Written Statement (South Africa)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS,ORALARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

LEGALCONSEQUENÇES FORSTATESOF THE

CONTlNUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN
NAMIBIA(SOUTHWEST AFRICA)

NOTWTTHSTANDINGSECWRlTY COUNClL
RESOLUTlON 276(1970)

VOLUME 1
Request for Advisory Opinion, Documents, Written Statements

COUR INTERNATIONALDEJUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS

CONSEQUENC JERIDIQUESPOUR LES ÉTATSDE
LA PR~SENCECONTlNUE DE L'AFRFQUEDU SUD

EN NAM1BIE(SUD-OUEST AFRICAIN)
NONOBSTANT LA RÉSOLUTION 276 (1970)
DU CONSEIL DE SECURITE

VOLUME 1

Requttpour avconsultadocumentsexposkcritsX NAMlBlA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

Page
Tntroduction ....................... 123

1. Proceedingsof the General Assemblywhichled to the adop-
tion of resolution 2145 (XXI) ............. 124
Consideration of the question of South West Africa as a
mütter of priority ................. 124
Documents before the General Assemblyin connection with
the item...................... 124
(1)Report of thespecialcorninittee andreportof thesub-
cornmittee on South West Africa ......... 124
(2)Dsaft resolutions and amendments ........ 125

(a) Draft resolution A/C.483 and Add. 1-3 and
arnendmenis which were adopted ....... 125
(b) A sub-amendment to the amendments containe...
document AIL.488. which was not adopted ... 129
. . (c) A draFt resolution which wasnot adopted 130
Adoption of General Assernblyresolution 2145 (XXI) and
. detailsofthe voting ................ 130
. Summary of viewsexpressedin the debate ....... 131
(1) Statemento made in introducing draft resolution
AlL.483 and Add . 1-3.............. 131
(2) Statement made in introducing amendments proposed
in document A1L.488 .............. 131
(3) Statemenrs made in the course of discussion.... 131

(a) Sponsors of draft resolution AIL.483and Add .
1.3 .................... 131
(b) tion AlL.483 and Addd .o1-3 but whichfvotedolin
..~ favour of the draft resolution........ 133

(i) Eastern European States......... 133
(ii) Western European and other States .... 135
(1)Western.European States ....... 135
(2) Other States ............ 137
(iii) Asian and AfricanStates ........ 140
(iv) Latin AmericanStates ......... 141
(cl Delegations which abstained inthe vote .... 143

(i) France ................ 143
(ii) United Kingdom ............ 144
(dj Dclegations which voted against the drafrreso-
lution AlL.483 and Add. 1-3 and the amend-
ments in document AIL.488 ......... 145
(i)Portugal ............... 145
(ii)South Africa.............. 145

General observations on resolution 2145 (XXI) ..... 146
II.Proceedingsof the Ad Hoc Cornmitteefor South West kffica
estabrished bj, resoluti2145 @XI) of the General Assern-
bly ......................... 147 CONTENTS iY1'

Page
.Proposais submitted.to theAd Hoc Cornmittee . . . . . 147
.(O) Proposa] by Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal and the
.United Arab Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
. .(b) Proposal by Chile and Mexico . , . . . . . . . . 148
.(cj Proposai by Canada, Italy and the United States . . 148
Transmission OF the three proposalsto the General Assem-
bly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
The propositions underlying ail-three proposals . . . . . 148
Differencesof view on praciical action . . . . . . . . . 149
Subjects on which unaniniity of viewexisted in the Ad Hoc
Cornmittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
, Proceedingsof thefifthspecialsessionof the General Assem-
.blywhich led to the adoption of resolution 2248(S-Vjof 19
May 1967. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Documents before the General Assemblyin connection with
theitem report of the Ad Hoc Cornmittee for SouthWest
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Draft resolutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Draft resolution AIL.516IRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . 150
Draft resolution AlL.517 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Adoption of resolution 2248 (5-V) . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Szatementsinthe generaldebaieand explmations ofvote. . 151
Sraiements by CO-sponsors of draft resolution AIC.5161
Rev. t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Statements by delegations which voted in favourof but
did not CO-sponsordraft resolution AIL.516IRev. I . . 153
'Statetnentsby permanent membersafthe Security Council
abstaining in the vote upon draft resolution AIL.5161
Rev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 154
Statements by Western European and other States (other
than permanent members of the Security Council) ab-
stainingin thevote.upon draft remlution A/L.516/Rev.
1 ....................... 154
Stingminthe vote upon draft resolution A./L516/Rev. I. . 156
Statements by members of the Eastern European group
abstaining in the vote upon draft resoIution A/L.S16/
Rev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Statement opposing the adoption ofdraft resolution AIL.
5161Rev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 157
Statements by delegations absent durlng the vote upon
draft-resolution AIL.SI6IRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . 157
General observations on General Assenibly resolution 2248
(S-v> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . 157
, Survej~of General Assembly resolutions relatingto Namibia
adopted subsequent ta GeneraI Assembly resolutions 2145
(XXI} and 2248 (S-V) , . .. . . .;. . . . . . . . . . 158
Resolutions 2324 (XXri) and 2325 (XXII) of 16 December
1967 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)
Page
Resolution 2324 (XXII) ............... 158
Resolution 2325(XXII) ............... 158

Resolution 2372 (XXIl) of 12June 1968 ........ 158
Resolution 2403 {XXILl)of 16 December 1968...... 159
Resolution 2498{XXIV) of 31 October 1969 ....... 159
ResoIution 2678[XXV)of 9 December 1970....... 150
V .Praceedings leading fo Security Council resolution 245
(1968) ....................... 160
Request for a meeting of the Security Counci...... 160
Meeting ofthe Security Council ............ 161
Documents before the Securjiy Council in çonnection with
the question considere............... 161
Adoption of Security Cowncil resolution 245 (1968.... 161
Sumrnaryof viewsexpressed inthe debate........ 161
General observations on Security Council resolution 245
(1968) ...................... 163
VI .Proceedings leading to Secürity Council resolution 246
(1968) ...................... 164
Request for a meeting of the Security Counci...... 164
Meetings of the SBcurityCouncil ............ 164
Documents befor e.the Security Council......... 164

(b) Draft resolutioSI8429pand amendments... ..... 164
184
Adoption of Seruriiy Council resolution 246 (196.... 166
Provision in resolution 246(1968) referrito General As-
sernblyresolution 2145 (XXT) ............ 166
Summary of vicwsexpressed in the debat........ 166
Statesrnot members of the Security Council....... 170
General observations on Security Council resolution 246
(1968) ...................... 171

VI1 .Proceedings leading to Security Council resolution 264
(1969) ...................... 171
Request for a meeting ofthe Security Council...... 171
Meetings of the Security Council............ 171
Documents before the Security Council ......... 172
Communications .................. 172
Draft iesolution.................. 172
Adoption of Security Council resolution 264(1969).... 173
Summary of views expressed in the deba........ 173
General observations on Security Corincil resolution 264
(1969) ...................... 177

VIII. Proceedings leading ro Security Council resolution 269
(1969) ...................... 177
Request for ameeting of the Security Council ...... E77
Meetings of the Security Counci............ 178
Documents before the Securiry Council......... 178 Page
. Les responsabilitéssptciales des ,Nations UniAs l'égarddu
peuple et du territoire de la Nami........... 217
Le rblede I'Assembliegknérale .............. 218
Le droit du peuple de Namibia I'autodetermination et il'indé-
pendance ....................... 220

III. La prksencecontinue de l'Afriquedu Sud en Namibie.... 225
A quel titrel'Afrique duSud est présen.......... 225
. Le r8le du Conseil de sécuri............... 237
L'occupation illéga................... 234
La responsabilitde l'Afriquedu Sud ........... 235
IV .Conséquencesjuridiques pour les Etats .......... 237

Autoritéterritariale................... 237
Relations diplomatiques, cansulaires et au........ 238
Traitks et accords internationau............. 239
CRelations))et activitésrelatives au commercaux investisse-
ments etau tourisme .................. 241
Obligations correspondantes ............... 242
V . Conclusion....................... 245
'
Annexe A: Résolutionsadoptées par l'Assembléegknéraleconcer-
nant expressernentla Namibie (Sud-Ouestafricai....... 247
Annexe B: Lois adoptéespar le Parlement sud-africain ecensées
s'appliquer Ala Namibiequi ont ktépromulguéesen Nainibie ou
dont l'application aurait étéétendaela Nainibie après octobre
.1966 ........................... 252

ETUDE DES DEBAT DE L'ASSEMBLÉ CE~NÉRALE ETDU CONSEI LE SECU-
RITRELATIFSÀ LA CESSATIONDU MANDAT SUR LA NAMIB ITMESURES
PRISESX LA SUITE DE CEDEBAT SDOCUMENT SOUMIS A LACOUR INTER-
NATIONALE DE JUSTIC EU NOM DU SECR~TAT AIRN~RA DE L'ORGA-
NISATION DESNATIONU SNIES) ................. 260
Intfoduction ........................ 260

. 1. Débats qui ont conduit i l'adoption de la résolution2145
(XXI) de l'AssembléegénCrale.............. 261
Examende la question du Sud-Ouest africaien prioritk . . 261
Documents dont l'Assembléegénéraleétait saisieAl'occasion
de l'examen delaquestion .............. 261
1) Rapport du Comitéspécialet rapport du Sous-Comitédu
Sud-Ouest africai.................. 261
2) Projets de resolutions et amendement......... 262

a) Projet de résolutionAIL.483 et Ad.1 à 3 et amende-
ments quiont étéadoptés ............. 262
h) Sous-amendement aux amendements contenus dans le
document AIL.448,qui n'a pas étéadopté ...... 267
c,JProjet de rtsolution qui n'a pastté ado...... 267
Adoption de la résolution2145 (XXI) de I'Assernbltegénérale
et analyse du vote.................. 267
Résumédes vuesexpriméeslors du débat ......... 268

1) Dkclarations faiteà l'occasionde la prksentation du
projetde résolutioAIL.483 et Add .1 A3 ...... 268XVI NAMIBIA (SOUTPIWEST AFRICA)

