self-government could also be
achieved by voluntary integration iiith the mandatory State. That,
in fact, was the future envisaged for South-West Africa. It must have
been realized at the time that administration of this Territory, sitiiated
as it is and being what it is, as an integral part of the Union of South
Africa, would inevitably tend to develop in fulfilment of the Mandate-
in fulfilment of the Alandate, Jfr. President-towards self-government
by way of the ultimate total integration of the Temtory witli the
Union. In al1 the circumstances, it was obvious that that would be the
natural tendency. The argument, therefore, that a full meastire of
self-government necessarily presupposes, under the Mandates System,
the ability of the people concerned to stand by themselves, or that,
conversely, the inability of tlie people concerned to stand by themselves
postulates the absence of a full measure of self-government, cannot
be maintained, and does not support the conclusion sought to be drawn
from it, namely, that Article 73 applies in respect of South-West Africa.
110. Finally, the Government of the United States, and also the
distinguished respresentati\,e of the Philippines, invoke the Iiistory
of Chapter SI in order to prove that it applies also in respect of the
former mandated territories. They quote a statement made by Field
nlarshal Smuts at San I'rancisco as President of Commission II. TIi:it
statemeiit does, presumably, reflect tlie Fielcl Alarshal's understaiiding
of the position at the time. 13ut it is by no means clear that it also
reflects the understaiidirig of the otlier members of the Commissioii or
of the majority of them. On the same occasion, >Ir. Forde, the then
Deputy Prime hlinister of Australia, referred to Section A of the draft
before theCommission, that is, the present Chapter XI of the Charter,
as "the most importaiit and far-reaching joint declaratioi~of coloi~inl
policy in history". If Field Marslial Smuts was riglit, ttien this descriptioii
by AIr. Forde was incorrect. In analyzing tlie provisions of the preseiit
Article 73, Mr. Forde pointed to the "healthy competitionbetween
colo~iialPowers" in mliicli it was designcd to resiilt. Also llr. l'raser,
who was Cliairman of tlie committee responsible for the draft, :inil who, STATE3lEST BY Dr. STEVS (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 V jO
309
it may be supposed, had as good a knowledge as anybody else of its
intentions, consisteiitly mentioned only the colonial Powers wlienever
he was spe:ikirig of Section A. Lord Cranborne, the delegate of the
United Kingdom (who submitted tlic original paper upon which tlie
finaltest of ClicipteXI was based, and who was tberefore in a position
to speak with some authority), whcn he explnined to Commission II
why that paper Iiad beeu submitted, said the following : "Out of our
experieiice and that of otIze7colonial Powers, thcre has been gradually

evolved certain general principles of coloitinl goueniment. Ive belicved
that the time had come when these principles ought to be codified iii a
general declaration for theuidance of oiirselves, of other colonililPowers
and for the informatioii of the world...these broad principles have beeii
incorporated iii the first part-SectionA-of the Chapter which is iiow
before ?ou." He went on to say that "in every area, whether backward
or advanced, there must be a duty ori colotiial Powers (agaiii colonial
I'owers) to train and educate the indigenous peoples to goverii them-
selves". He inndc it clear, thereforc, tliat lie, nt any rate, understood
the present Chapter XI to bc a declaration by colonial Powers of tlicir
colonial policies. In fact, no delegate other tliaii Field hlarshal Smuts
made üny mention whatsoever in this coririexioii of inandatcd territorifs
or ex-enemy territories. If they had in miiid tliat Section -4 was to app1.y
also in respect of such territones if not placed under triisteeship, tlicir
sileiit disregcird of so important a factor iri the application of Chapters SI
and SI1 would be somewhat remarkable. It is submitted that. taking
into coiisideration the general trend of tlic discussions before Comrnis-
sion II,there is really little reason to sul>poscthat al1the other delegates,
or even the niajority of them, accepted the statement made by Field

