Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
VOTINGPROCEDURE ONQUESTIONS RELATING TOREPORTS AND
PETITIONS CONCERNING THETERRITORY OF SOU'I'H-WESTAFRICA
AdvisoryOpinionof 7 June1955
The question concerningthe votingprocedureto befol- enceto thePermanentCourtof InternationalJusticetobe
lowed by the GeneralAssemblyof the United Nationsin replacedby a referenceto theInternational Courtof Jus-
makingdecisionson questions relatingto reportsand peti-ice,inaccordancewithArticle7of theMandateandArti-
tions concerningtheterriofSouth-WestAfricahad been cle37ofthe Statuteofthe Court;',
Assembly,which,on November23rd, 1954,adoptedthefol- "Having expressed, in resolution 74(VIIIof 28
lowingResolutionforthispurpose: November1953,itsopinion'thatwithout UnitedNations
supervisionthe inhabitoftheTerritoaredeprivedof
"TheGeneralAssembly, theinternationalsupervisionenvisbytheCovenantof
"Having accepted, by resolution 4A9 (V) of 13 fulfil its obligationtowards the inhabitants of South-
December1950,theadvisoryopinionoftheInternational West Africa if it were notto assume the supervisory
Court of Justiceof 11July 1950with respectto South- responsibilitieswithregardtotheTerritoryof South-West
WestAfrica, Africa which wereformerly exercisedby the Leagueof
"Having regard, inparticular, to the'sopinion Nations',
onthe generalquestion,namely,'thatSouth,-WestAfrica
isaTenitoryundertheinternationalMandate:assumedby CourtofJustice that"e degreeof supervisiontobe exer-
theUnionof SouthAfricaon 17December1920'.andto cised by the General Assembly shouldn.. .exceed
the Court's opinion onquestion (a), namely, 'that ththat which applied under the Mandates System, and
Unionof SouthAfrica continuesto have theinternationashouldconform asfaras possibleto thprocedurefol-
League of Nations and in the Mandatefor South-Westthlowed in this respectby the Councilof the League of
Africaaswellastheobligationto transmitpetitionsfrom Nations' and that 'these observationsparticularly
the inhabitantsofthatTerritorv.thesu~ervunctions applicabltoannualreportsandpetitions',
tobeexercisedbytheUnited~ations,io whic6theannual "Havingadopted,byresolutio844 (IX )f11October
reportsandthepetitioar obesubmitted,andtherefer- 1954,a specialrulI?on the votiprocedur eo befol-
Continued on next page lowed by the GeneralAsremblyin takin,gdecisions on bythe United Nations.ThatOpinionwas accepted thesame
questionsrelatingtorepon:sand petitions concerning the yearbyuheGeneralAssembly asabasisforsupervisionover
TerritoryofSouth-WestAfiica, the administrationof the territory. Negotiations ensued
"Havingadoptedthis inadesire*toapply,asfaras between1the United NationsandtheUnionofSouthAfrica,
possible, and pending the:conclusionof an agreement but theseWere~IlS~~ces~fuIln. 1954,a Committeeof the
between the United NaticZlns the Union of south General Assemblydrafted setsofrulesofwhichone, RuleF
Africa, the procedure followed in that resIpectby the (setoutunder(a)oftheResolutionofNovember23d, 1954,
Councilof &he LeagueofNations', above), relatedtotheway inwhichdecisionsoftheGeneral
"Considering that somt:elucidationof the advisory Assemblywith regard to reportsand petitions wereto be
opinionisdesirable, mde. is withregardto thisRulethattheCoufl,s
has been sought. The Assemblywas primarilyconcerned
"RequeststheIntenlationalCourtofJusticetogivean with the question whetherRule F correspondstoa correct
advisory opinion on the followingquestions: interpretationof the following passage frthe Opinionof
"(a) Is thefollowing11ulon thevotingprocedure to 1950:
befollowedbytheGeneral.Assemblyacorrectinterpreta- "ThedegreeofsupervisiontobeexercisedbytheGeneral
tionof the advisoryo~iniclnof theln~rnaltionalCourtof Asselmblyshould not therefore exceed that which applied
Justiceof 11July 1950: undertheMandatesSystem,andshouldconformasfaras
" 'Decisionsof the General Assembly onquestions possible tothe procedure followedin this respectby the
relatingtoreportsandpe:ltitioncsoncerningtheTemtory Councilofthe LeagueofNations."
