Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
INTERNATFONALSTATU OS F SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
Adlvisory Opinionof11July1950
ThequestionconcerningtheInternationalStatesofSouth oftheUnitedNationsto theintegrationofthe Territoryinthe
WestAfricahad beenreferredforanadvisory opinion tothe Union.
CourtbytheGeneralAssembly ofthe UniteclNations (G.A. The United Nationsrefusedtheir consentto this integra-
resolutionof6December 1949). tionandinvitedtheLJnionofSouthAfricatoplacethe Terri-
The Court decidedunanimously thatSouth-WestAfrica tory under'ltusteeship,accordingtotheprovisionsofChap-
wasa territoryunder theinternationalMandate assumedby terXI1oftheCharter.
theUnionofSouthAfricaonDecember17th.1920; TheUnionof SouthAfricahaving refusedtocomply,the
GeneralAssemblyoftheUnitedNations,on December6th.
by 12votes to2that theUnionof South Africacontinued 1949,adoptedthefollowingresolution:
to havethe internationalobligatiresulting,fromthe Man- TheGeneralAssembly,
petitionsfrom theinhabitantsof thatTerritory, thesupervi- Recalling itspreviousresolutions65 (I) of 14December
sory functionstbe exercisedbythe UnitedNationsandthe 1946, 141 (11)of 1 November 1947 and227 (111)of 26
referenceto the PermanentCourtof InternationalJusticeto November 1948corrcerningthe Territoryof South-West
bereplacedbyreferencetotheInternationalCourtofJustice, Africa,
inaccordancewithArticle7ofthe Mandate andArticle 37of
the StatuteofheCourt; ConsideringthatitisdesirablethattheGeneralAssembly.
foritsfurtherconsiderationofthequestion,shouldobtainan
unanimouslythat the provisionsof Chapter XI1of the advisoryopinion onitslegalaspects,
Charter were applicable to the Territoryof South-West 1. Decidesto submitthe followingquestionstotheInter-
Africain the,sensethatthey provideda meansbywhichthe nationalCourtofJusticewitharequestforanadvisoryopin-
Territorymaybebrought underthe 'lfusteeshisystem; ion whichshall be transmittedto the General Assembly
by8votesto6thattheCharterdidnotimposeontheUnion beforeitsfif eh ularsession,ifpossible:
ofSouthAfricaalegalobligationto place theTerritoryunder "What is the internationalstatus of the Territoryof
Trusteeship; South-WestAfrica andwhat arethe international obliga-
and finally, unanimously thatthe Unionof SouthAfrica tionsof the Union ofSouthAfrica arising therefrom,in
was not competent to modify the internationalstatus of particular:
South-WestAfrica, suchcompetenceresting 'withtheUnion "(a) DoestheUnionofSouthAfricacontinuetohave
actingwiththeconsentoftheUnitedNations. international obligationsunder the Mandate for South-
WestAfricaand,ifso, what arethoseobligations?
"(b) Arethepmvisionsof ChapterXI1ofthe Charter
applicableand, if so, in whatmanner,to the Territoryof
South-WestAfrica?
Thecircumstancesinwhichthe Courtwascalleduponto modifytheasinternat.iostatusof theTerritoryof South-
giveitsopinionwerethefollowing: WestAfrica, or, in the eventof a negativereply, where
doescompetenceresttodetermineandmodify theinterna-
TheTerritoryofSouth-WestAfricawasoneoftheGerman tionalstatusoftheTerritory?"
overseaspossessionsinrespectof whichGennany,byArti-
cle 119of the Waty of Versaillesrenounceclallher rights 2. Requests the Secretary-Generalto transmit the
Pbwers.Afterthewarof 1914-1918thisTerritorywasplacedated present resolution to tInternational Courtof Justice, in
under a Mandateconferreduponthe Uniono:fSouth Africa accordancewith Article 65 of the Statute of theCourt,
which wasto havefullpowerof administrationandlegisla- accompaniedbyalldccumentslikelytothrowlightuponthe
tion over theTemtory asan integral portionof the Union. question.