Alarshal Smuts, as a correct interpretation of what had beeii done.
III. But, Mr. President, even more remarkable would be the
suhsequent evcrits, liad that been the geiieral iinderstanding. For wliat
liappencd aftcr Çnii I'r:mcisco ?Was any suggestiori ever made, diiring
tlie quite coiisiderable period hetween Sari I'rancisco and the conclii-
sion of trusteesliil) agreements in respect of former mandated terri-
tories. that reports should be made in respect of these territories uiider
Article 73 (e)?
112. 1t will be recalled that the Trusteeship Agreement for the
territory of Xauru was entered into as late as Xovember 1947 and
that theUnitedKingdomwithdrew fromPalestine only as from Ijth May.
1948. As fnr as the Union Government are aware, no suggestiorias to
such reports was cver made. And yet, it could not be contested that,
if Article73 (e);~ppliesto such territories, the question of reports should
surely have ai-isen, pending the coiiclusioii of tmsteeship agreements,
except, of course, where a full measiire of self-government had already
been attaiiicd. lt would then only liave been by the coriclusion of sucli
agreemeiits tlint non-self-governing mandated territories would have
been takeii oiit of tlie provisions of Article3. Until these agreements

were coiicluded, those pro\isions would have applied. In fact, when the
Unioii Go\.eriiment submitted a report or1 South-West Afnca, that
report \vas referred not to the special committee established for tlie
specific piirpose of considering reports undcr Articl73 (e),as one \i.ould
Iiave expected had that Article applied, but to the Trusteeship Council.
Soiitli .Africa.also, \vas given no place either in the first ad hoccommittee
or iritlic later specinl committee, established for the purpose ofconsidering3IO STATEIIEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH AFHICA) - 23 \. jO

reports uiider Article 73 (6).That, surely, was a clear recognition either
tliat South-\Vest Africa had already then attained a full measure of
self-government, or ofwhat had consistently been assumed in the debates
on tliis l'erritory, namely, that it did iiot fall to be dealt with uiider
Article 73. In al1those protracted debates, tlie applicability of Article 73
was raised only by one or two delegates, rnore particularly the Philippine
delegate, and only by way of an almost startling exception tothe general
trend of these debates. These occasional references to Article 73 were
not received with any agreement by other delegates, nor were they
pressed upon the consideration of other delegates. Everybody accepted
that South-\\'est Africa could not be brought into the same category as
colonial possessions. Mr. Dulles, the representative of tlie United States.
for instance,pointed out before the Fourth Committee in 1947, in regard
to the information on South-\\'est Africa, that that information seemed
precluded from coming under the Trusteeship Council, since South-\\'est
Africa was not a trust terntory, or under Article 73 (e),because it was'
not a typical noii-self-governing territory, and for that reason suggested
that the information be referred to the Fourth Conimittee. Before the
Fourtli Committee, therefore, in 1947, also the representative of the
United States seeins to have accepted the position that Article 73 (e)
does not apply in respect of tliis Territory. This attitude was consisteiit
with ivhat Dlr. Dulles had said in 1946, at the 27th Plenary Meetiiig of
the United Nations '.
In dealing, on that occasion, with a resolution on Chapter XI also,
he consisteiitly referred only to the colonial Powers. "By this resolutioii",
lie said, inler alia,"the United Nations will implement the provisions
of Chapter XI requiring reports from al1colonial Powers." He gave iio
indication of any understanding that Chapter XI might require implemen-
tation by any Power other than a colonial Power. So also the Soviet
representative, before the Tmsteeship Couiicil,in 1948, when the report
on South-West Africa was under consideration, was emphatic iii his
view that South-WestAfrica isnot a non-self-governing territory ofwhich
Chapter XI speaks. The general acceptance of this positioii, so shortly
after San Fraiicisco-it will beremembered that already at the 1946
sessionof tlie UnitedNations, South-West Africa wasoneof the prominent
features of the agenda-this general acceptancc, so shortly after Saii
Francisco, would indeed be remarkable, if at San Francisco it was
generally understood that Article 73 is applicable also in respect of
maiidated territones not placed under trusteesliip.
113. In regard to ex-enemy territories. Rlr. Prcsident, one is facecl
witli esactly tlie same situatioii. \Vho has ever suggested that in respect
of tliese, reports should be made under Article 73 (6)? Insofar aç any
of these territories have definitely and in accordance mith international
law been incorporated in the metropolitan areas of tlie victorious States.
no reports could, of course, be required under that Article. But where
tlint has not been the case, wliy have no reports been asked for or niade ?
\Vhy Iras no Member of the United Natioiis ever raised the question,
in nny shape or form, that reports should be submitted in respcct of
Lybia, of Somaliland or of Eritrea, to mention only some instances ?
These territories have been detached froiii an enemy State as a result '
of the Second \Vorld \Var. They are territories referred to in Article 77