of South-WestAfrica s,hallbe regarded as important Having thusdefinedthequestionputto it,,theCourtcon-
questionswithinthe meaningof Article18,paragraph siderswhether thefirstpartofthissentence("The degreeof
2, oftheCharterofthelimitedNations.'? supervisionto beexercisedbytheGeneral Assemblyshould
"(6) If this interpreta1nf the advirsoryopinionof nottherefore exceed thatwhichapplied undertheMandates
the Court isnotcorrect,what voting procedure shoulde System") canbe correctlyinterpretedas extending to the
followedby the General Assemblyin takingdt:cisionson voting systemtobefollowedbytheGeneralAssemblywhen
questionsrelatingto reportsand,petitionsconcerningthe makingdecisionswithregardto reportsandpetitionscon-
TemtoryofSouth-WestA:Frica?" cerning the territoryof South-WestAfrica.It cometo the
On receiptoftheRequest,theCourthadgiven opportu- conclusionthat the words "thdegreeofsupervision"relate
to the Membersof the Nationsto sllbmit their to the extentof the substantivesupervision.andnot to the
views.TheGovernmentsoftileUnited state !f~merica, of mannerinwhichthecollectivewill ofthe General Assembly
theRepublicof Polandand ofIndiasubminc,dwrittenstate- is they not =la& to proceduralmatters.The
men&.The Governmentsof Israel and of ,theRepublicof shouldnotadoptsuchmethodsofsupervisionorimposesuch
china, whilenot writtenstatemf;nts,referreto conditionson the Mandatoryas areinconsistentwith the
theviews expressedby theirrepresentative!iin the oftheMandate Or witha properdegreeof
Assembly.TheGovernmentof Yugoslaviaindicatedthat it by the and the methods by the
was of the opinionthat the questionhad !beendealt with CounciloftheLeague0fNationS.Consequently,RuleFcan-
exhaustivelyby the ~ d ~ i ~O~i~ionof 1,950.~~tl~,the not beregardedas relevantto the "degreeof supervision",
s ~ ~ ~ - G ~ ~ ~of~the urlited Nationswmsminedto the and it .followsthat it cannotbe consideredas instituting a
cour thedocumentslikely ,,,hrowlight u,mn tl,equestion pater degreeof supervisionthanthatwhichwasenvisaged
and an introductorynotecommentingon th\esekuments. bytheCourtinitsOpinionof 1950.
Therewerenooralproceedings. Thisinterpretationis confirmedby an examinationof the
In its Opinionthe Court in the dtfimativeto the circumstanceswhichledtheCourttousethewordsinques-
firstquestionput:theRulese:ro;utin(a)oftheResolutionisa tion. In its Opinionof 1950,it wasnecessaryfor ito say
correctinterpretationof the winion givenby thecour tn what were theobligationsbindinguponthe Unionof South
1950.Thisreplymadeit un,,.aecessarfyor he Courtto con- Africa.It found that theobligationsrelating tothe adminis-
siderthesecondquestion. trationoftheterritory, and correspondito the sacredtrust
TheOpinionofthe wasunanimous- ThreeMembers of civilizationreferredto in Article22of the Covenant,did
of the Court-Judges B@idevant* K1aestadand Lauter- notlapseon thedissolutionof theLeagueof Nations.As to
pacht- whileacceptingthe t~perativclause:oftheOpinion, theobligationsrelatingto supervisionof theadministration,
reachedtheirconclusionsondifferentgroundsandappended the court, taking into consideratithe provisionsof the
totheOpinionStatements oftheirSeparate0pini0ln~. nother Charter,foundthat supervision hericeforthbe exer-
Memberof the Judge:K0jevnik0v9 also cisedbytheGeneralAssembly,but thatitshouldnotexceed
the operativeclause of the Opinion, appendedthereto a that which applied under the Mandates!;ystem. But the
declaration. Courthadnotthen hadtodealwiththe systemof voting.In
recognizing that thecompetencefthe GeneralAssembly to
