Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) - Submission of Written Statements by Stat

f'ARêHÎVEs'J

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace. The Hague· Tel.39 2344Cabres:lntercourt, TheHague
. . ' . ,

communique
·unofficial
forimllllldM/as11
~1~./033

No.. 71/10
21 June 1971

- The International Court of Justice delivers i ts Advisory Opinion on
the Legal Consequence.s for States of the Continued Presence of
South Africain Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding
Security Council resolution 276 (1970)

.The following information is communicated to the Press by the
Registry of the International Court of Justice:

Today, 21 June 1971, the International Court of Justice delivered
its Adviso1~y Opinion on the above question,

In answer to the question put by the Security Council of the United
Nations .. !\füat at'e the legal. col').sequences for State·s of .the continued ·
pre senc e of South /\fri ca in Namibi a notwi th standing Securi ty Coune :1.
resolution 276 (1970) ?', the Court is of opinion,

by 13 votes to 2.,

(1) that., the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being
illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its
administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end
to i ts occupation of the Terri tory_;

by 11 votes to 4,
,
(2) that States Members of the United Nations a1e under obligation
to recognize the illegality of South Afrièa s presence in
• Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning
Namibie._, and to refrain from any acts and in particular any
dèalings with the Government of South Africa irnplying
recogni tian of the legali ty of., or lending support or assistance
ta, such presence and administration;

(3) that it is incumbent upon States which are not Members of the
United Nations ta give assistance, within the scope of·
subparagraph (2) above, in the action which has been taken by
the United Natibns ·wth regard 'GoNamibia.

* l,. Il'.:S,

- 2 -

For these proceedings the Court was composed as follows:
President.Sir MuhammadZafrulla Khan; Vice-Presic.;.ent Ammoun;

Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice/ Padilla Nerva, Forster, Gros, Bengzon,
Petrén, lachs, Onyeama., Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro, Morozov
and Jiménez de Aréchaga,

The President of the Court, Sir MuhammadZafrulla Khan, has
appended a declaration to the Advisory Opinion, Vice-President Ammoun
and Judges Padilla Nerva, Petrén, Onyeama, Dillard and de Castro have
appended separate opinions.. Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and Judge Gros
have appended dissenting opinions.

*·

An analysis.of the Açlvisory Opinion is givèn·below. It has
been prepared by the Registry for the use of thè Press and in no way

invol ves tlle responsibili ty of .the Court. It cannot be quoted agai!1st
the actüar' ~ext···of ·the Advisory Opinion_, of which i t does not constitute
an interpretation.

·The printed text of the AdvÙory. Opinion, declaration and separate
and dissenting opinions will be available shortly. (Orders and
.enquirie.:5 $hould be addresq€;d ta. the D.i$tribution and Sales Section,
Office ·.of the Uriited Nations, 1211 Gen.eva 10;. the Sales Section, ... ,··
Unite.ci N,{tions, New York~ li[°.'J:0017"; A ..)"J,Sijthoff, ':boezastraat, i~ .,
Leyden; or any boo khop• s,ell1ng UNpub...ations. } ..

*
* ·*

•

Analysis - 3 -

-.-_'",:·.Analysi's-: cif thAdvisory:·opinion · '·r·:·

Course· of the'· Prodêedirigs: (para:graphs 1-1? 'of the Ad'visory Opinion)
r, ;"•,-"<;
'!he c'ourf f'ir~t ..re·call's that. the réquest for ·""tnè'advi sory opinion .
emana-ted f-rom the ·uni ted''Nations 0 Seèûri ty- Councfl,, wh::LchdecÏded te, submi t
it by resolutiim'> 284 ·(1970). adopted on -29 ,July 1970. The Coùr"t goes" on

to rei:::'àpitulate the di'ffèrent steps' in"'the ··subsequent proceedings. ... .