Page
Adoption de la rtsolutiori22448(CS-V). . . . . . . . . . . 290
Déclarationsfaites au cours de la discussion gtnéraleerexpli-
cations de vote. . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . 240
Déclarationsfaites par des délégations iîgiiranau nombre
des auteurs du projet de résoIutionA/L.516/Rev. I . . . 290
Déclarationsfaites par des délégationqs uiont votéenfaveur
du projet de réso4utionAlL.5 1GIRev.1 mais qui ne figu-
raient pas au nombre de ses auteurs . . . . . . . . . 292
Déclarations faitespar les membres permanents du Conseil
de stcurite qui se sont abstenus lors duvore sur le projet
de résolutionAIL.516lRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Dkclarations faites par des Etats de l'Europe de l'Ouest et
par d'autres Etats(autres que les membres permanents du
Conseil de sécurité)qui se sont abstenus lors du vote sur
Ieprojet de rksolution A/L.S16/Rev. 1 . . . . . . . . 294
Déclarations faites par des membres du Croupe afro-asia-
résolutionAIL.5161Rev.enu1 .o. .du. . .. su. .e.pr. . . . 295
Déclarations faitespar les Etats de l'Europe de l'Est quise
sont abstenus lors du votc sur le projet de rksolution
A/L.Sl6jRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Otclaratian Faitepar unedéltgationopposéeAl'adoption du
projet de rtsolution AlL.516IRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . 296
Dtclarations faites par des dtlégationsabsentes lors du vote
sur le projet de résolutioAIL.5161Re 1v... . . . . . 296
Observations générales concernant la résolution2248 (S-V) de
l'Assembléegénérale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
IV. Etude des rksolutions adoptées par l'Assembléegknérqale au
sujet dela Namibie postérieurement aux résolutions2145 (XXT)
et 2248 (S-V) de l'Assembléegénérale, . . . . . . . . . . 297
Résolutions2324(XXII)et2325(XX 16dI)cdembre1967 . 297

Résolution2325 (XXII)I) .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . 297

Rtsolution 2372(XX11)du 12juin 1968. . . . . . . . . . 298
Résolution2498 (XXIV) du 3 11octobre 196968. .. .. .. . . .. 299
Résolution2678 (XXV) du 9 décembre1970 . . . . . . . . 299

V. D6bats qui ont abouti à I'adoption de la résolution245(1968)
du Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Demande de réuniondu Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . 300
Réuniondu Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Documents dontleConseiIde stcurité étaitsaisipour l'examen
de la question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Adoption de la résolution245 (1968) du Conseil de séciaité. 301
Observations généraleseconcernant la rksolution 245 (1958) du1
Conseil de sécuritt . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 303

VI. Débats quiont abouti l'adoption de la résolution246 (1968)
du Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 COmENTS XVII
Page

Demande de réunion du Conseil de sécurité ........ 303
Documents dont le Conseilcudetsécuritéétait saisi...... 304

a) Lettres et rapports ................ 304
b) Projet de résolution SI8429et amendements ..... 304
Adoption de la résolution 246 (1968) du Conseilde sécurité . 306
Dispositions de la résolution 246 (1968) se référanta la résolu-
tion 2145 (XXI) de l'Assembléegénérale ........ 306
Résumédesvues exprimées au cours de Ia discussion.... 306
Ems membres du Conseil de sécurité.......... 307
Erats non membres du Conseil de skcurité ........ 310
Observations générales coricernant la résolution 246 (1968) du
Conseil de sécurité .................. 311

VIT. Débats qui ont abouti a l'adoption de la résolution 264(1469)
du Conseil de stcuritt .................
Demande de rkunion du Conseil de sécurité ........
Réunions du Conseil de sécurité .............
Documents dont le Conseil de sécuritéétait saisi ......
Lettres .......................
Projet de résolution .................

Adoption de la résolution 264 (1969) du Conseil de stcurité .
Rksumtdes vues exprirnkes au cours de la discussion ....
Observations généralesconcernant la résolution 264 (1969)du
Conseil de sécurité ..................
VI11. Débats quiont abouti a l'adoption de la résolution 269 (1969)
du Conseil de sécurité .................
Demande de réunion du Conseil de sécurité ........
Réunions du Conseil de sécurité .............
Documents dont le Conseil de sécuritkétait saisi ......
Lettres et rapporis ..................
Projet dc rksol~ition .................

Adoption de la résolution 269 (1969) du Conseil de sécurité .
Résumédes vues expriméesau cours de.la discussion ....
Observations généralesconcernant la résolution 269 (1969) du
Conscil de sécurité ..................
IX. Débats qui ont abouti l'adoption de la résolution276 (1970)
du Conseil de sécuriit .................
Demande dc rkunion du Conseil de stcurité ........
Rkunions du Conseil de sécurité .............
Documents dont le Conseil desécuritéétait saisi ......
Lettres et rapports .................. 324
Projet de résolution ................. 325

Adoption de la résolution 276 (1970) du Conseil destcurité . 326
Résumé des vues expriméesau cours de la discussion .... 326
Observations généralesconcernant la résolution 276 (1470)du
Conseil de sécurité .................. 331XVIII NAMIBIA (SOUTH WESTAFRICA)

Page
X .Débatsqui ont abouta l'adoption de la résolution283 (1970)
du Conseildesécuritk ................. 332

Demande deréuniondu Conseil de skcuri........ 332
Réuniondu Conseil de sécurit............. 332
Documents dant le Conseil de sécurittesais...... 332
Rapport du Sous-Comitk ad ho............ 332
Projets de rCs~luti................. 332

i) Projet de résoluSI9891............ 332
ii) Projde résolutionSI989............ 333
Adoption dela résolution283 (1970) du Conseil de séc.r333
Resunnedes vues exprimaes acoursde ldiscussion.... 333
Observations généralsoncernantIarésolution283(1970)du
Conseilde sécurit.................. 337
XI .Debats qui ont abouti hl'adoptdenla résoIution284(1370)
du Conseil de sécurité 338
..................
Débats auseindu Sous-Coniitad lzo........... 338
Débats du Conseil de sécuratsa1550'séarice ...... 341
XII. Résuméde l'étudedes débats.............. 344

Annexe concernant les efdeti'abstention volontaire des membres
.permanents du Conseidesécurité.............. 346
WRI~ENSTATEMEN OF THE GOVERNME NT THE KINGDOM OF THE

NETHERLAND ......................... 350
WR~TTEN STATEMEN OFTTHE GOVERNMEN OFTHE POL~SH PEOPLE'RSE-
PUBLIC ............................ 354

WR~EN STATEMEN OF THEGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTA ........ 355

WRITTEN STATEMEW OF THE GOVERNMEN OTTHE'HUNGARIAP NEOPLE'S
REPUBLI .......................... 359

LETTE RROMTHE AMBASSAD OFRHE CZECHOSLO VACIAL~S.....LIC
TO THEPRESIDEN QF THEINTERNATION CALURT OFJUSTICE 361

F~R~TTE STATEMEN OF THEGOVERNME OFTFINEAND ........

1. lntroductory rernark..................
I. The legal consequences for SoAfrica..........
II1. The legconsequencefor orher Mernbersofthe United Nations
than South Afric....................
1V. The Iegalconsequences for States not rnernbers of the United
Nations ........................

Chapter 1. Introductio...................
Chapter T.The interpretatiand modification of treaties.
A .Introductor.......................
B. Interpretation of treat................ Page
II. Separate opinion of Judge Eustamante ........ 695
TI1.Dissenting opinion of JudgesSir PercySpendecand Sir
Cerald Fitzniaurice ................ 696
IV. Dissenting opinion of Judgevan Wyk ........ 698
V. The Judgment of the Court ............. 698
VI. Separate opinion of Judge Sessup .......... 703
VI1 . Sepasate opinion of Sudge Sir Louis Mbanefo ..... 704
VIII. Dissenting opinionsof President Winiarski.JudgesBasde-
vant and Morelli and Declaralionof Judge SpiropouEos . 705
.F . The '1966Judgmentand separate opinions ......... 706
1. General ..................... 706
11. The Sudgrnen tf the Court ............. 705

(a) The Court's analysis of the mandates in the context
of the Leapue system ..............
. (b) The Court's view asto the events in the transitional
period 1945-1946 ...............
(c) of 'fillingin the gaps"'..............e ina process
(d) Conclusion tobe drawn from the Court's approach .

111. Separateopinion of Judge van Wyk .........
IV. Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Wellington Koo . .
VI. Dissenting opinion of JudgeJessupa............
VI1. Dissenting opinion of JudgePadilla-Nervo ......
VI11. Dissenting opinion of Judge Sir Louis Mbanefo ....

G . Conclusion ......................
Chapter X. The validity and legal effectoGeneral Assemblyreso-
lulion 2145 (XXI) .....................
A . Introductory ......................
B. The origin andmbit of the powersof the General Assernbly. .
C. The powers of the General Assernbly in relation to the present
.. .que$tion. .... , , , . , , . +! i ........
D. The nature and legal effect of &neral Assernbly resoluiion
2145 (XXI) ......................
E . Conclusion ......................
Chapter...I. The factualissu. a . .......4......
A . Intraductory ...... : ...............
B. The political background to the adoption of resolution 2145
wl) .........................
C . The attacks on South Africa'sadministration of theTerritory .
1. General .....................
II. Thc quality and sources of the çriticisragainst South
Africa'çpolicles ..................
II. Reactions to expbsitions of the tfue fact.......