' Sce p. 357 of verbatirnrecordfor io Jan.-r4 Feb., 1946. STATEMENT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 V 50
311
(1) (b). If Article 73 covers al1the territories mentioned in Article 77 (1).
why, then, has not a singlereport been made in respect ofa single territory
in this category ? The answer cannot lie in Article 107 of the Charter.
Shat Article provides tliiit "iiothing iritlie present Charter shallinualiclalc
07 precltbllcaction, in re1;itionto anyState which during the SecondWorlcl
\Var hr~sI~ccnan encmy of any signatory to the prcsent Charter, taken
or autliorized as a result of that \var by tlie governments having respons-
ibility for such action". Article 107 cloesno more, therefore, than to

provide that nothing in tlie Charter \vil1iitunlidalc or firecltbdccertain
actions by certain governments. The Charter. tlierefore, cannot
invalidate or precludc aiiy disposition of ex-enemy territories. But it
is by no means apparent how any action by which aiiy such territory
is not iiicorporated in :imctropolitan area could possibly be invalidatctl
or precluded by the mere fact that reports are to bc niade in respect of
tliat territory uncler Article 73 (c). Siicli reports would not affect the
action taken in respect of any such territory in any way Article 107
does not. for iiistance. m.clude the conclusion of trusteeship a~r.em-iits
IIIrcsl'ect of e-f>iiiiiiy tcrriturics. Slieciric ~iii,viiiiiij ni.i;li: for 11.:.t
il,t1.c t,Iinrrtxr.\\'la? tI.cii ~l.~juldit ~jr~~ct1i~.:i~~plic:.t~o~i\riit:lt: 73,
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~II~IIII~~ <f iclIIrts IIIICItI.:itArticle ?01ic is f:ic?rl,ili~-rt:lt-,re,
by thc fact thit for no'reason to be found in Article 107, ?O report in
respect of any oiie of tliese territories has ever been made or requestccl.
-~ i~ ~ ~mitted. Mr. I'rcsident. tliat the real reasoii lies not in the
remissness of thé United Nations, not in a lack of vigilance oii tlicir
riart in the ai~olicationof Clia~ter SI, but in the full.realization that
'tliisChapter Gis nevcrintended to apply, and doesnot apply, to ex-cnciny
territories, escept where tliey becoine colonial possessions of a hlember
State, in which case tliis Chapter a~otildapply, not hecause they are
ex-eiiemy territones, but because they have become colonial territories,
the only category of territories to which tliis Chapter \vas intendecl to
. .
"PP~Y.
114. Also this attitude in regard to these territorics is iiicompatible
with ii gciieral understanding at Saii Iirancisco tliat the), fall witliin
the scope of Article 73. The non-application of this Article in respect
of maiidated territones before the~conclusion of trusteesliip agreenicrits
and in respect of ex-enemy territories so soon after San Francisco
seems to demoiistrate tliat tliere was no such general understanùiiig.
In the absence of clear proof of such an understandiiig, pointing to a
failure oii the part of the United Natioiis to apply Chapter XI in accorcl-
ance with its true intent and meaniiia. such an uridcrstanding cannot
lx ;iccel~tcJ, cq~eci;illy iiot \r,Iicrc tlisrc are iiicli stroiix in(lic:itioiis
tgfR i:oiiIr:iry i~itriiliiiit11ctcxt of the CliRrr~Y irsclf. 'l'liesii1:'Icstntc-
iii~,iiol a siiiclc délccate.Iin\i.e\.crilistiriciiislii:il.t.:iiiiirir.iii rlitst. (:ir(:iiiii-
stances, be regard& as adequate of any siich understanding.
115. In the result, tlie Union Governmeiit would submit that tlie
coiitention advanced by the Government of tlie United States in regard
to the gciieral applicability of Chapter SI in respect of former man-
dated territories cannot be iipheld. The contention of the Govern-
ment of tlie United States is refuted by an examination of the test
of the Cliarter itself, and iio sufficient reason has becn put fonvard
why the Court should not give this Chapter the eiïect which, accord-
ing to al1 tlie textual indications, it was plainly intended to liave.312 STATEMENT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICI\) - 23 V 50