It ·refers in pa:rticulâr to the th1•ee- Orders of 26 January 1971
whereby the Court decided not ta accede ta the objections raised by the
Government of South Africa against the participation in the proceedii;igs
of three Members' of the· Court. 'Ihese objections were. based on .stat'ements

which the Judges in -question had made in a former capacity as
·':':--·repre'sentati ve s of their Governmént s 111 Uni te'd: Nati on·s organs -ètealing
withmatters ccincerning Namibia, or· on their participatïonih the'-samé
capacity irr-;ithe·,work of ·those ·ot~àris., _,_The,C.qurt cam~ t~ th~_:cohq~µsipn.;,
that none of the. three cases called ·for the application of Articil~ ·:17, '
paràgraph·'2/ 'of its Statute.:
•.1.,._,·l1 • • 1~- /
.j:
Obj e et idn s -Agairist:· the ,Court ' s Deal ing ·wi-th -the Que st iôn·
(paras.·· 19·.:.41_of 'the Advisory Opinion')
• ·..,··
•' The Govèrnmënt- of-"South A.frica: contendèd that' the ·Cburt was,'-not ._.
compètent ta ,;deli ver ,the opini6ri,- 'beôause· ·security Coùrici:l

resoluticin ·284'•'(1970) was invalid for -the. following -reasons =.·(a) two ' .
permanent mèmbèrs ôf the ·Counêil abstainèd during 'the 'vot:i.ng. (Ch'arter· '.-:·
of the United Nations, Art; 27, ·para, 3); .(b~ ·as' the:··guestiori relateél_: .
to a dispute between South Africa and other Members of the United
Nations. South Africa should have been invited to participate in the
disctission'.-·(chartef~· Art, 32) ahd- the proviso requiririg members 'of the

Security°-"Counèil whiëh. are ,parties -to a: dispute to abstàin from v6tini(·
should -have been ,6bserved (Clia1•ter, Art. Z7, para; 3); The- Court- points
out that fa) 'for 'e/·1ong period the voluntary abstention of a permanent -
member has ·consistently been intei•preted as riot constituting a bar ·to
the adoption of resoluti.oris ·by ·the Security 'coUncil;. (b) the q~est::ion
of Namibia was placed on the agenda of the Council as a situation and ···
1
the _South·African Government failed to draw the Council s attention to
. :·1.the neces:s_ity in its eyes of treating it as a dispute .

rn·the ·a1ternative·the Goverrirne:ht ·of Sotlth Africa maintàfneèl.'that
even if thé 'Cèu:tt.'.had·ccitnpetence ·it shoùld nevev'thele~s, as a màttef o{
jud:icial propriety, 'rëfuse ta" ·'give '·the opinion ·rêqûes-ted,' dri âccourit. of '
poli tic al pre s s\.1 :!'te -0hich~. it ~,.à..contended, '~né è ourt nad 'Qel'enor . -.·

might be subjec·teêi.·:. 0n· s February·:1971 at-;the 6pening: af··thé "p~oi1c.· "
si ttings, .the ·President of the> èourt ·décïared ihat' i t woulêf·no·f be - ...
proper for the Court to entertain those observations, bearîng ·:âs they
did on the very ri~ture of the Court as the principal judicial organ
of the Uniteà>Nations, ·:an:·-organ·whi'ch;. i.rï:that :èapaèity! 'ac~s· only' on
the basis of law, independently of' all otit.i;±de frifluences or inter- '

ventions .''hatsoever .

;·,-he Government ·of South Africa ·als·o ·actvanced ·another :reason. f··ir
not gi ving ' thè ad vis Ory opi mon re q1e·~t;ed : . th,:,;t the cp.setion w1:.ti ~ :reali ty
aonte~tious 1becaùse 'it l'E!latèd' :t~,an exist.;~ dispute betwe~n South: Afti'ca
and othè r ··statos ~-The -Court cons:iders that ·it ·wa1f a.sked to ·deal ·with a
request: 'pÙt..fdrwârd ·by·i{ United,·Nat:fons o·rgan-with ·a view'to seeking-,
1
lega:l Ïiâvicfa" on the cohsequèrices' of î ts 'own decisions.. The fa.dt that., ~-~....-
in order 'to gl vè · its an·swe'r; .thè: Court migh,t have to pronounce ·on -1egal
questions upon which diverg0nt' views 'y~i:.s't'betwi.-:i·enSouth_ - : . .
Africa and the tJnïted Nation's ·doès nôt ·c'oriver't the· case ··1ntd' a di'spût:S·