(a) The visit of Mi.Caipio and Dr .Martinez de Alva to
South WestAfrifa ', ..............XXlV NAMlRlA {SOUTH WEST AFRICA)
'Page

WRITTEN STATEME NT THE GOVERNME ONT THE UNITEDSTATES OF
AMERKA ........................... 842
lntroductory ........................ 843

TheQuestion ....................... 843
Issues presented...................... 843
jurisdiction of the Cour.................. 843
Part T.Statenlent of fac................... 845
South Africa's administration of South West Africa under the
League of Nations Mandate ................ 845
The 1950Advisory Opinion ................. 846
The 1955 AdvisoryOpinion ................. 847
The 1956Advisory Opinion ................. 848
The cont~ntious cases ................... 848
General AssernbEyresolution 2145&XI) and subsequent General
Assernblyand Security Council resolutions......... 849

Part I. Stateinentoflaw ................... 852
Chapter f. The United Nations validly terminated South Africa's
Mandate overthe Territory of Namibia .......... 852
Section 1. Scopeof the question.............. 852
Section TI.The Mandate as a treaty in force........ 854
Section TT.1There is a legal obligation to observtreaties in
good faith ...................... 855
Section IV. A material breach of a treaty entitlesthe other party
to suspend its operation in wholorin part........ 856
Section Y. The League of Nations had the right to terminate
rightsndera mandate in the evcnt oa materia! breach of its
obligations bythe Mandatory Fower ........... 857
Section VI. The United Nations succeeded to the right to ter-
minate South Africa's mandate in the event of a material
breach ........................ 860
Section VFI.Sbuth Africa has been in material breach of its
inandate obligations.................. 863

A . By refusing to submit reports, transmit petitions, and
otherwise recognizethe authoritythe United Nations .. 863
B. By systernatic rejection of the recommendationOF the
General Assenlbly and the Security Counci...... 864
C. By application ofapartheidin Namibia ........ 864
1.Freedorn of movernent .............. 856
2 Freedom of residence and right to own land.... 867
3. Freedom of employment ............. 867
4. Right to participate in governme......... 868
5. The rightto family lif.............. 868
6. The right to education.............. 869

Section VI1T.The United Nations had theright to terminaie
Soiith Africa'sauthority under the Mandate becauof South
Africa's material breaches of its mandate obligations, and
such terminatiowas a reasonable exerciseof United Nations
supervisory authority................. 871
Section 1X. The United Nations has the legal capacity to as-
sume the functionof the Mandatory Power ........ 872 CONTENTS XXV

Page
Chapter 11.South Africa hy virtue of itç conrinupresence in

Namibia notwithstanding SecurityCouncil resolution 276(1970)
isoccupyingNamibiaille~allandis obligateto rransferadminis-
tration oNamibia to the United Nations ......... 874
Section 1. South Africa isin illegaloccupation of Nami. . 874
SecrionII. South Africa should have transferrod the admini-
straiion of Namibia to the United Nation........ 876

Chapter 111. From South Africa's cantinued presence in Namibia
flow certain legal consequecnes for South Africa and other
States ......................... 878
Section 1.South Africa has certain dutics conçerning Namibia
under international law................. 878
A. The duty iinder the Mandate to promote thewell-beingand

developmeniof theinhabitants isimpressedupon theTerri-
tory and survives terinination of South Africa's rights
under the Mandate................. 878
B. South Africa lus the duty to act in conformity with
Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter concerning
non-self-governingterritori............. 880
C. South Africa has thc duty to act in conforrnity with
Chapter IX and other provisions of the United Nations
Charter. ..................... 881
D. South Africa has the duty under general international
lawto adhere to certain standaintheadministration of
Namibia as occupied territory............ 881
E. The preceding duties are unaffected by the Factthai South
Africa is occupying Namibia illegal......... 882
Section II.Stateshave certain duties under international law
with respectto Namibia among which are:

A. To respect the direcr responsibility of the Nations
for Namibia .................... 882
B. To apply certailegalrules with respect to treaffect-
ing Namibia .................... 884
Part IIT .onclusions .................... 888

LETTR Eu SECRÉTAIRED'ETA TUPPLÉANT AUX AFFAIRESÉTRANG~RES DE LA
REPUBLIQU SOCIALISTE FEDERATI VEE YOWCOSLAV A~ELA COURWKITTENSTATEMENTS

EXPOSES ÉCRITS WRITTEN STATEMENTOF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRlCA

CHAPTER I

INTRODCCTION

1.On 29 July l970 the SecurityCouncil purported to adopt the following
resuiution(descrihedas rcsslution 284(1970)):

"The Security Council,
Rmffirmingthe spial responsibil:yof theUnitcd Nations with regard
to the territory and iht:peopof Namibia,
Rectzlling SecuritCouncil resoIuiinn 276 (1970) on the question of
Namibia,
7àkiw noreofthe report 'andrecommendations submittcd bythe Ad
HucSub-CornmitteecsrablishedinpursuanceofSccurityCounciIresoIution
276 (1970),
ïirkin frdzer noreorthe rccomrnendation otthe Ad HocSub-Commit-
teeon the possibilityof requestingan advisory opinion from the Inter-
nationaICourt of Justice,
Considcring thatan advisoryopinion from the 1nternationaICourt üf
JusticewouId beusefulfurtheSecuriiy CounciIinitsftirther consideration

of theqiiestioof Naniibiaand infurtherance of theobjectivesthcCoun-
cil is seeking
1. Decides tosubmj:in accordance with Article96 f 1of the Charter,
jhe Following ques~iorito the International Couri of Justice with the
requestForan advisory opinion rvhichshallbe transrnittedtotheSecurity
CounciI atan early &je:

'Whatart:fhc lcgalconsequencesfor Statesof the continucd presence
ofSouthAfsica inNiimibia,notwithstandinpSecurityCouncilresolution
276 (1970)?'
2. Reqlresrsthe Socritary-Generaltotransmitthe present resohtion to
thc International Coult ofJustice, in accordancc wiih Article 65 of the
Statute of the Coiirt, accornpanicby utI documentsIikeIy to rhrow Iight
upon rhequestion 2."

2. Having receiv eue n-stificationin termsof Arti64of theStatuteofthe
Court, theSouth AfriçanG-svernmcntdccided tosubniitthis writtenstatement
and, in principle,to participateiiithe Iater st~gw of the proceedings.This
decision dm no;-impIy ariy recognili oofthe mmpetenvc of the Court to
furnishrhe opiriionrerluesri:indccd as wilappear below,itisconrendcd that
theCoun infact lacksuchcornpetence and,altcrnaiively.thaeven ifithnsthe

compctcnce, itshould,as a matter ofjudicial proprietydwline ta exerciseit.
Nor, ofcourse, dues the decisionimplyanyircknowledgment on thepartof the
Soulh Alrican Oovernrnentthat the opinion, iffurnished,c,- h<ve arly greater
. ,
-.
UN doc.S/9853(7 July 11170).
UN doc. SIR~~S/284(291uly41Y7~}. . . . , wI<ïrrE? STAI'EM~NTOF soLrH AFRICA 379

furtiish thopinio nequested,itwould haveto consider allquestionswhich are
necessaryin Iogic tothc deier'minaiionof the qua3tionbcforc il'.
In the prcsentcase the Cbtirt has bccn iiskedto pionounce upon the Iegal
consequenoes for Sratcs of South Africa's continucd prwnce in Suuih Wat
Africa, noiwithstanding rc:;vlution 276 (1970). In order to do this the first
question it mus1 decide is rvhelher South Africa's prexnce thei-eis lawSu1 or

unlawful and tliiswill depestdupon whether resolution 276 (1970),assuminp il
io he formaiIyvalid, is alw in1-insicalvalid, andif sntvhat lcgal eflecithas.
Howvever,thcsc questions crnnot be decided withoiii alsodeciding the validty
of thc wgriate re?oIutiunsiipon whichresolutioii276 (1970) is based.
Chapters V to XI of this :<tatemencontain the South African Goveriiment's
submissionson thcx qutsiicins. The purposeof thac chaptersisto demonstrate
thar South Africa'sprcçcnçe in South West Africa is lawful andthat rhc IcgaI
conwquences rhereof for StatesfaIItobedctcrtnined on rhat hasis.
8. Chapter V will bc dcvoted to the question of ~hcintrinsic validity of

resolution 276(1970). Irwill k shown thatthis resolutionwas invalidin that it
was based upon and hatl as itsvtry rrrisodclrc, General Assernblyresolution
2145 (XXC] 2,which for ratsons expounded in (Ihapters VI to XI, infra,was
itself invalidand voidof le;yaIeffecr.Butcven ifthe validity of rhc Iattcr rcso-
lution be itcccptd,it wiIlb:rnuintai nhad resolution276 (1970) stid related
resolutions cannonethcl~sshave no legal consequenccs for States inasmuch as
they wre not adopted in acmrdancewith the provisioiisof thCharter andarc
thc~cfore intrinsically invalid. ChupterV will conclude wilh the alternative
contention thatevenif rcsrilution276 (1970) were to bercgardcd asvalid, ifs
effectan beno more thanr.xori~mendatory.

9. As intimatcd above. Chapiers VI to XI hcreof wiIl be devoted to the
consideration of questionss-crrnaiito Gcneral Assemhly rcsolution 2145 @XI)
(save that Chaptcr XI, which dealswith certain fac(ua1iiiatterisalso of somç
rclevnnce iiiconncction with thc validity of SecurityCouncil resolution 27G
(1970)).Sinc ethas been fvundireccssary 10 dividethe niatcrjalconceming the
validiiy oGcneraI Assemb l resoIuion 2145 (XXUinto more thanone chapier,
a xparate introduction has bccnprovided in ChapterVI for thesepartsof the
written siaiement. It isaccordingly unnecesary to surnmürize Chaptcrs VI
to XI here and it sufficetc.say fhat they wilscrvc io demonstraiethat, ifthe
Mandatefor South Wst PJrica rcmained in existenceafrer thedissolution of

the Leaguc of Vations, rcs3Iution 2145 (XXI) could not anddid trot haveils
purported effcct of temiinating theMandate.'I'he conxquence u~ouIdthen bc
that thc Mandate stillexistsand ihatSouth Afriw's presencein Soüih West
Africa isIeyalIy unirnpeachable.
IO. The concIusio stna~edin the pxvious pnragraph rendei-situnneccssary
to devoie extensiveattenticm to thequcstion whetherthe Mandate as an insti-
tution did siirvivethedissoliilion of the LcagiieThe South AfriczinGovern-
ment has consistcntly ntaiiitaincdthatitdid nnt, and has presented dctailed
argument beforethis Court in support of its conteiitionj.by which itahides
and which itreqiiestsshould be regarded as jncorporatedhcrcin, Itis cvident

ihar if thesecontentions tie accepteci,theremuid have ken no IegaI basis

Vide Ciai.t~iExpenses (fth? UiriietNotions (Ar:iclr17,puragruph2, of the
Clrarrer),AdvisoryOpinicrn, 1,C.I. Reporrs 1962pp. 157,182, I98,217, 736, 253
and 288.
? By which theCiencra1 !cssemblysought to terminacc triMandate for South
West hrrica.
Vid~ iiCiiIPlcnding~,SiWh lkr..riAfrico, Vol. pp. 165 ci s~q.380 NAMlOtA (SOUTH WEST AYKICA)

forGeneraIAssernhtyrwlution 2145 (XXT)and thesubsequentUnited Nations
action inrespezrof South West Africiiincluding SccurityCouncil rcsolution
275(1970).inpart icularthe GeneralAssembIywouldhave had no authoriry to
terminatethe Maiidate (which ex hhyofiesi would no Ionger have boenin

existence)to make any pronouncementun South AFrica'sright io adiiiinister
~heTcrritory, rirto brjng the Tcrntoryunder the direcircsponsibiiilyof the
United Nations l.And, aswill he demonîtrated klow ',the vaIidity ofal1
subsequeritLnited Nationsaction concerning SourhWest Africa dependcd
on the assumeci etTectivenesof General Asseinbly rcsûlution 2145 (XXI).
Itis aciordinglyclcachat if theMandatcIapsedupon thedissolution of rhe
League, al[Unitcd Nations resolutions which are relevanto the preseniissuc,
wcrc entirrly misconceiveci,and of no force and eff~t. Othe othcr hand, as
intirnatedabovc,the same resultwould cnsue evenifitwerepostulatedtharthe

MandateJid survivethc dissolution of theLeague ofNations.Inwhat foIIows
it wilacccirdinglybeassumed, for purposesofargument, thaithe Mandatedid
sosurvive.