hold that this Chapter applies in respect of South-West Africa inot
particular. In the first place, that would, for the reasons which1 gave
yesterday, be a matter for the administering authority to decide ;
and the Court, as 1 have already endeavoured to show, is not in posses-
sion of al1 the information which would be essential for a decisioii on
the question whether or not the peoples of South-West Africa have
attained a full measure of self-government. In tlie second place, also
the question whether or not there is an obligation in a particular case
to transmit a report is not one which could properly be submitted to
the Court for decision. Also that would be a question for the admin-
istering authority to decide and would, in the case of South-West
Africa, involve the further question as to the use which was made by
the United Nations of the 1947 report, a further question which, in
my submission, &Ir.President, is not before the Court.
117. It is accordingly respectfully suhmitted that the Court, if it
should decide to deal with Chapter XI, would in any event refrain
from expressing any ,opinion as to the applicability of this Chapter to
South-West Africa in particular, and would limit itself to the broader
question whether or not this Chapter applies to former mandated
temtories in general, subject to such considerations as miglit, in a
specific case, take a particular territory out of the provisions of this
Chapter.

Agreemeitl 10 subntit reports

118. Tliat brings me to the coiitention of the Government of India,
in paragraph 2G of their Written Statement, that the Unioii of South
Africa, having agreed to submit reports on tlieir administration of
South-\\'est Africa for the information of the United Nations, wns
incompetent to withdraw this undertaking and is obliged to continue
supplying such reports.
119. What is here put forward is an obligation arising from an agree-
ment. 1 take it. therefore, that what the Government of India have
ment, to submit reports to the United Nations, 'and an acceptaiice of
that offer by the United Nations.
120. Now, as 1 have already had occasion to point out in anotlier
connexion, tlie first reference to sucli reports was made by Field hfarshal
Smuts in a speech before the Fourth Committee in November, 1946.
He there stated that if the General Assembly did not agree that the
clear wishes of the inhabitants should he implemented, the Unioii
Government could take no othcr course than to abidc by the declara-
tion it had made to the last Assembly of the League of Nations, to the
effect that it would continue to administer the Territory, as heretofore,
as an integral part of the Union, and to do so in the spirit of the prin-
ciples laid down in the Mandate. He then went on to say that iii Purtic-
ular the Union would, in accordance with Article 73 (e)of the Charter,
transmit regtrlarly to the Secretary-General of the United Natioiis,
/or i?zforinalionpurposes, subject to such limitations as security and
constitutional considerations might require, statistical and other
information of a technical nature, relating to the cconomic, social
and educatioiial conditions in South-West Africa. STATEMENT i3Y Dr. STEYN (SOUTB AFRICA) - 23 V 50 313