The Union Governmentwas to exercise an!international The Secretary-General shallinclude amongthese docu-
functionof administrationon behalfoftheLeague,withthe ments thetextofarticlle22ofthe CovenantoftheLeagueof
objectof promoting the well-being and developmeont the Nations; thetext of the Mandatefor German South-West
inhabitants. Africa, confirmedby the Council of the League on 17
December 1920; relelvantdocumentation concerningthe
Afterthe secondworld war,the Unionof SouthAfrica, objectivesand thefunctionsofthe MandatesSystem;thetext
allegingthat theMandatehadlapsed,sought tlnerecognition of the resolutionadoptedby the Leagueof Nations onthe
Continued on next pagequestionof Mandateson 18 April 1946;the:textof Articles tories not placed under thenew trusteeshipsystem were
77 and80of the Charteranddataonthe discussionof these neither expressly transferredto the United Nations, nor
Articlesin the San Francisco Conference;andthe General expresslyassumedby that Organization.Nevertheless,the
Assembly;the report of the]FourthCommit.teeandtheoffi- obligation incumbenutponaMandatoryStatetoacceptinter-
cia1records, includingthe alnnexes,of the ,consideratofn national supervision and tsubmit reportsis an important
thequestionofSouth-West A.fricaatthefoui-thsessionofthe partof theMandatesSystem. Itcouldnotbeconcludedthat
GeneralAssembly. the obligation to submit to supervisiohnad disappeared
merelybecausethe supervisoryorgan had ceasedto exist,
* when the United Nations had another international organ
* * performingsimilar,thoughnot identical, supervisoryfunc-
tions.
Thesegeneralconsiderationswere confirmedby Article
InitsopiniontheCourtexamined firstif theMandatecon- 80,paragraph1,oftheCharter,whichpurportsto safeguard
ferredbythe PrincipalAllie~alnd AssociatedPowersonHis notonly therightsofStates,butalsotherightsofthepeoples
BritannicMajesty, tobeexeicisedon hisbeh~albfytheUnion of mandatedterritories until trusteeship agreementswere
ofSouthAfrica, overthe TenritoryofSouth-WestAfricawas concluded.ThecompetenceoftheGeneralAssembly ofthe
stillinexistence. TheCourtdeclaredthatthe:Leaguewasnot UnitedNationsto exercise such supervisionand to receive
a "mandator" in the sensein whichthistermis usedin the andexaminereportsisderived fromtheprovisionsofArticle
nationallaw of certain states. The Mandatehad only the 10oftheCharter,whichauthorizesthe GeneralAssemblyto
name incommon with the severalnotion!;of mandatein discussanyquestionson anymatters withinthescopeof the
nationallaw. The essentially international characrf the Charter,and makerecommendations totheMembersof the
functions of the Union appearedfrom the:fact that these United Nations. Moreover,the Resolutionof April 18th.
functionswere subjectto the supervisionof the Councilof 1946, of the Assembly ofthe League of Nations pre-
theLeague andtotheob1iga~:iotn o presentt~nnuslrleportsto supposes thatthe supervisory functions exercisedby the
it; it also appeared fromtht: fact that any Memberof the LeaguewouldbetakenoverbytheUnitedNations.