VVide<:hap.V,sec.B,uinfrti.45 (XXI), quotin Cliap.VI.para. 1, infra. CHAPTEK TI

THE INTERPRETATIOKAND MODIFICATION OF TREATIES

1. Inhisdissentingopinion in1966,Jjudg'I'anak aaid:
"Inshort the ditferenc#ofopinions nn thcquestionsbefore us iinthe
fina[instance artributrto thcdiff~rencehetween two melhods ofintcr-

pretation: teIeoloçicorsociologicaand canceptionaIor formalis t."c
Inthe conkat Judge Tanaka was referring mort: swcifjcaÏitoquesrions
rdating to the suggesto srccmsion ufGniied Nations organs tothc supcr-
visory fiinciions previouslyexercisedin respoftMandates,by {thekague of
Nations. 'rhcsarnequestiofisrequireconsiderationthc prweedings also.
In addition a numberof dificult and impurlanimattersconcerningthc inier-
prctationoftheCovenantof theLeagueofNations, theUnited Nations Charter

and certain othcrinstrumeiitsrnahave iahe deaItwilh in any opinion which
theCourt rnaydecideto funiish. Ithisregardconsiderat mion aIsohaireto
be given to the tffeci an,veightof ~hesubscquent conduct oftheparties to
such instrumcnts.Ln respectalsoof these matters, whichwere not before the
Court in 1966,the approach adoptcd by theCourtmy have an important,il
not dechive,&ring on theutfiniateconclusio resached.
Itis proposcdthereforet-J eoutbrieftl heprinciplw eliichilissubrnitted,
the Court shouId appIy in interpretingtwaiies, conventionsor othcr similar
instrumentsembody inginti:rnationaIobligations,anindeterminingthe effoct
and weight to bc accorde dosubsequencconducc as anelertrent affectithe
meaningofsuch instrumcni5.

I.The Aim oi Purposr offhe InterprctatiProcess

2. 11is a well-establishcd principlof international law-thrit the aior
purposc of ireaty interpretrtionis to ascertind giveeffecttothe cnrnmon
intentofthe partie sh.i,xouldapprar toh a necessaryconsequence of the
principltthaftreati oesc tlheirenferinlaw to rhejoint orcommon consent
of the partiesthereto. oAlection ofthen-cxisting authoritiesfotheçe pro-
positionsrnaybefoundin thc pleadingsoftheSouth West Ajiicucases 2.
3. More recently thc principlcsof trealy interpretatwere considered at
theUnited Xations Confe~mceon the Law of Treaties,which culminateilin
the 1969VieiennCunventic~n on thcLaw oîTreaties. Articl3esand 32of the
Convention read asfollows:

"Article31

1. A treaty shallbi:inttrp~ted in good Tairhin'accordancewith the
-. --

South W~srAfricu,Second Pkase,dudgnzenI.C.J.Reports1966, p.278.
* LC.J. PfeorIings,SotWest Afrirn, VoIVII.pp.37-40. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WGTH AFRICA 383

thoughi accept, howeverthai ihc true aimof iiiterpretationis to asccrtain ihc
cornmon intentof theparties.
Juristswhocrnphasi7cas~lt.c(tcl, donnf noccssarily aupt thisbasicassump-
tion.'ihus theComrniss~o n;tatod:

"Sonie give grcal weight tothe objecland purposc of the treatyandare
in conxqiience inore i,eadycspccialIyin iIie case of generalmuttilatcral
ireati eos,dmittelcological interpretationsof the text whichgo btyond,
oreven d~verg feorn,theoriginalintentionsof thepariiesasexpressed inrhe
text'."

The Commission no~ed rhatthe textual approach, whiçh was followtulin its
recommcndationç,cnjoyed the support of rhernajorityof jurists'and of the
Lnstirutof International1.:I\z.Moreovcr,thc Corritnissionstated,

".. .the jurisprudencx of the TriternationalCourt contains many pro-
nounccrncnrt rsm wkiich it is permissiblclo concliidc that the texrual
approach to treatyinterprctationisregarded by itas esrahlishcdlaw I".

4. The draft proposcd by thc Commission ivas extcnsive[ydebatcd during
the meetingsof theCcimrniitee oftheU'holcof the UnitedNations Conferencc
an ihc Law ofTrcaties'.
I'rofcssur Myres S. McEiciugal,represenling rhe ijnitcdStates of Amcrica,.
criticizedthc drafon thehisis, inrtrraiio, that fhc."rigid andrestrisystern"
introduced thereby "çouId bc ernpIoyed by interprcterstriirnposc upon the
partiesto alreatyagreenieiitsthattheyhad never made '". Headded :

"Thc parties toa lreatycnuldwcll have a cornmon intentquitediffcrcnt
from thatexpressedby the 'ordinary'meaning of thc tcrrnsused in the
text.The imposition upon theparties of certainüIIeged'ordinary' niean-
ings,cornbined with i:he predusionary hierarchyof means set forth in
Articles [3I and 321, i:ould leadto the arbitrarydistortion of theirreaI
intentionsI."

A Unitcd Statesanienùntent was accordingly proposed to obviarethe stated
objections tothedraft.
The InternationalLaw C:ommission drart Kas, howcvcr,strongIy supported
by othcr rcprcwntatives, in particular by the represenrative of Uruguay,
Proîessor (now Judse) E. .firntnc-de Arechaga, who was also Rapporteur of
tlie Cornmitteeof the Whole. He referredto atithoritiessirpportingthe ~hool
of thoughi which "basedirrterpretaijnnon thc tcxt or the rreaty"and quotd,
inlerrtfiutheopinionofjutigc Hukr totheefect tht :

". . . if parties werc to k allowcd frcclyto iiivoke theisüpposcd rwl
will, an essentialridvaiitagcoihewritten and conventional ItiwwouIdbe
lost. Thetext signet1 vustheonly, and tlimost rccent,expitssion of rhe
cornmon wiIl otlieparties>."

, Kegardingtheeffrçt to tcpiven to the objectand purpose of a treaty, Jiidge
/ deAréchagasaid:
-.

Vide Yeurhwk uj'rhe In!ernri/ioirnl Law Commissii966, Vol.11, p.218.
Ibid.,p.220.
3 Vide United ,\rd'riritsiinfcr~noce ikr Lunjof Trmtirs, OR. Firsi Session.
Vienna, 26Mar.-24 May 19titl.pp166-185.384 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WE~I AFRICA)

, "The C~ornrnissioIni.e., the International LawCornniibsion] had dclib-
entely referredro thc objcct and purpose of thetreaty asthe most impor-
tant part of the content, notas an independentelernent, since the lattcr
mursc niight Iead to distorted intcrpre~oriuns,and opcn thc door to the
teieo1ogicaIniethod ihat niight resultin a subjectiveaiid self-ititeresled
appruach '."

Thc attitudedefendedbythereprcsentiiiiveofUruguay rweivcd widesupport :.
It isnot proposed ioanaIyse the argunientsadvaiicedby the supporters of the
drafiinanydctail but two points,rep.atcdIy niade,requirecmphasis,viz., that
thcactuaI tcxt of a rreatyis thesafat atd most rcliablcindicationnf the inten-
tions of the parties thcrctaon,d ihat itwould be,in the words of ihe CSSR

delegatc, "pulitically dangerous ... [tu] permit an arbitra? intcrpretation
divorcedf:om the textandcapableof alteringitsrneaning '".
lnthe result, the United Statesamendment was rejectedin the Cumliiilieç
of the Wholc by 66 votes to8, with IOabstentions *. AL~hc thirtcenthplenary
mcctingofthe Conferencethedraftarticlesunderdiscussion were unanimously
approved--drafiArticIc27 (Art.3 1in thefinaiconvention)by97votes 10 Oand
draftArticle28(thepresentArt.32) by IO1votes100
5. As appars froni ihediscussion above, the testual approach is noanly in
accordaircewiih logic as being hased iipon tlte fundamental principleof the
consentof theparties.but ithas rewivcd theimprimnrurboth oftheInlemativn-

aI Law Ccinirnission,which iscomposed of wme qf the world's mosi highly
qualified~iublicists,and of the Court (whichagain in1966rejectedthe leleo-
logicalpriilciplwith specificrcfcrcncctosrime ofthc issuearisinginthiscaçc) *.
Most important ofall,it hasreceivte he unanimous endorsement of theStates
theniselve:;+f this, the proceedings ai the Vienna Confcrencc:provide con-
clusiveprtiof.
. 'I'hisCrinference was of the greatesi significance in the development and
wdifiotivn of the Law of Treaties. No fewcr thm 110 State, 9 Spccialized
Agencics and 5 intergovcrnmentalorganiztitioiis participated in i t. Ttthus

provided ;iforiirnin which. ona lnrgcrscsle than ever berore, rhe viens and
practiceol'ihc greatmajorifyof the States oftheivurldon virtuallyal[aspucls
of the Iaw of treaiics bocameevidenl. And in no area ofthis law was greater
consensu reachedthan on the question ofthe interpreration OF tieaties. The
lelt.ologichl approach long advocated by varioüs juristsand some judgcs of
this Court was decisivc rljectedas being nor inaccord with the practiceof
States, and the textualapproach was overwhelmingly afirrned. Ir issubmitted.
thercforc,that the controversy in this connection must now bc rcgiirdd üs
finallysettled.
In the resiiltthe fundamcntalprinciple which kas crnergedis that the aim

andpurpose of treatyinterpretation isto asccrtainand giveeffect tthecornmon
-. --