121. What was here envisaged was that the Union Government
would, as part of their intended administration of the Territory in the
spirit of the pnnciples laid down in the Mandate (and not, therefore,
as an obligation under Article 73 (e)), regularly suhmit the informa-
licnlar", following, es tliey do, upon tlie reference to the continucdr-
administration of the Territory in the spirit of the principles laid clowii
in the Mandate. It was part and parcel, therefore, of the voluntary
understanding in regard to mandatetl territories whicli tlie parties had
in mind at the dissolution of the League, the understanding contem-
plateù in the expression of intentions made on that occasion bv the
representative of the Union Government. As 1 have already endeav-
ourecl to show, when dealing with the question wliether or !lot the
Maiitlate had lapsecl, that understandirig entailed iio legal commit-
rnents. It would follow, therefore, tliat this statement to the Iiourtli
Committee, connectcd aç it was with an entirely voluntary under-
st:mding, was itself intended to be no more thaii tliat. It conveyed
no more, and should have conveyed no more, to tlie members of tlie
1:ourtli Coiiimittee, than a further statement of intentioiis to be volon-
tarily carried out.
122. It is also necessary to he:ir in mind that tliis statement was
inadc tothe Fourtli Committee. It was iiot repeatecl in the Geiier:il
Assembly. Also this sliows that it could not have heen made witli tlic
intention of eiitering into any legnl commitment. Had such a com-
mitinent been coiitcmplated, it would surely have been repeateà in
the Geiieral Asscmhly. The General Assembly, after all, would Iiavc
heen the only propcr organ to approach. The Fourtli Committee h:id
no authority to enter into any lejinlly binding arrangement on belialf
of tlie United Nations. Al1 it coultl <Iowas to recommend accept:ince
to the General Asseiiibly, and tliat it clid not do.
123. The General Assembly itself did not react to this statemeiit
whicli was made to the Fourth Committee. No proposa1\vas put forward
in connexion with it, niiclno refcrencc was made to it in the Resolutioii
which was passed by tlie Assembly in 1946. If, in spite of tliese indica-
tions to the contrary, it is to be coiistrued as an offer made with the
intention of entering into a biiidiiig agreement, it certainly was not
comc into existence nt that sessioii.t iio such ngrcement coiild have
rzq. Some time after that session, iii the comiriuiiication addressed
by tlic Union Goverriment to the United Nations on 23rd July, 1947
(Doc. A/334). the Union Governmeiit again referred, inle7 alia, to tlieir
coritinued administration of the Territory in the spirit of the fitandate,
and added : "To tliat end, the Union Government bave already iinclcr-
taken to submit reports on their administration for the information of
the United Nations." As 1have alreaclypointed out in aiiotlier connexion.
tliiscould only have referred to tlie statement made by liield I\larsli:il
Smuts to the Fourth Committee : aiicl as already expl:iined, that state-
ment was not an offer to enter iiito a bincling agreement. The passage
quoted from this communication of ~3rd July, 19.17.stands in the very
same context. It equally clearly coiinects these reports with the voluii-
tary understanding in regard to the administration of LlieTenitory.
In fact, as pointed out in this communication, the Union Parliamerit
Iiiiclexpressed the opinion that the Union Governmeiit sliould continiie314 STATEUENT BY Dr. STEYX (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 V 50