between , .. ·, i
. ,;
- 4 -

b~twèen States. ('Ihere-. was --therefdre no necessity to apply Article 83
of the Ru.les of Court, aècording. to which, - Ïf ·ariaclvi~ory opinion is

request1d ·upoh, a legal question "actually pending be"t,wèeritwo or m_oi,•e
States ', Article 31 of the Statute, dealing with judges ad hoc. i s ·
applicable; the Government of South Africa having reqüested leavë to
choose a judge ad hoc, the Court heard its observations on that ·point
on Z7 January 1971 but, in the light of the abové considerations,.
decided by the Order of. 29 January ·1971 not to acc·ede to that request. )"

-In sum, the. Court saw no reason to decline to answer the request
for an advisory opinion.

-History of the Mandate (paras. 42-86 of the Advisory Opinion)

Refuting the contentions of the South African Government and citingits
own pronouncements in previous proceedings concerning South West" Africa:
(Advi9ory Opinions of 1950 1611 i;pd.1956; Judgment of 1962),the Court
recapitulftes the history f tfi.e :Mandate. , · . __
'Ihe mandates system established by Article 22 of the Covenant of -­
the League of Nations was based upon two principles of paramount
importance: the principle of non-annexation and the principle that_ thè.
well-being and development of ·the peoples concerned formed a' secrô;!d'; ..
trust of civilisation. Taking the developments of the past half-century -
into accouqt,there can be little doubt that the ultimat'e objective of
the sacred trust was self-determination and independence. The mandatory

was te observe a nurnber· of obligations, and the Council of the League·
was to see that they were·fulfilled. The rights of the mandatory as
such had their. foundation in those obligations.

1-Jhenthe League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d '@tre ·and
original abject of these obli_gations remained. Sincè their fulfilnient
did,not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought
to an--end rnerely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist.·
The Members of the League had not declared, or accepted even.by ·
implication, that the mandates_ would be cancelled or lapse. with the
dis;solution of the League.

The last resolution of the League Assembly- and ;;_rticle 8D, -parngraph 1,
of the Unitc:d Nc1.tions Charter iikÜntained tr.e oblig2.tio:ns of mandatories. The
Interna_tional Court of Justice has consistently recègnized that the
Mandate survived the de-mise of the League, and South Africa also
admitted·as much for a _number.of years. Thus the supervisory element, ·_
which is an essential part of the Mandate, was ·bound to survive. The
United Nations suggested a system of supervision which would -;not exceed
that which applied under the mandates system~. but this proposa! was
rejected by South Africa.

Resolutions by the Gene,ral Assembly and the Securi ty Council
(paras. 87-116 of the Advisory Opinion)

Eventually, in 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted resolution 2145 (XXI). whereby it decided that ·the Mandate was
terminated and that South Africahad no.other right to administer the
Terri tory.. Sub,sequently, ·the,_;::Jecµrity Coll.Deil adopted various-.
re so1utions _inc1.µd:i,ng;re o1u_1,_i1_'46-·.1970) ·dee laring. ·.th.e. c0-ntlnùed
presence· ë'rSouth. Africa .in ·Namibia illegal. ',')bjectiona challenging'
the validity of the_se resolutions having been raised, the Court· points
out that it does not possess powers of judicial review or appeal in
relation to the United Nations _organs- in question.· Nor··dèes the
validity of.their resolutions form the subJect of'the request for