YmrhoknitedNl,i'ciiinnrsonféreacr on rhe Lof Trpu~ie.~.opcil. p.170. Yi&
rhc~InteuilofionLuw Cotoriitnission1956. Vol. .II. p. 21Y.
? Vide,e.g.the çtatcmentsby the reprrstntafivof Poland (pp. I73-174); IJSSR
(pp. 177-1781;cKcnya 1(pp. 180-181); Liberia(p,l)RI);Nigeria;(p.i181); Mexico
(p. 181);Cuba (p.182); FinIand(p.182);Turk- (p. 182)and hladaigaçcar(P.183).
United Nulions ConferenocnetheLaw ofTrcatips,OR. FirstSessionpp. 174-i75.
1bid.ri.185. ..
Uniredh'utiuns Confirenc017the liw offi-eoiic~0 R. SecondSession,Vicnna,
Y Apr.-21;May 1969, pp,$7. 59.
' Vide para.6,inJrc~. .,.. intentof the p.articThe tdeological apprciachaccordin tgiwhich'"nccr:ssity
crcate(s) theIawindependently of the willofthepartiesand those concerned '"
has been show io be complrtelyunacceptable to Statesas welIas topublicists
andtheCourr.
6. As observed above, thr:telealogicalapproach was specificallrcjectedhy
theCourt in 1456.Thus isaid :

"II may bi:urged thit the Court is cntitlçdto engage iina process of
'fillingin the gaps' ithe applicationof a telcdogical principleof inter-
pretation, according towhichinstrumentsmust be givcn [kir tnaxirnum
cKcctin order to ensurcthe achieverncntof iheirunderlyingpurposeS.'1-he

Court neednot here enquireinto the scope of a principItheexact bearirig
ofwhichis highIycontrtiversia1,forit isclearthat itcan havnoapplication
in circurrlstancesin whichthe Courtwould have to go beyondwhat can
reasonabIy be regardedas kinga proceso sf interpreiation,and would
have to engagc in a prixess of rectificationor revision. Rigtitscannotbr:
prcsumed io existrnerelybccauf i~might sceni desirablethatthey should.
Ona previouswcasion, which had certainafinitieswith the prexni one,
the Court declined to find that an intendeci three-rnembcr commission
wuld properrybeconsiituted with two mcmbersonly, despite the(asthe
Court had helrl)illegal refusalofone of the partiesto the jurisdjctional

clause toappoint itsarbitrator-and although rhe whole purpose of the
jurisdictionidausewai therebyfrustrated.In scidoing. tlie Court(I.C.J.
Reporls 1950 p,.229)raid~hat itwas itsduty 'tointcrprettheTreatia, not
torevisethem'. [tcontiraed:
'The principie of ir:rerprcicitnxpressedin the maxim: Ur res mugis
w~.illquolnPerm, oRcn referrcdto as theruleofeffcctivenesç,cannot
justifythe Clourtin irttribittingrorhe provisiofnosr thesettltment of

disputes inthe PeamTreatia a meanhg which, as statedabove,would
be contrav to rhejrleifeand spirit.'
Inother words,theGiurt cannot remedyadcficiencyif, inordcr todo so,
ithasto exczcdthc bouridsof normaljudicialaction '."

il.ThePrinciples to Be Appfkd itAscertuiriingth; CotnmonInienrofrhe Parries

(a) Arturrlity undOrdifinrr'Cieminx

7. In seking to açcerrainthe cornmon intent of theparties,a tribunalwilI
in the first instanw have regard to the principle of aciuaiity and ordinary
meaning.This meansthatprimafucie:
(a) thetext of the trcatasitstands shuuld t> eegardcdas fulIq.andaccurately

expressing thewmmon intentof the parria (principlofactiiaiity);
(h) the languageof the tex1is iobcgiveiiitsordinq, naturaland unstrained
meaning in itsmntcxt (~irincipof ordinarymeaning) 3.
Both iheseprinciplesweri:incorporazedin Articles 31 and 31 uf rhcVicnna
Convention (quoted above). Thc prittifucieimportance ofthe ordinarymean-

' Judge Tanaka, 1966 disranting izpinionSorrrh Wesl Africn. Second Ph'lia.ye,
Jiidgmenr, I.C.J. Reports 196p.277.
a South Wesr Afiictr, Sc~coPhuse:Iudgm~nr,I.C.J. Rcyorts 1966,p.48.
For authoritiesoiithese princ~ples,videI.C.1. Pklfadin~s,SnuWesi Africu.
Vol. VII.pp. 41-45: Yenrboo.ko1'1fieftzrrrnatioLaw Conimissiun1966, Vol. II.
pp. 220-221.ing of th(text is ernphasizedin ArlicIe31, paragraph I, whereastheprinciplc
of actualtyisrecogniz eydthe resrricrdefinitiongiveninArticle31,paragraph
2, io the"contcxt" w~thinwhichtheterinsofa treatyareto beread, and by thc
IimitedB:Id ofapplication assignedin ArticIe32 to supplernenlary mcans of

interpretziriotinçludingpreparatoi-ywork).

8.inasmuch as the objcçtofinterpretationisto aswrtiiinthe cornmon intml
of theparties,itfollows that thetektnT üny instrument shouIdbe appraised in
rhclight of concepts and Iinguisticusage currentat the time ofit sxecution '.
Thisis thrprjnciple olçontcmpomneity. whichis wc1I estabIishcdininternational
Iaw and which \vasagain applied in theSout!~ West /i[ricu casein1966 .hc
Juùgmeni reads:

"... inordcr to derertn~ne what the nghrs and obIigations of ~ht:Partics
relativerothe Mandurc wcrc and are ... the Courtrniistplace ilseiatthe
poini.intime whcn the inandates system was bcing instituted, and when
the insirunicnts of mandale here king framed. 'TheCour[ must havc
regard rothe situation asii was at thattime, wliicl~was the criticalone,

and io theintentionsof those coiioerned üsthcy sppcar io haveexisred,or
are rixsonablyto beinferred,in thelight of tliasituation.Inlentions that
mighthave been formcd if the Mandate hd been framedal a mue11Inter
date.and in theknowledgeof circumstanccs, such a. theeventual dissolii-
[ion oftheLeague and itsaftermath, thatcould neveroriçinally havc bwn
foreseen,are noi rc[cirant.Only on lhis basis van a correctalipreciation
ofthe legal rightof the Partiesbc arrivcdat. ?'biview issupportedby a
prcvjousfinding ofthe Court(Righrs of UnitedStatesAruriotia/inMurncco,
I.C.J. Repora 1952, atp. 189) theeffectof whichisthat the meaning of a

jiiridjcalnotionin a liisturicalcontext, musrbesonght by reference tothe
way in whichthatnotion was understood irithai contcxt3."
9. Save for Judgc Tanaka, whose tuleological approach \vas iiientioned
ahove, the minority judges do not appear IO have rejecte tdis principl{a
distinctfinnt ihe conclusions reactiedby ils application). T'busfor exaniple,

JudgeWellingtonKoo mnsidered"afew wordsabout thehistoricalbackground
of thecreariun ofthe maridaiessystcni ... useful toenablea Fullunderstanding
and appreciation of its nature,spiriaridpurport '".Judge Koretsky found it
"necessary lo turnto the history ofthc incIusinnof thejurisdictionalclauseinthe
mandale instrument 5" and,after reachinga conclusion as tothe meaning and
objcct of theclause, comidcrcd the queuion :"Was lhis sumcthingstrange at
thattinie "?"AndJudgeJessupsrated:

'The Court's Judgmentrests. mit trtusf,on aninterpretatinnof historiwl

' Vidp YeorbDok ufrhp InieunnrionalLaw Coinnli.r.rinn 19Vol. Il,pp. 5657;
1966. Vol.lJ,p. 222.
For earlier authoritia. ridp I.C.JPleadings,Soirih I.Vrsriifricu, Vol. VT1,
pp. 4536. Vidpalso RIghloffu.wag~ Over indianTerriro hfe,iis. JirdgnieniC.J.
Repouis 1960, p.37;Barcdunu Trrrcrinn, I.igIir aPowcr Cunrpcin,~t,imitcd, Prt-
liitiitiUb]ecriuiir, Jr~dpircnt,I.C.I. Rep1964, p. 140.
SoirritWesrAfiico.Second Plln~e.jrrdr~nerrt.1.CI. Rfort1966.p. 23. WRITTE < SI'A'I'EMEWTF SOUTH AFRICA 387

facrs involvcd in rhe01-iginand in the opcrstivn of the mandates system
of lht:Leagueof Nations, ilrhrseriifig uf^tiieirpcr'."(Italicsadded.)

IO.Thc ptitinciliof acictuaIityeferredtciabovemeans ihar the partiesmust

prima facic be considered th)have expresxd theirtu11agrecmcni in the written
teKi.F.~ceptionül hloi:ever,a conclwion may bc wairaiitedthat sornething
"gocs withoutsaying", ive.,that the partieswerein fact tacitfyagrecd upon
soniethingnot expre-1~stat<d in thc kxt.
Courts in al1 lcgalsystéiiisguard themseIvcs against aîsenting to stich a
proposcd itnpiication on sny but the rrlostcogcnr grounds, realizing that
iiiiplicationon ahsis of speculativn, or of what the pariicsoupht rwonably
10 have done, would amourit to the makingof a new bargainor compact for
the parties.as distinct fi.oni the Court's [rue functioor vivinr effect to the
barkin or compactacruallyagreed ro by the partiesthems~lvcs,-~onse~uent~y

thereuui~rnenris stre~3edthritanimnliwlion of ro~isetistmustariseriecessariiv
or i,iai~iirzfrorrithe rele-füntfa&, in thc sense that al1 orher reasonabL
infcrcncesareexcludcd.
Twofiirthercorollaria flcwfrotnthe principles siatcdabove:

(0) Thc tcrrnsought to bti irnpIiedmust be wpablc of formulation in sub-
stanriallyone way anly. Ifthc content of the termsought to lx iinpIied is
doubtful. thcn one cannot wncliide that the parties tacitIy agreed on
anyihing atall.
!hl Whereihc written dmurncnt rriakesexpressprnvision for aiiy partiçular
evenruality,it will beE-venmorcdificnlt to fjnd thatthcre is an impIicd
tcrm cowring substantiîlly the sameground asthe express provision. .