under the Mandate. It will be noted, however, that this opiiiion wasore
not given cffect to by the Unioii Government by way of a new offer
or undertaking to the United Nations. In this communicatioii of 23rd
July, 1947, tlie Union Government did purport to convey any sucli
new offer or undertakine. All it did was to confirm the statement made
to the Fonrth cornmittee in 1946.That statement was confined to reports
fiven for information purposes onlv and limited to statistical aiid other
rnformation of a teclinicâl nature.
~zj. Following this communication, the Union Governnieiit did,
on 12th September, 1947. in pursuance of the statement iiiade to the
Fourth Committee, submit a report oii South-West Africa to the United
Nations. 111the light of what went before, the submission of this report
cannot but be regürded as nothiiig more tlian a voluntary, co-operative
act, designed to carry out the Union Government's intention of admiri-
istering the Territory on an entirely voluiitary basis in tlic spirit of the
principles laid down in the Mandate.
126. This report had to be dealt with in the 1947 session. At that
session, the representative of the Uiiioii Government, in the debate on
South-\\'est Africa beforc the Geiieral Assembly, referred to tlie fact
that the Union Government had, during the pre\~ioussession, espressed
their readiiiess to submit RJ~IZILRreports for the information of the
Uiiited Nations, aiid stated that tliat ondertaking still stoocl. In this
context, and Iiaviiig regard not only to tlie circumstarices in whicli the
previous st:itcinent was made, but also to the fact tliat the UriioiiGoverii-
ment had acted upoii that statemeiit nt a time when there coiild have
been no question of a binding agreeineiit-in tliis context,1 Say, and
having regard to these matters, this ineaiit that the previous undertaking
to submit reports as a ooluntary co-operative act still stood. The
representative of the Union Go\~ernmeot, Iiowever, added a most
important qualification. This is mhat lie said :"Although these reports,
if accepted, will be rendered or*the basis tRatthe United iValio?rshns 710
supervisory iurisdiction in respect of this Terrilory, they will serve to
keep the United Nations informed, in mnch the same way as tliey will
be kept informed in relation to noii-self-governing territories uiider
Article 73 (e) of the Charter." This stipulated a basis for tlie reiideriiig
of reports, the basis, iiamely, of no supervisory jurisdiction on tlie part
of the United Nations. This stipulation wu made before tlicre was any
arrangement could possibly have resulted. This stipulation, moreover,ding
was clearly inherent in the statement made by Field Marshal Sniuts
to the Fourth Committee during the previous session. He Iiad tlien
stated that the reports would be suvvlied for information bzrrboses.That
meant informatioi purposes and no; super\~iso;y purposés. ~e bad also
indicated that the reports would be restncted to statistical aiid other
information of a technical nature. the kind of informatioii. in other
words, which was contemplated by Article 73 (e) with reicreiice to
colonial territories. The obvious inadequacy of such information for the
purposes of exercising any supervisory jurisdiction confirmed the clcar
implication, already conveyed by the words "infonnatioii purposes",
that the reports were not to be used for establishing any accountability
on the part of the Union of South Africa, or any supervisory functions
on the part of the United Nations. The express reservation made in ST.4TE3IEST BY Dr. STEYS (SOUTH IIFRICAI) .- 23 V jO 31j