advisory .... --- --------------

- 5 -

advisory opinion. 'Ihe Court nevertheless-. in the exercise of its

judi: ia_~'fu,Ilcti~n~ and ...s.inc~~'tl:1,e~,eob jE\G~J~ ~ ~ aYt}\e,.e :~q,y~n?ecl.~:,,:
considers them ·1.n the course of 1 ts reasoning .b.efore determirung ,the
leg~l ëo'nsétjuences iriE1ing''~frÔin Üios.è resôÎ~tï~n's;:::~_ · · i ,..
·:. . ~ .·. ···,·~·.·· ~- . ·.. .-··-·~..t'".1-......:::,_.: .• :l.: _1~ ·_\
· · •, ·.. · ·· ··... ·-: · .. ·_ ,··.- :·r-·:·._··ii.......~- ··.·1:" :~·,•.. :.":··i:,,. ;-,.,~.i.
··It 'fir'st re:calls: that. ·the ·entt'.jr~iritD , f 6rce'. or thé ·United Nations .
Charter ·establi shed a :bél~Ùonsh;iti, bètwéé 'a'f.i Mémbèrs of .the' Qriit:~a .... ':

Natiomi on the ··o'nèi3Ide', and eàch "ina31daiory:.Ï'qwEf{.on tl').e. é,'ili~r ', i)â..~tlifif
one of. thè iundarrientë.r' pt>i,nc\plês'·. gd;tèri1irtg tha t. fe l~ti_op,ship .. is. "that,,,
the part"y :which ctisoi;i-ns 01~ doé/ ni:it fu:i'rn · 1ts ·oblig~tïôtîs èiinrlot ··ge'.·­

recognizect as retaining the righ.ts which i t claims to deri ve _tr.om the
relation.ship': . R~s6Ï,ütfon: 2145 '(XXI). :de'termined that th~re .. haci,' be~i a .. ,'

ma···: ··: =.·.•:;,,fo.c• :·.f.--t·.e,_:"'·.·.,: '. .·•hi.·h. S0'i1th .f.ica ,,,d..•in 'r.a'èt,.,di-...:.; ..r·"cl.

It ,has b'ee.n''c.ontended '(a) that the ,C:oyenint· of,·:t~e D.?fl.gµ~t:·'o:f~{iqns

·'di.à ·n.'.••,co•'.fer~ . ·> ;t.· ~ '•u, . _ of 1he , League ,ow.r tq ,•,..,'te. -• '._rL •a• ,•aCc•••,'tê
for mi'i:,coriduct of the ma'ndatory and that the United .Nations 9oµld- no:t ,_

ctet'{v~ rr6m t~e:· Le,agu~ grÈt~ter pàwers th?,n the J_i:t:tt~r_.1 . .ts·e1r. n~":,, .,,.'.;'_··._
.1.!2 that, even if :the· Counci~ of t.he League had ppssès_sed the .'î:iowe;r;o ':J::\..:

revoca tior{ of thE; Mandate, i t coula not h?J.V€,,been·. exerc\sed Ûnil~:t.era~Jy.
but _ o_nJy' in- cp-operatio_ri with the 'Matidatci:i:·y; >fil -tha~ . .. ·. .. . :.· .
re:foiùtion 2145 .(XXI) rna,de proriouncements which tpe G~neral. As:;;embly~,:,,_

not' beirig' a Judicial. organ, .was not competent to 'îna};e';'. (d) "tha t 1;1..'' . -; .
ctet~a~~ed· fac_~tïà~,·-~,~vestigatioti was c~ne:s i,r()r; , te) -that yrie ,Pa,r:t,_: ._·....-­

o'f'··rêsolut\o~-, _2~1~5(XXI). âecided irî efJect, ~·'t_ràn:?:f~r·of'.,t_~:r,ri._tory;_·'.,_,. _·,_

. The Court observes ,(a) that, accordipg to a general. p_ripciple ..pf

,.·..:i·rttérnàt:i.'ç,naÏ·,iaw (inc:orpàrated in the Vienna -Conventi'o1f or:!"'thè E_a··--of
··,'''l'reaties), the' right to terminate a treaty on accou'nt of::breacri, must be
-'presum~d t'à'e_;icist il). respeçt.of all treaties_ evep if:unex.pressed;

. ;.. :~(bf 'tha·f the ·60ri~énf, h~r \•lrongdoei'. to sùcr:i''_à- fo;ri\ '"6( te:r>m:tp:~tion
c~nnot. ·bè.·reqûf~êcl;' _ lli. thàt the United Nàtions; as· a sücçes:i;"çi:i,•to the