II. The expression "tacit agreement"is also used for a somewhatdilferent
situation, narncIywherethei-e is no express ügrcetrlentbetwcen the pariicsai
dl, but ail agreement is n:vertheless i~ipiied from the circu~stanws. Iierc
again such an agreementrr.üy tx he[d ro have ken concluded only if il is a
n-ssaiy inferencc from the facts .s stated by judge Hadawi in the Corfii
Cliat~iielase:

"proof hyc~rcurnstantialevidenceis regardcd as st~ccessfeu slalhylishcd
only when othersolutions would impIycircuinstanceswholly astonishing,
unusualandcontrars tc-theway ofihe world >".

12. A factor which woulcliniliratevery strongly ligainstanycontention that
an implitd agreeinen thadbr:enreached; isthe availabilitof tneanstu conclude
the -me agreemenrin expn:ss terms, andthc Mure ta makc usethereof.This
faclor was accordcddccisivs weightin the iVorfh SeciCurifiirc~~ilftlrifcase',
inwhich it had been contrndcd that ihc Federal Kepiiblic of Germany had
become bound underthe 1958 Gencva Convention on the CoritinentalShclf
although the k-edcralRcpuElichadnot ratifiedthe convention.TheCourt said:

"AS regards thcsccvntcniions, it isclearihat only a very dcfiniie,very
consisicnt courseof conduct on the partof a State inihe situation of ~he
Fedeia KIepriblicçoulrljiarifythe Court iiupholding thcm; and. if this
had existtd-that ista wy if lherehad been a rcal intention to manifest

Ihid., p.326.
For autliuriticsi.i&I.C.J. Pi'ei~dit~grS.orrri~~srricn,Vol. VJJ. pp. 45-52.
Cvrfu ChnrriiclMeriis,J~dgmertr.1.C.J. Rrporrs1949, p.M.
' .~opih Seo Conrinenfül.Sl,eJu&ttzeizr, I.C.Kepnuls 1969, p.3.(e) TheUniversalApplicnlriliryrflhe Abovei'ri~ciple~s
19.A11 the ahove-meniioned prinçiplesare applicable to ail instruments

einbodyirigintet'riationaolbligationsbethey unihteral,bilateralor niuliilateral.
The relative weightto be given tovariousaîpects of the wording. thecontent or
other pcrmissible ai& toinlerprerativn{such as preparittorywork), may how-
ever, difleracwrding lu thc nature ofihc treaty which is thesu!i.&t of inlçr-
pretation '.inhis dissentiiiyopinion in 1966, JudgeJessupdrew attention to
thiscircu:nstance '.Wilh the general propositionstatcd by him, viz., thathere
arediRert:ncesinapproüch htrveen theinterpretation,on theonehand, ubilai-
erd treayr ora contractin privaielüw, and, on the ortier,"agrcüt intcrnatioiial
constitutional instrument, Iikethe Unitcd Nations Charter 3" rhere can be no

yuarrci. Clmcrcading of thispartof JudgeJessup-sopinion wiIl show fhiihe
did not atteiiipt any prccisdefinitionof the naturc ofsuch differences.The
South African Govcrnment alsodoes not propose attemptingsuch a definition
- forpreient purpose% il willsufficcto submit thatsuchdiffcrencesin approach
do nottake instrurnçntsof ihe"constitutjunal"type out of the general rrtlesof
interprei;.tiondcaIt with herein, and Judge Jesstip dm nul appear to have
contendeil otherwiw.
20. Onc spccificfcatureshould, Iiowever, henoted. Xi issubrniiiedthat in
"cons~itutional" iiistruiiientsiht:text of Ibeinsrrument airains increased

importanx as against olher indiciaof rhç intcntionsof itsauthors, inasmuch
as these instrumentsarc open to accessi bon States wIiicti miyh!htivc no
knowledgeof feature suschas the rravnux prkparnrairrs, or subsequentconduct
of the ori::inalparties, anwhose inteiitionsun inanyevent no1 lx arcertained
by referer~cusuchfcütures'.

C. SubsequcntConduct

21. Itwas dernonstrütcdin section 13above tliat theaim os purposeof treaty
inttrprctationisto ascertainand yivt cffecttothe cornmon intentof thc parries.
If suhsequent canduci of the parti+ is.to playanyrole inthe interpretative
process, ii could acctirdinçIy be relevant only to the ascertainrncniof !ha1
cornnion intentas itexisied rvhcn the trtraty wasconcluded Ttfollows that,
inits appliwtion roinrerpretation,subscqucntcnnducr of thepartiescouId not
havethercsuItof giving to a treatya rnwningdili'erentfrornthai which it bore
at its inwption. Whether thc subwquent conduct of thepartiescould effect a
modification or amendmentof a ireais.is of course, an enlirely different

mattcr.Such a prjnc~ple,if admitted,would amvitnt to the rccognition of a
- .-

VideYearbookoj-rlii,inrernuiinnal I-~Curiinrissi1966, Vol. IIp. 219.
* Suurh We.rrAfuica.Second Phrise, Jirdg!rirnr, J.C.J. Reports 1pp.352-5 36.
Itwillbe~iotedrhat hcadvacated a niore extensive uof ivrrïuu.x pr4purutairlian
isgenerally aceptcd as pcrmissible.(Vide Ycirrtuuvf rl~Inirri~rrfiotiriiConr-
inissioIY66. Vol.II,p.270and Arricle32 of the Yienna Convention on the 1.3.of
Trearies.citedin para. 3 ahci\-e.)
" Snil~hSVcsiAfrica. SecnnrlPhasc, Judgmenr,iCA.? R~porrsf966, p.353.
Vidr,c.g.Dahrn. G., Viiikcrrechi (I961), Vol. Ill, p. 55;Sinclair"Vienna
Veil19eIl!i70), p. 53:aSirPcrcyaSpenderinCérfainaExp~nsesofrheUiiiredNoriotis,
Rdvisory <#inion, I.C.JH~ports IM2. pp. 190-191.
Vidr paras. 5, 8 an9, supra. process whercby a new agrtenient iscrcitcd, rarherthan a praccss whcrcby the
meaning uCaneniçtingagrecnicnt isestablished '.

Inthepresentsection, ihieffect of thesutisequentconduct of the parties toa
treaty wiIl be cnnsidcrcd in both the above-mentioned aspects: firstly with
rekrence to the interpretationof ircaties, andsocondl with teference to iheir
modification or amcndrncn:. Thereafterwill follow a discussion of the haring
whichtheserules inay have on pracli cithiiithc UnitedNations Organization,

ahich, aswill bcshown, involvessomcadditionalconsiderations.

il.Sufisequet:tCot~dttc rs anAidlu Inrerpretaiiori

22. Ii isweIl establishedi-ha1the suhsequcnt pracliceofthe partiesro a treary

may be of assistance in ihc interprctation of ahscurc or ambiguousterms. Tn
thisregardLord McNiiir wrote asfollows:

"Here WC are onsolid ground andaredealing witha jiidiciat practice
worthy to be cüIled a rule,namely that, wkir ~her~ is Q dmhr as tu the
inmiiuig ofcrprovisine or an c,vpprrssioncottraitirriin treuiy, the relcvan t
conduct of the contraciirig partiesafter theconclusion of the lreaty (sonle-
tim~ called 'praciicalconstniction') has a higli probat ive vaIucas 10 the
intcniiun of the partiesat thc tirneof itsconciusion. This içboth good sensc

andgoodIaw Y' ((Italicadded.)
SimilarlyD. W. Bowettwrote as foIIo~vsr,elying extensivclyon referencs to

thejurisprudence of the PermanentCourtand ihis Court:
"ltrcn.se.ofditrtbr 12s io?IIPrneat?tng qf CII~agreemetit, thc subsequent

conduciof the parties !ncari-ying oirttheagreement affords evidence of its
meaning 3,"IItaIicsadded.)
This principlc was incorpvraledin Article 31, paragraph 3b, of ihe Vienna

Convention on the Law of 7-reatics,whicli reads as KoIlows;

"There shall bc takfn into account, togcthcr with the context:
-......- I.... .._.. l.... ...
(b) Any siibsequent practice in the application of the traty which
establishes thc uiiderstanding of the pariies regardin itgs intecpre-
ration '."

23. Although the perrnissibi ofirecourse to suhsequent practice a?? an
aid to interpretation is clear, ilsvalueis limitcd. Firstty,itcan k of assistance
onIy whercthcre issoine aiiibiguityor uncertaiilty in the trcatyitself.This is a

ntxxssaty corollary of the tcxiuatapproach to interpretation.and is recognized
by rheauthorilies quoted in tlie immdiately preading paragraph,üs well as

Vide Y~arbnnk ofrhe I;~lrrntrrional I.uw Comtnission 1964. Vol. II. paw. 25,
p. 60;Ye~rrhuok uj-rke iirtri-itclrioi.oruCui?imissioi1966, Vol. II, p.236 fconi-
mentary on drart Art. 38, para. 1); Gross, L., "Vuting in the Scc~irilyCouncit:

.4hsrenrion in thc Posos1965 Amendment Phasc and iisImpact on .4rtiçle 25 of1he
Charter", A.J.f.f..Vol. 62 (19681, p. 329; Hernhardt, R.,Die Au.rlegung VGiker-
vrrhilirheu Yprrriipe(1963) 0. 174.
McNair. op. ciz., p421.Vide also Ucgan, Y. D.. L'int~rprdtatic~rrsaccord rn
droiriizfernri~io~~l{1963)p. 130:C'crraiiiExpenscs of thrl Lltlif~d NurionAd~hi'?~
Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 196;. p. 190(separate opinion tifSir PereySpender).
Bowett. D. W.. ~'Esiop~elbcforc the InternationalTribünals and ilsRelation lu
Acquiescence", B.Y.B.f.l..,'bolXXXIII {19571,p. t77.
+ Vidc para. 3,supra.in the foIIowingpasqagesfrom thescpürate opinion afSir PereySpender in the

C,'ertuir~petrscswx :
". .,subsequentconduct may only provide a criterionO intcrpretütion
when thetcxt is obscure, andeven then iiisiixeçsiirto consider whether
,
rhatconducritselfperrnirsufonly one infcrcnce" ', , ,
and-

"Eqreii. herethe çoursc of subseqhentconduct pursued by both parties
toa tiilateralrreitty or hy al1panies tu a m~iltiIartrrüty are inaccord
and t:~atconduct permitsof onlyone infcrenceit'provides a criterion of
inter~retation only when, as has already been indicatcd, thctext oFthe
trcatyisobscureor arnbiguous 2."