LeaguecouldsubmittotheFbrmanentCOU~ o:fInternational The rightof petitionwas not mentionedin the Covenant
Justiceany disputewiththe:UnionGovernmentrelatingto 0,theMandate,butwasorganizedbyadecisionoftheCoun-
the interpretationOrthe applicationof the frovisionsof the cil of the League.The Courtwas of opinionthat thisright
Mandate. which the inhabitants of South-West Africa had thus
The international obligationsassumedby the Union of acquin:d,wasmaintainedbyArticle80, paragraph1,of the
South Africa were of two kinds. One kind was directly Charter, as this clausewas interpreted above. The Court
related to the administrationof the Territory and corn- wasthereforeofthe opinionthat petitionaleto betransmit-
spondedtothesacredtrustofcivilizationreft:rndtoinarticle tedbythe GovernmentoftheUniontotheGeneralAssembly
22 of the Covenant;the o&s:rrelatedto the machineryfor oftheIJnitedNations,whichislegally qualified tdealwith
implementation andwas c1,oselylinked to the supervision them.
andcontrolofthe League.Itcorresponded to the"securities Therefore,South-WestAfrica is still to be considereda
for the performanceof this trust" referred,toin the Same territoryheldunder the Mandateof December17th. 1920.
Article. The degreeof supervisionby theGeneralAssemblyshould
The obligations of the lint goup represent the very notexceedthatwhichapplied underthe MandatesSystem.
essenceofthesacredtrustof'civilizationThieirczisod'etre Theseobservationsapplytoannualreportsandpetitions.
and original object remain. Sincetheir fulfilment did not Havingregard toArticle37of the Statuteof theInterns-
dependontheexistenceofthe LeagueofNaltions,theycould tional~Counof Justiceand Article80, paragraph1, of the
not be brought toan end n~.erelybecausethis supervisory Charter,theCourtwasofopinionthatthisclauseintheMan-
organceasedtoexist.Thisviewis confirme:dbyArticle80, datewasstillinforce,andthereforethat theUnionof South
paragraph 1,of theCharter,mainmining thtrightsofStates Africa was under an obligationto accept the compulsory
and peoplesand theterms Ofexistinginternationalinstru- jurisdictionoftheCourtaccordingtothoseprovisions.
trusteeshipsystem.MOreova!rt,he resolutioeof the League wim regardtoquestion(b) theCourtsaidthatChapter
of Nationsof April 18, 1946,saidthat the League'sfunc- oftheCharterappliedto theTerritoryof South-WestAfrica
tionswithrespectto mandatedterritorieswouldcometo an inthissense,thatitprovidesa meansbywhichtheTerritory
end; it did not saythat the Mandatesthennselvescame to maybe broughtunderthetrusucship system.
anend. Withregard tothe second partof the question, dealing
withthemanner in which thoseprovisionsae applicable,the
BythisResolutiontheAssemblyoftheLeague:ofNations Courtsaidthatthe pmvisions of thischapterdidnotimpose
manifestedits understandin;t:at theMandateswouldcon- upon theUnion ofSouthAfrica an obligationtoputtheTerri-
lished andtheUnionofSouthAfrica,indeclarationsmadetoab- tory msteeship by meansof a msteeship Agrre-
theLeagueof Nationsaswell astotheUnitedNations,had Inis opinionis bsaedon the pnmisaive languageof
recognizedthat itsob1igatio:sndertheMandatecontinued Articles75 and 77. TheseArticlesrefertoanuagcwnent,,
the oftheLeague'Interpretationplaced whichimplies consentof theparties Thefactthat
upon legal insmunents Iihepmies them, though Article77referstothe"voluntarywplacement ofcertainTer-
conclusiveasto theirmeaning,haveconsiderableprobative ritoriesunderTmsteeshipdoesnot showthattheplacingof
value whenthey containremgnitionby a party of its own otherkrritoriesunder iscompulsory.The word
obligationsunderaninstru~r~~ent. 6.voluntaryMusedwithrespct to territoriesincaDgory
in Article 77 can be explainedas having been usedout
Withregard to thesecond.groupof obligsitions,the Court ofanabundanceofcautionand asanaddedassuranceof free
saidthatsomedoubtsmightarisefromthefactthatthesuper- initiativeto Stateshavingterritories fallingwithinthatcrate-
visoryfunctionsoftheLeagluewithregardtomandatedterri- gory.