1947 merely put iiito clear words, therefore, what had already been
implicit in the statement made in 1946. Any subsequeiit acceptance,
whether by way of a binding agreement or otherwise, woiild of necessity
have had to bc subject to this reservation.
127 The 1947 IZesolution, passed after this statement by the South
African reprcsentativc, tlid contain a refcrcncc to reports. The last
paragraph of the l'reriinble stated "that the Uriion Government have
undertaken to submit reports on their administration for the informa-
tion of the Uniteil Nations", and the substantive part, after firmly
maintaining previous recommendations, and after expressing the hope
that the Union of Soutli Africa may find it possible to submit a trustee-
ship agreement in time to enable the Geiieral t\ssembly to consider
it at the 1948session of the Assembly, went on to authorize the Trustee-
ship Council iri Ihe ~ne(ziz1i11tzeexamine the report which had been
submitted, ancl to siibinit its observatioiis tliereon.
128. Even assuminr! t..t a firm offerwas miide iii 10,... or was under-
sti>oiltt>I>cin:i<lu,cuulJ tliis iic:ulutioii h~ soiistriicrl;i~ ;ii:i.:c:.l>i.iiicc
toi!lit01ft.r? lit~lrc~<lii~ gni><lii~.sii~~ ii,II~S1,)l)e buriie 111iniiid r1i:it
III<:uiIt:r ,if 11i1.r::..IV:III,,fivr III,II,~II,I,c~.~I/Y.~/I~w,.IItu ,ilI)niit
a/znz~aZ reports. Noiv "aririual reports" ~voultlclcarly postulate a more
or less permaneiit arr;iiigcinerit. "Kegular reports" and "aiinual reports",
the expressions used in 1946and 1947respectively, implied ailarrange-
ment which would contiriuc indefinitely. Tliat would have been of the
essence of the wliole proposal. In addition, there was the basic reser-
vation ta wliich 1 have alreadv referred. There is no evidence in this
Assembly Resoliitioii of 1947 if any acceptnnce either of a permaneiit
arrangement or of ariv reservation. The ivhole context of the Resolu-
tion, as well as the sirrouriding circumstances, are against the accept-
ance of any permaneiit arrangement. The Asseiiibly was pressing for
a trusteeship agreemerit. It desired an agreement to be submitted in
time for the 1948 session. In the meantirne, tlie 'l'rusteeship Council
was to esamine the report which had been siibmitted, tliat is, the partic-
ular report wliicli w:is theii before the Asscmbly. It is apparent from
al1this that the Asscnil~lydid riot waiit to prejuclicc its own objectives
in regard to a trusteesliip agreement of the nature siiggested. Such an
acceptance would too clearly have implietl ac<luiescencc iii the refusa1
to submit such an agreement. That is wliy the Assembly was careful
to confine the Resolution to eaminatioii irI ~he meniltirne of the one
report which liad beeii siihmittecl. It did not authorize the Trusteeshi11
Council to examine the annual reports, that is, al1reports wliich miglit
be submitted by tlie Uiiion Government, but only this one report.
120. Contrast with tliis the .4ssemblv Resolution of rasS. In that
l<c;oliiiioii ilic :\sscriil>lyi~:~~~.iiinicii~ls.';iiihprzjitdi<c ro preitoii
r~iiiliirti>iirli:it fl~eUriiuii 01 St.iirIi .\fric:i, 111i1i,lIRY<.C.I~~rC/ .i~lir~~/

xi111 /lie 1,'11i/~.d.\'~1/I~~iisc~,I~./II</18 /I~/IIY~,O/5~,11111-11':~ i/r~/.,i,
zt)iitiiiiit: ln iiilll>ly niiiiii:il iiilorni-itioit;oi:i<lriiiiiiitr:itioiitIi<:
'1'~rrirnrv.'l'ltc~liil~r~~ic> oli\,it~i~sl'lit,111qdyoi C~IIIIIC iif~rit~~~tiuii,
that is. 'the inorc ncrmaiient basis. is hereA&ëonimen<ledonlv suhiect
to exprcss reservatioiis as regards previous resoliitioiis and duration.
The fact that tliere is iiothing of the kinù in ttic 1947 licsolution is
clear elridencc that tlie .4sscmblv was dealine oiilv with the one revort,
and was not committing itself Coany more-permanent scheme. 1; the
1947 Resolution, moreover, tlie reservation made by tlie Union Govern-316 STATEnlENT BY Dr. STEYN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 V 50

ment in regard to supervisory jurisdiction was not even mentioned,
either directly or by implication. Even, tlien, on the unjustifiable
assumption of a firm proposal, therefore, this liesolution could not
serve asan acceptance of any offer to enter into a permanent arrange-
ment with such a reservation, as so clearly conveyed by the statement
in question. Up to thisstage, therefore, there could have been no binding
agreement. At no time had the parties been ad idem.
130. The next step to be considered is the letter of 31st May, 1948,
by wliich the Union Governmeiit fonvarded to the United Nations
their replies to the questionnaire which they had received from the
Trusteeship Council. That letter contained a further clarification of
previous statements made by the Union Government on the suhject
of reports. Paragraph z of that letter reads as follows :
"The Union Goveriiment, in forwarding these replies, desire
to reiterate that the transmission to the United Nations of infornia-
tion on Soutli-West Africa, in the form of an annual report
or any other form, is on a voluntary basis and is for purposes of
information only. They have on several occasions made it clear
that they recognize no obligation to submit this information to
the United Nations. but in view of the widesuread interest in the
:~rliiiiiii~rr:itufitlic '1'~~rritur;.iicliiiacruiil;iiicc\vitIliioriiinl
~lc~ii~~cr,~ltriic~ic~I,IIL;irr \v~Iliiig,ii~d~iiixiu10 ~n,,kca\,:tiI:,t,l<:
tu 111,\vurltl,iicl~f:t:ts;III~ fi<~irxs :irv rc.:i~l31v ~IicircIi~tx~s,,l.
and which can be collated and co-ordinated witgout placing &ces:
sive burdens on staff resources to the detriment of urgent tasks
of administration."