As a marier of interpretationsubsequeiit conduct mn accordingly not justify
adeparture fromthe clcarwording aT thetext.
24. Morcover, the practicaIutiIitof subsequentconductas an aid io the
aqcertainrrienotfthe intentionsofcontracting partiesisinany event srnaII3.As

ncite bySir Pcrcy Spender inthe it:passagquotedtibovc, subsequenrcrinduci
asan aid tointerpretationmus! bcsoclear and consistentas to periaitof only
oneinferetm. However,if al1the partiestoa treatyappIy itin thesame way, no
disputeas to itsrncaning is IikeItoariçr. When dispuics do ansc.the reasonis
likely to bcthat thetreaty isapplicd difïcrentIyby theparties,inwhich event
there wou!dex hypo~he s itbe a clearconcordan practice whjch çould have
substaniialprobativc value as to themraning of the text'.Scc in this regard
also,the fcllIowincornnientbySirPcrcySpender:

"It is... evidcni cnriugh... tht the subsequent conduct of une party
alone cannot iK evidencein itsfavour ofa wmmon understanding of the
meaningintende tudbcgiven to thetextof atreaty 5."

Wiihrefermce 10thcconduct nfpartiestoa multilateraItrcath yeiiùdcd

"If. .. onlyone or scrmebut no1 aII of them hy siibsequent conduct
interpretthctcxt ina certain manner, that conduct stands uponthe ssrne
footing as theunilateralconduct of onc Party to a bilateraltreaty.The
mnduct of suchone or more coutdnol ofitselfhave any probalive valtie
orprovidc ü criterion forjudicialinterprction6."

25. Special consideration must bc given to mtiItilateraitreatieswherethe
-

CertuiriExpensesof the Utzikd Nuliofis, Advisvry Opinion, 1.C.J. Reporrs 1962,
p. 189.
Ihid .,1Y1.
Vide BindschedlerR.L., "La délimitationdescompétences desNations Unies",
Rectz~iides coursVol. 108,No. 1(1963). p.324.
Vide JrrkIM.. De I'interprétutiodesttaifesnorinargqd'aprPs la doririne et ia
jurisprudence internaiionaf(I936), p. 172; Hastid, S., "De quelques prohlkmes
juridiquesposes par le dkveloppcment desorganisations internationalesLFSpro-
blèmes fondume~tiuuxdit droiiizicrmtional. 134dianrnI'hotitiede I.Spiropoirfos
(1957),p. 35;and McNair, op.cir.,p.429.
Vertriin Expensesof ihe Uniid Xutions, Advisvr.Opitiion, I.C.Repnrl.71962,
p.IW.
VIbid., p.191. As appearsfrom thcsetwo passagesread together,and alsofrom
r~therpartsofhis lepürirtup~nion,JudgeSpender acceptcd that unilateral conduct
aT a plirtntightin approprialçasesbc cvidcnceu~ansi him as tothe mcaning of a
text. VfRITTEN STATEMENYOF SOUTH AFKICA 393

originalparties mas be adcledin in accordance with the icms of thc trcaty
itseIf.HeFerencehas already been made to the morelirnited roIeplayed hy
indications of intentioriJel:orsthe text (suclias subsequenr conduci) inthe
jnterpretationofsuch 1rcatir:'.Applyinç rhisrule 10 the Charter,whichisthe

primeexample ofsuch a rwa ty,SirPcrcySpcndcrsaid:
"The original Meinbtrç of rheCharterniimber kss than half theiota[
numbcr OCmemberSta!es. If the intention of theoriginciiMerribersofihc

United Nations, atthe lime ihey tntered in10 lheCharter, isthat which
provides a criterioiiof intcrpretari thon,itis thesubsequent conduct of
those Members which niaybc equated wifh the subsequent conduçt of ihe
partiesto a bilateralor inultilateraltreatwhere the partiesare fixedand
constant.Tliis,itseeinsto me, wuld add a new and indeterminatedimen-
sion tolht righisand oliligations oStates thatwere nol originalMernkrs
and so wcrc not privytrithe iiitentionoftheoriginalMembers 2."

16.There issulistantialsrholarly support fur the propositionthat a treaty
or convention rnay be revised or modificd by the subsequent conduct of the
partiesthereto 3.Statcs havr:however shown a slrongreluctance to sept the
vcilidilyof this proposition.as appears frvm the prmedings at the Viema
Conferenceon the Law ofTrcatics. InitsdraftArticle 38on theLawofTreaties,
thetntemationalLawConiiiiission had propusedthe folIo\ving:

"A trear myay bc modifiai I>ysubquent practioe...cstablishing the
agwment of thepartie tsmodiiy itsprovisions."

In its commeiitarythe Commission stated cxpressly:

". . even ifevery part!.rnigfinot itscffbc actively participatedin the
practicc, [imust & suchastn establishtheagreement OC the partiesas a
whoIe to themodificaiicininquesiion '."
AIthough this specitic driift articlc drcwvcry Iittlor no comrnenf from

govcmmcnis j,amendm~ntcdeleting Article 3Rwere adnpied by 53 votesto
15, with26 abstentions,byrheConfertnce'sCommitlee of the Wholc.
17.Various arguments uere advanced by delegates against acceptance of
the drafr articlc. Onc rccurring objectiowas that it wouldoffend againstthe
principle of pactu suul servnnda '.The Expert ConsuItant (Sir Humphrey

.--
vide piàFd20, SUpr<i.
Cerruin kkpeir.r0f ih~ t'niicd Notiun~-,Arivisor.~Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1952,
o.191.
Vide Frtunaurice.G.. 'Y he 1.a~and Procedure of ihelntcrnationalCourtof
Justice, 195-1954: Trcary Tiiierpreialioand Other Treaty Points", R.Y.Y.R.I.L.,
Vol. XXXJII {1<157),pp.212, 225and 252; Yearlrnak01flie InfernarionalIAIWGan-
inissioa 1966, Vol. II, p. 25 icommentürtinArt. 38); Tunkin, G. I., Droiinter-
niriionnlpl~bl{ 965).p. 94.
' Ytnrbook oJ lhe fntern~16lL nai Co~nmission1966, Vol. IIp. 236 (cornmen-
raryon Art.18, para.2).
' Il)icfpp.279 PIseq.
Uniid NorionsConfircn cne f,unof Trpuiies, OR, First Sessicin. Videthe
ol?(ectionof thc rcprcscetaii\es ofSpain (para. 69209) : hjl(para.75, p. 210);
USSR (gara.3.p. 210);Syri;i{para. 30,p.212); Uruguay (para.34, p212); Cuba
(para.40, p. 23); Portuga(piira42,p. 213);and tliNethcrlands (para.47, p. 213).isirrelevantfor prestni pui'pws isto be found in caseswhere the divergent
practice isnot intcnded io rnodifythe treaty but is pursucd purelyfor reasnns
of {idhoc cxpediency. And iilany othcr cxarnplesinight bcgiven.

31. An intentionro effecta tiradificationniightof courshe inferrcdfrom the
condiictof rhe parties bui s~ch an inferenw ceiiId,itissubmiiied, be justified
only in the rnost excepiionalcases.Inferentialproof ofthe intention roconcludc
ansigreetneiltisat thekt or tirnavery dificutt IOestablish '.This ditiiculty is
inevitablyenlianwd whcn :hc conduçt said ta cnnstitutc the neuTagreement
concernsthc arnendment or.modification of an existiitg written trcaiy,which
ex t~yp~rhesirelates to a niatrer which the partics diù not intend to regulate
inforinatly-a consideratiorithe wcight ofwhichincreasic nsdirectproportion

to the importance ofthe pr-nvision allegedto havc keii modified.
32. In conclusion regardniust bc hiidto treatieswhich specificalIyprescribc
ihe iiiethodoftheiramendnicnt. InprincipIe it niust beopcn tuStatesto deier-
mine the proccdurcs wheietiy IegaIrelationshipsbetweenthemarc io becstab-
lished or oItered. Whcre ihey havc dorie w, any üttempt io achieve the .-me
rcsults Iiydiffercntmethodr; rnust.it is submitted,be ineffectivcin law. See in
this regard, the follvwing passage from the scparalt opinion of Sir Pcrcy
Spencer in iieC,'rrfairi xp~?nsccax :

"It (i.e.subscquenr conduct) may . .provide evidence from which to
infcra new agreement.~iih new rightsand obligationsbetween rhcparties,
ircffeccsuperimposed or btisedupnii the tcxtof the treaty andurnending
the saine. Thi.Iotieru ypecrof sabseyuenr condüct isirreknrnr for presetft

considerofsi ioce no c:rncirrfnieniojfhcharter MM~ occurexcepi prrr.s~<uf~t
tu Article 108af'the Churnr I."(Italicsadded.)
Duteven if this hadnot ken the trile legalposiiion, thc cxistcnceandavailabil-
jty of a prcscribedproceilure would ai Icasi have militated very sironily

against any suggestion thal thc pariies ajipliedsome diKerentprucedure la-
wards achievingthe end Furthe attainmeniof \\:hich the prcscribed procedurc
was establishcd

1 Y. Priicticen-ifhinthe Unirec?,Tarions

33. The effect to be given to pmctice within the Cnited Nations foll~ws
targelyfrorn the principlcs sct outin the previous partsof ihisChapter.Sinçe
the Charter is iirnullilateratreaty open to accession by ncw Members, the

siibsequrnt conduct of the partics iheretoan bc of only Iirnitcdifany, assis-
tance in its interpretaiio'.At any rarc,such suhsequcnt conductcan play no
role ata11unlcss thereissorne anibiguityor okuri tyin thetex1 'and unlessthe
condrict pemits of only ofieinfcrcnce O.
34. As regards rnoùificaiion,the Charter itself provides the merhod of its
amendmcnt, thereby excIuding any possibilitywhich might othcrrvisehave
existed,of moditiçation by suhsequentpractice '.