Leàguè; · act'ing_ thràugh its compet.ent organ, mu~t bè· seen above all as
the sûpë:rvisory-_-.iristi tu\;ï.ori competent to pr1:moù'nèe on the conduèt of

the Manda'.tÔfy;. '_(dj:th8.t the failure o:f South A±'°rica ta 'comply ,.'1ith
the obl:t,gation ··to submi:ê ta, supervision cannàt ·be disputécl; {e) that
the Gener1i1' Assem:bly was' ·uot making a··finding on facts, but forrnu1ating

a legal si'tuati6n; ':tt_'·wpüld not be correct to assume, that: because it
i S iti pritlcipi e ~je s'ted .With •re Cômmenda tory powers, .·i t . i S. de ba~red from
adopting, in special cases within the framework of· its ·competenc~.

re solutio·. ~ ~ .. :.ich ~ m-k~_. -eterminati .On$ . or ha.·• . .o··.~.-:..- .-.:e'ign .. .
··41111
' .
The General Assembly, however; lacked the nècessary powers·to
ensure ·the ;,·itndra~al. of South Africa· :from the T·~rri tori.and therefore,

acting in i~c6rdanc~ wit:ti A;ticle 11, paragraph ·2, o_f-the Cb.à;t~r,
en1isted·the co.:.operation' of the Securit:y .Couricil. 'Ihe CoUticil for its
part. when it · çi,doptéd ·the resolutiçms concernecL was acting in the

exerci.se o'r ,,ihat ï t· éleemecito be its prim'âcy resp6nsibili ty for., the
maintenance of peace and security. Article 24 of the Charter vests in
the Secur:l,.ty Coun.cil. the. necessary authori ty. .. I.ts deci sio;ns ,were ;taken

in cotiformi ty_ ,:,1'th the. pui~poses and:. P,rinc iplè'$ of ttie.Charte;. ~-1;1ndê;.
Article: 25 of ·which .·i t' is. for member State 9 :to èomply ,il.th tho·se

decisiolis, even· thosè.··merri.be rs of 'the Secùrity Coùncil \~hîc;h -yo_ted
against them and those Members of the United' Nations who. àre-·not members
of the .Council.
. ' :~. ·- .;r • ·_.; ,

Legil Cohséquences for': States; of '.the Cbnt'i~ued ~esence ;of' Sou:th Africa

in Namibià '{(~ar.s. ..... -··.:.d. . ·, .. ··.~;:·.·.,·v''.o;"!.' .-1·.-_. :';:~.~ . ;
a'"'• • ,', , '·, " • 1,' ,t j I , •\' !\;!:i"0:•"~·:"••;,": • " ,0 'I' •
The· Court ·str:;e ~s·E;)stha:t .a bin~î%,:~e'termip~~[ 8t(.D!a~~· 1;5y.. ..competent

orgari of thè United Nations to the èffeét ·tha,\· Ill~si ~1;1a.t~'. ~s._J ll;gal
cannot remain wi thout consequence. · ····· ·· ·· .. ·· · ·

South ..... - 6 -

South Africa, being responsible for having created and maintained
that situation, bas the obligation to put an end toit and withdraw its
administration from the Territory. By occupying the Territory without
title, South Africa incurs international responsibilities arising from
a continuing violation of an inte~natiqnal obligation. It also remains
accountable·fcir any violations of.the rights of the.people of Namibia,
or of its obligations under international law towards other States in
respect of the exercise of its powers in relation to the Territory.