131. Tliis communication made it perfectly clear that tlie United
Nations, at no time. atid certainly not as from the date of this com-
munication, had any offerbefore them to enter into a binding agreement.
The submission of reports was definitely stated to be on a voluntary
basis. If, by previous statements, the impression had in some way been
created that an offer of sucb a nature had been made, that impression
could no longer continue. As from the date of this communication, at
any rate, a binding agreement could no longer come into existence,
no matter wliat subsequent resolutions might be passed by the United
Nations. That, we would submit, is something about which there could
be no dispute.
132. It is not necessary, therefore. to scrutiuize the 1948 and 1949
Resolutions for the purpose of ascertaining whether they contain an
acceptance of any offer br undertaking. As from the date of this commu-
nication, there quite clearly was no offer or undertaking to accept by
way of arriving at a binding agreement. Al1that need be noted here is
that in the 1948 Resolution there is not the slightest suggestion of a
binding agreement.
133. The 1949 Resolution, passed after the United Nations had
been informed that there would be no furtlier reports, affords even less
evidence that the United Nations were relying upon any binding
agreement. Also on that occasion, the Assembly did not refer to any
binding relationship, or insist that any legal obligations be complied
with, as one would be entitled to expect, more especially after the
withdrawal of the undertaking to submit reports, had the Assembly had
in mind any arrangement of that nature. The Assembly contented itself STATEMENT BY I>r.ST5YN (SOUTH AFRICA) - 23 V 50 317
by expressing regret at the withdrawal, and by inviting the Union
Government to resume the submission of reports.
134. Now, if anything, this attitude seems inconsistent with a binding
arrangement, or with any insistence ou any nghts derived from such an
arrangement. It rather scems as if the Assembly accepted the fact of
the withdrawal, without laying claim to any legal rights which had been
violated, and at theame time thought to persuade the linion Government
to reconsider the position and to reçume submission of reports. In al1
the circumstances, the Asser~iblycould legally not have gone further
than that. If, in 1946and 1947, any offer had been made which they
were entitled to construe as an offer made animo contrahendi (which 1
submit is clearly not the case), they had not accepted that offer, and by
the letter of May 31st, 1948.it had been made clear that there was no
such offer to accept. Consequently, the Assembly could not purport to
effect a binding agreement by the Resolutions of 1948and 1949, and
these Resolutioiis could not be based upon any legal obligations arising
£rom the 1947Resolution.
135. It is accordingly submitted that there is no hasis, in fact or in
law, for the contention ofthe Government of India that there has been
a bindine aereement from which the Union Government cannot resile.
All therg hcs been was a voluntary undertaking, given with a specific
reservation and with no bindin~ commitments for the future, and a
subsequent withdrawal of that indertaking.
136. If the Court should nevertheless holà that an agreement has
been entered into asalleged, there is a further submission which 1would
have to make. It is the submission in regard to non-compliance with
Article 102 of the Charter, which 1have already made in regard to the
other alleged agreement, that is, the agreement not to modify the status
of the Territory without the consent of the United Nations. Also in this
case, there has been no registration or publication of any agreement.
Here also, we would submit firstly that non-registration, more especially
where the United Nations would itself be a party, is strong evidence
that not only the Union of South Africa, but also the United Nations,
was unaware of the existence of any agreement, and secondly that,
because of non-registration, the alleged agreement can, for the reasons
which 1 have mentioned in the other coniiesion, not be invoked before
this Court.
Mr. Fresident. 1 thank the Court.