* exerciseitssupervisoryfunctionswasbasedontheCharter,
* * itimplicitlyrecognizedthatthedecisionsofthat organinthis
connection mustbe taken in accordancewith the relevant
provisionsof the Charter, thatis, the provisionsof Article
InitsOpinion, theCourt 'tdeflystatesthe:factsleadingup 18. IftheCourthadintended that thelimitsto thedegreeof
totheRequestforOpinion.In itsAdvisoryOpinionof 1950, supervisionshouldbeunderstoodtoincludethemaintenance
theinternationalobligationsbindiuponit,intn:spectofthe Leagueof Nations,it wouldhave beencontradictingitself
' temtoryofSouth-WestAfrica,in accordancewiththeCove- andrunningcountertotheprovisionsoftheCharter. Accord-
nantof theLeagueofNationsandthe Mandate!!orthetem- ingly,theCourtfinds that the firstpartof the sentencemust
tory,andthatthesupervisoryfunctionswereto1~exercised beinterpretedasrelatingtosubstantivemattersandnottothe
35systemof voting which was applicablein the timeof the same. In theOpinjonof 1950, the Courthad said thatthe
LeagueofNations. General Assembly derivedits competence toexercise its
TheCourtthen proceedstoconsiderthe secondpartofthe supervisoryfunctionsfrom theCharter;it isthereforewithin
sentence, accordingto which the degree of supervision theframeworkof tlleCharterthatitmust findtherules gov-
"shouldconform asfaraspossible to thepnxedure followed erning themakingof its decisionsin connectionwiththose
inthisrespectbythe CounciloftheLeagueofNations":does functions. Itwould.e legallyimpossiblefor it, on theone
RuleFaccordwiththisrequirement?Whereasthe firsp tartof hand, to rely on the Charterin receiving and examining
thesentencerelatestosubstantivematters,thesecondpart is reportsand petiti0n.sconcerningSouth-WestAfricaand, on
proceduralincharacterandtheword "proce:dure"thereused the other hand,to reachdecisions relatingto these reports
referstothoseproceduralstepswherebysulpervision istobe and petitionsin accordancewith a voting systementirely
effected.Butthevoting systemoftheGeneralAssembly was alien to thatescrilndbytheCharter.
not in contemplationwhen the Court used these words. As to the expression "as far as possible", thiswas
Indeed, thequestionof conformityof the votingsystemof designed to allow for adjustmentsnecessitatedby the fact
the GeneralAssemblywiththatoftheCouncilofthe League that theCounciloftlleLeagueofNationswasgovernedbyan
ofNationspresentsinsurmountable difficuli'iosfajuridical instrumentdifferentfrom thatwhichgoverned theGeneral
nature,forthe votingsystemof anorganisoneof itsdistin- Assembly.For the linter,inthe matterofdetermininghowto
guishing features. Itis related toits compositionand func- makedecisions relaltingto reportsand petitions,therewas
tionsandcannot be transplanteduponanotherorgan without but onecourseopen..IthadbeforeitArticle18oftheCharter,
disregardingoneofthe characteristicsofthe.latter. which prescribes the methods for taking decisions.The
Opinionof 1950lefttheGeneralAssemblywithArticle18of
ThereisthereforenoincompatibilitybetweenRuleF and theCharterasthesolelegalbasisforthevoting systemappli-
the Opinionof 1950. It would, however. :seemclear that, cable.Itwasonthatbasis thatRuleFwasadopted.Inadopt-
Court,theGeneralAssemblywasproceedingontheassump-to the ingthatRule,it actedwithinthe boundsoflegalpossibility.
tionthattheCourthadusedtheword"procedure" asinclud- Rule Fthereforecorrespondsto acorrect interpretationof
ing the votingsystem.Evenso, the conclusionwould be the the Opinionof 1950.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 7 June 1955