13 The Courtconsidered thatif Article80, paragraph2 had internationalstatusofatemtoryunderMandatewhich would
beenintendedtocreateanobligationfora M[andatoryStateto nothaveforits purposethe placingoftheterritoryunderthe
negotiate and concludean agreement,such intentionwould trusteeshipsystem.
havebeenexpressed in adirectmanner.It consideredalso Moreover,the Unionof SouthAfricaitself decidedtosub-
thatthisarticledidnotcreateanobligationtloenterintonego- mitthequestionof.thefutureinternationalstatusoftheterri-
tiationswith aviewto concluding a Trusteeship Agreement tory to the "judgment" of the General Assemblyas the
as this provision expresslyrefers todelayor postponement "competent internationalorgan". In so doing, the Union
"of the negotiationandconclusion",andnottonegotiations recognisedthe collilpetencof the General Assemblyin the
only. Moreover,itrefersnotmerelyto temtoriesheld under matter.Onthe bash of theseconsiderations,theCourt con-
mandate butalsoto other temtories.Finallythe obligation cludedthatcompete:nce todetermineandmodifytheinterna-
merelytonegotiatedoesnot ofitselfassuretheconclusionof tionalstatusofthe Territoryrestedwiththe Union,actingin
TrusteeshipAgreementsI .t istrue thattheCharterhascon- agreementwiththe United Nations.
templatedandregulatedonlyone singlesystem,theinterna- Sir Arnold McFJairand Judge Read appendedto the
tional Trusteeshisystem.Ifit maybeconc:luded thatitwas Court'sOpiniona statemeno tftheirseparateopinions.
expectedthat the mandatoryStateswouldfollowthenormal Availingthemselvesof the right conferredon them by
course indicatedby the Charterand concludeTrusteeship Article57 of the Statute, Judges AlvareDe Visscher and
Agreements,theCourtwasunabletodeduct:fromthesegen- Krylovappendedtalthe Opinionstatementsoftheirdissent-
eralconsiderationsanylegalobligationforinandatoryStates ingopinions.
to concludeor negotiate such agreementsI .t is notfor the
Court topronounce on the politicaolr moraldutieswhich Vice-PresidentGuerrerodeclaredthat he could notconcur
theseconsiderationsmayinvolve. intheCourt'sopinionontheanswertoquestion (b).Forhim,
With regard to question (c) the Court idecidedthat the the Charterimposedon theSouthAfrican Unionan obliga-
Unionhadnocompetencetomodify unilaterallythe interna- tionto placethe Territory under Trusteeship. n thispoint
tionalstatusoftheTerritory.Itrepeatedthat:thenormalway andonthetextingeneral,he sharedtheviewsexpressedby
of modifying the internationasltatusof the Territorywould JudgeDeVisscher.
be to place it underthe Trusteeshipystemby meansof a Judges ZoricicandBadawi Pasha declared that thewyere
TrusteeshipAgreement, in accordancewith ,theprovisionsof unabletoconcurintheanswergivenbytheCourttothesec-
Chapter XI1oftheCharter. ondpartofthequestionunderletter (b)anddeclaredthat they
Article7 oftheMandate requiredtheauthorisationof the sharedin thegeneralviewsexpressedonthispoint inthe dis-
Councilof theLeagueforanymodificationsof itsterms.In sentingopinionofJudgeDeVisscher.
accordancewiththereply giventoquestion (a)theCourtsaid The Court'sopinionwasgivenin a public hearing. Oral
that those powersof supervisionnowbelongto theGeneral statements were presented onbehalf of the Secretary-
Assemblyof the United Nations.Articles 79 and 85of the Generalof the United Nationsby the AssistantSecretary-
Charterrequired that atrusteeshipagreemenbteapprovedby Generalinchargeof'theLegalDepartment,and on behalfof
the General Assembly. By analogyit couldbe inferred that the Governments of thePhilippinesand of the Union of
thesameprocedurewasapplicabletoany modificationofthe SouthAfrica.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950