The member States of the United Nations are under obligation to
reccignize the illegality and invalidity of South Africa's continued

·presence in Namibia and to refrain from lending any support or any form
of assistance to South Africa with reference toits occupation of
Namibia. The precise determination of the acts permitted - what measures
should be selected, what scope they should be given and by whom they
should be applied - is a ·matter irhich lies within the competence of the
appropriate political organs of the United Nations acting within their
authority under the Charter. Thus it is for the Security Council to
determine any further measures conseqµent upon the decisions already
taken by it. 'Ihe Court in consequence confines itself to giving advice
on those dealings with·the Government of South Africa which, under the
Charter of the United Nations and general international law, should be
considered :as inconsistent with re sol ut ion 'Z{6 ( 1970) becausG the y might
imply recognizing South Africa s pr0 sence in Nw:nibia as le gal:

l.tl Member States are under oblif:l;ation (subjcct ta i.1l)bclow tç, abstain
· frofü entcring into treaty relations hd.th South Africa in. o.ll cases
·in which tŒ C-overnm.ent of South Africa pur.i-)Orts to act on belrn.lf of
cir concerning Nauibia.. îti.th respect to existing bilateral treaties,
member States must abstain from învoking or applying those ·
treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by South Af'rica on
behalf of or concerniri.g Namibia which involve active inter-.
governmental co-operation. With respect to multilateral
treaties, the same rule cannot .be applied to certain general
conventions.such as those Nith humanitariél.n character, the
non-performance of which may adversely affect the people of
Namibia: it will be for the competent international organs
to take specific measures in this respect.

(b) Member States ·are under obligation to abstain from sending
diplomatie or special missiDns to South Africa including in •
their Jurisdiction the territory of Nam:ib:i.a.,to abstain from
sending consular agents to Namibia, and. to withdraw any such
agents already there; and ta make it clear to S(?Uth Africa
that the maintenance of diplomatie or consular relations does
not imp~y any ·recognition of its authority with regard to
Namibia.

(c) Member States are under ·obligation to abstain from entering
into economic and other forms of relations with South Africa
on behalf of or concerning Namir:ia which may entrench its
author:i ty over· the' terri tory.

(d)'However, non-recognition should not result in depriving the
people of Namibia of any advantages derived from international
co-operat.ion. In particular, the illegality or invalidity of
acts performed by the·aovernment of South Africa on behalf of
or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Manda.te
cannot be extended ta ï:iuch acts as the registration. of births,
deaths and marriages.

As •... ..

- 7 -

As ta States not members of the United Nations, although they are
not bound by .Ar,tiQJ,<,324 and 25 of ,.the.Char'ter ~ they ha:ye: been called
upon by reso1utiot1 276 }1970 Y tü.g::fv:Ëtô.·s;s~i:stâncè:,in··.:.'thè:Jictiwhich

has been .taken'by the United Nations with regard to Namibia. ;i:nthe
·view· -of ·thè Court;. th'e termination 6:r,·tfié'-,:Mariâaté'~'arid··the.···ctèclà
ration
·.:,!.of "thé' -llég'ali'ty of ,:sou.th "Af:rica. .s p'r·Jsênc,~\iif'èNfuni9:fà are:.·.o:pposabl~ '­
to all States tn· tfie sen.se of •barring ·ei:.'ga>omn·eS··tne'·l·egâlit-y·:·i:,r:;}}ie
'::,·,
situation which is maintained in violation of 'intèrnational làw :-,.·: : '·

In partiqular, no :State which enters into·relat;ions with ..South'. Africa
cohc~rni'ng· Namibia ma,y. expect the .Ünite'cl·Nat:tôni -or ":l;ts:~'iembers to ..··
,-r~c'ogniz~ the vaiidity ·or effects: of any' ··suèh relàtiohshi'p .. 'The,.'.: ,:-:
Mandate' hmi·ing ·-been:terminatêd b:y a de'cisfon· of- the iritêrnational i.
organi zatiàn in whi ch the. ·supervisory· authori ty· wa·s·veste-d. 'i't'is .for : '

non-member States to uct 1?-ccordingly. All·states ·shduld bear in mind
that the ,ent'ity injured by _the illegal presence of l:!outh.Africa in
Namibia ·fi;;' a- people wqich must lbok · tà -the internà:tional ·c·ommun y . .or
assistance in its progress. towàrds ttie goals -for' whicn. -thè sàcred '
-. ï.
trus't wa~ iristi tuted.

Aècordingly, the Court.bas given the replies reprodueed ·aBovè ori ·
page 1.
e ,•··: ,,

. Proposi'tiôns by s·outh Africa boncerning ·the supply' Of further factuai
information ·and -the possible holding of a plebisci tê ·(paras~· 'T28.;.132 '.'­
of the Advisory Opinion)
' ' -~,1: ;: _'.••
·The ·cfovernment of South Africà had expi'essed the de'sire'-·to ·sùpply

the Court with further factual·information concerning the purposes and
ob'jecti ve s··Of it.s policy of separate deve lopment; c·drrtefidfng -.thàt to
establi·sf( a:-breâch of i ts substantive inte"rnati'onar obJ:iga;·uons :U:nder
the Mandate i t would be nece ssary to prove tha t South Africà: had -··
failed. to exercise, i ts po.-ters wi:th a view to promoting the well-being

and progress of 'the inhabitants ... The Cour.t found that'no'~:fâctua:i
evidence was ne.eded for the purpose of deterriîi'ning .whether· the·'pèilicy
_of. apartheid in Namibia was in conformity.with the international
obligations assumed -·by South' Africa. It is uridisputéd :that '-the official
gcivertmental policy pursuè{} by South Afric·111.n '·NaJilibia·is te aèhieve a com­

plete physical S8parqticm of r;2:ce:s and i:ithnic gréiups. --'nüs )tlE:ar..str.e'
enforc0ne nt of dü;tinctions, exclusions 1 re strictior..s and limi t t:.tions
exclusively based on grounds of race., colour, descent or national or
ethnie origin which·constitute_a_denial of fundamental human rights.
This the Court views as n flagn.nt violation of tbe purposes @d princip1es ·

of the Charter of the United Nations.

The Government of South Africa had also submitted a·request that.
a plebi~cite should be held in the Territory of Namibia under the joint
supervision of the Court and the Government of South Africa. The Court

hJ.ving,ooncluded that no further evidence was required, that the Mandate
had been validly terminated and, that in consequence South Africa 1s
presence in Namibia was illegal and its acts on behalf of or concerning
Namibia illegal and invaUd, it was notable to entertain this 'proposa!.

By a letter of 14 May 1971 the President informed the representatives
of the States and organizations which had participated in the oral
proceedings that the Court had decided not to accede to the two above­
mentioned requests.

*

Declaration ••.• 1
.

- B - '

Declaration and separate or dissen[ting opinions

Subparagraph ·1 of the operative clause of the Advisory Opinion
(illegality of the. presence of South Africain Namibia-' see page 1 of this

Càmmuniqué) was adopted by 13 votes to 2. SubÎ,aragraphs ·2.and 3 were
ado~ted by 11.votes·to 4;

Judge Sir Gerald·Fitzmaurice (dissenting opinion) considers that
the Mandate was not validly revoked, that the Mandatory is still suhject
ta the obligations of the Mandate whatever thesè may be, and that ·
States Members of the United Nations are bound to respect the position
unless and until it is changed by lawf'ul means,

1
Judge Gros (dissenting opinion) disagrees 11th the.Court s
conclusions as to the logal validity and effects of General Assembly
resolution 2145 (XXI), but considers that South Africa ought ta agree
to negotiate on the conversion of the Mandate in.ta a United Nations
trusteeship. 1

Judges Petrén·and Onyeama (separate opinio11-s) voted for subparagraph 1

of the operative clause but against subparagrap~s 2 and 3, which in their -
view ascribe tso broad a scope to the effects ofi non-recognition.

Juage· :0111ard ( separate opinion), concurring in th~- operat1ve_
clause, adds certain main1y cautionary comments ion subpàragraph 2;

Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Gros, -Petrén, Onyeama and Dillarcl
also criticize certain decisions taken by the Court with ref'erence ta
i ts composi tian.·

The President (declaration) and Judges Padilla Nerva and de Castro
(separate opinions) accept the operative clause in full.
. ' i
The Vice-President (se para te opinion)~ whil~ sharing the vie,\ls
expressed in the Advisory Opinion, considers that the t)perative clause
is not sufficiently explicit or decisive.

~,·