Vide para<. 10-3. s~tpm.
Cerrain E.xpensw of tliL'iiirtrlNittfuAdvisor: Opinion, 1.C.J.Repurrs 1962,
n. 191.
' -Vide para. 12, suprct.
Vide paras.20 aiid 25,sttp~g.
Vide para. 23. supra.
"!de paras. 23-24,supra.
Vide para. 32,sitpra. 35.If inodifîcationby subsequeniconduct ofthcMenihers were neverthcless
to & perinissible,ii could onIy bc hetd to have occurrcd in cxocptionalcases
wherenll the Members(acting in accordance with theeiproper or osicnsibly
propcr constitutional prmsses) didclosed a cIear intention tu effectsuch a
modification 'Tnview oftheexistence ofthe expressprovisionsforamendment
in Arricles 108 and 109, itishardIy conccivablerhat suchan intcntion would
evcr be aptiblc ofking cstablished
36. Thc filiaquestionwhicharises isto whatexteni the practiwoforgans of
the CnitedNations(as dislinet from partiesto theCharter) mmaybc of reIevance

to the presenr topic.During the SanFraricisu>C:oritèrcnc t \as decided no$
to make:.pecialprovision for iheinlerprelation of theCharterJ and gencral
principIesmus1accordingly appIy.As an aid tointcrpretaiton,practice within
an organ zould, it is submitted, haveno greriterprobativevaluethan the con-
duct of the iiidividua1rnembersrcprcscntcdthereinwouldhavehad if pursued
outside that organ '.Xndced, the prohatiw value ofconduct withina United
h'ütion crgan wauld ofren be Iessthan thatof conduct pursuedoutside-the
activitiesiithe United Nations rcquirccontinuous participation in rnatters of
widely vaisingimportünce for direreM nt emhers. In thcsc circumstances poli-
tical exigcnciaqwauld encourage a tendency on rhepart of Members not to

insiston a strictadhcrcncc to thc Charterunless their own inrerestswouIdbe
jeoparùizr:dby a depanuretherefrom '.The greaterFrccdomof action ourside
thc organi~ationrnight lead a tribunal to stlach greate wreightto conduct in
that spliere.
37.As regardsmodificationof the Charter.thevarious rirgansmay have a
rolc to p1:iyin the evolutionof practiceswhich are not inconsistentwith the
Charter aridwhichrelatc to theinterna1ivorking of theorganization 6.But inso
faras a madification would affectthe rightsand obligations ofMernber of the
United Nations,it is siibmitteùthat the organs of the organization havc evcn
Iesscapiicitytoachievesucha resuIthyits practice than theMembershave.An

organ does not usualtyccinsistof rcprcscntatives of al1Memkrs, and it can
take d~isionsdespilcthe dissentor abstentionof somc repracntativcs. Inthcsc
circumsta~iccsit woiild Iiquite anornaIous to altributeto the organit.selany
cornpetence to effeclrnodiiiutiom of thcChartcr. Sm in thisregardlhe follow-
ingstaterrlenrOC ProfessorG. 1. Tunkin (1-epresentinpthe USSR) in thc oral
procecdin1:softhe Ceriain i7x~rrsr.car :e

"The cornpetencc of cachorgin of the llnited h'atiunuis dctcrmincd by

' Vide paras1.9-31,supra.
Alfred Verdrosssuggcsrs inan articleentitle"Kann dieGencralversamniliing
derVereintenNu tionendas VoIkcrmht weiterbilden?',Z%Pichriftjür nrr.r~~ndisckcs
ofeirrfich~aRecht rrndViifkervechr.Vol. 25([Y%),695, that practird theUnited
Nations could inforniallmodify thçCharteron1 yifsuch prac~iceintKect comptied
with the provisions ofArticle108 and 109.
UXCIO ~IIES.Vol. XIIJ,pp. 709-710.
Cer~ainE.Y~PRSP oS fheUnited Nmions. Advirory Opinion, I.C.3. Reports 1962,
p. 192.(Scparateopinion of SirFercySpender.) SirGerald Fiumaurice apparently
attachcd somewhat greatervalut to-consistenpractice of United ~atiorkorsans
{i'iVidepHcrnhardt2o,p.cir.p. 169.

L.. "The,United Natians and the RoleTrofLaw", TInIeunarionalOr$ani:ation, Vol.
XlX, No. 3 (1965): p. 540,footnore7; de Visscher, Ch.. Lesefecrivitedit droit
inrrrnuiional priblic(196p.54. If so,itwould seem ioli eppropriate forthe Uniied Nations organs,
throrightheircollectiveaction, taccord it the righttrepresenithe Statt
inth: Organisation,even thouph individualMembers of the Onanisation
refuse, and rnay continueto refuse,to accord it n~ognitioansthe lawful
govenimenl forrcasonuwhicharc valid under iheirnational poIiciesI."

9.During the FiflhSession of the General Assembly, this niatterwiis
cxtcnsivclydcbated in the Ad Hoc Politic C omniittee.The rcprexntativc of
Cuba sutmitted a diaft resciIuiionwhichproposed certain requirements for
recogniticm,narneiyeffectiveüuthorityover theiiationalterritory; generalcon-
sent of the populatinn; abilitand wilIingnessto achitvtehe purposes of the
Charter;:lnd respect forIiurnan rightsand fundarncntalfreedorns2.
In the ùtbate which followed, divergent and contradictory views wcrc
expresd. Sn, for insrance. the United Kingdom reprcscntativeurged accep-
lance of(liesingIeobjoctivctcstof effectivecrintroSSimilarpointsoviewwert

expressed bytherepresentativesof theUSSR 4,PoIiind',andothers.Thedebate
as a whol: was sunimed iipby the reprcscntativof Uruguay as follows:
"...some preferred to have no decision on thc mattcr by thc General
Assetnbly al the currcntsession;some favouredand othersopposed pre-

cisccritcri;still othersfavouredlhe eslabIishmcntofdefinitecriterlaafter
obtaininçthe advice of thc Intcrnational Law Chmmission, the Interna-
liona1 Court of Justicc,the Sixth Comiiiitteeor the Secretary-GerieraI,
Icüvi~igwide Iatitudfor theconsideralionof speçific caseCertaindcicga-
tions thouglithe Committcc and the General Assemhly could reach a
decisionwithout suchhelp 6."

10. In thc rcsult, the CieneraAssembly ultimately adopted the followiny
resolutionby35votes to6 wiih 9 abutcntions:

"396 {y). RECM~WTIO BNK THE UNI.I.ENATK>K OF THE I<EFRESEF~T,\TION
OF A MEMBE STATE

Cotuidwing that difficultiesmayariw regardingthe representationof a
McrnbcrStatcinthe UnitedNations andthatthereisa risk thatconfiicting

decisionsrnay bereachd byits various organs,
Consideringthatitisinthe interesof theproperfunctioning of theOrga-
nizatian that there should be uniformity in the proccdurc appIicabIe
wlienevermore thanonc authoriiyclaims to k the government entitIed tn
representa MernberState intheUnited Nations, and thisquestionbecornes
the siibjecof controversyin the United Nations,
Consi~i-irlitüt.in virtueof its composition, the General Assernblyis
the organ of the UnitedNations in which considerationcun bestbe given
to theviews ofaIIMemkr States inmattersaflectingthe functioningofthe
Organiznlionas a whole,

' SC. O.R,op.rit.pp. 22-23.
GA, OR, Fiflh SCSS., dHoc Pol. CornrriSummary Recordsoi'Meetings.30
Sep. to14 Dec. 1950. 18thhfccting(20 Oct. 1950), ppI11-112.
ibid ,. 1ia
' Ibid1.9,thMeeting (21 Ott. 1950p. 122.
Ihid., ï3rd Moetinp (26 Oc1951i),p. 153.
Ibid.:4th Meeting (26Oct. 19501p. 159,404 NAMIBLA (SOU'I-WEST AFRICA)
terrns of .4rticIe27, paragraph2and 3, from 7 to 9.In al1otherrcxpects,the

articlehas remainedunchmgcdsince the inccptian of lheChürter.
The questionscrinsideredinthe presentsection arc:
ci)whcthcrrhe words"inciuding theconcurring votesof thepermanent rncm-
bers" in Artidc 27, paragraph3, preclridethc taking of valid decisionif
one tirmore of the permanent members voluntarilyabstainfrom voting
{i.c.abstain othenvise tlian pursuantto the provisoto the paragraph) ';
(ii) whether rhc practice of tCouncil in thisrcgardhas modifiedthe provi-

sions of thatparagraphin any way; and
(iii) whethercertainmeritbersofthe Council should,in tems of theprovisu to
ArticIe 27, paragraph3, havc abstained inthcvoting oncerlao ifn~he re-
solutions relevantiothe question kfore the Court.
The% three questiow nilIbecvnsideredseriurim.

If. TheKequirernrnlofthe Concwring Yoles ofrhePerriinnent Mmbers uf?lie
Council

13. Tht:relevanccof the firstquestionposed arisesfrornthe factrliain aII
the Secur,.tCounciI resoIulionsnow inissue. one armore of the perrnanenr
membersabstained from voring. Kesolution 284 (19701,which contained tl~
rcqriestfcr an advisvryopinion in the prcsentcaseand accordinglyforrns the
basisofrteCourt's jurisdictiow,as declaredadopteddespite theabstertions of
Poland,tlic United Kingdon1and the USSR '.In addirionthe reprexntativeof
Francereqriesteda scparatevote on the phrase". . .notwithstandingSecurity
CounciI r:soIiition 276(1970)" which wasretain eespitcfourabsteniions(by
France,Poltrnd,the LSSR and the UnitedKingdom)
Resolui.ion276 (1970) was declaredadoptedon 30January 1970, despitethe
abstentioiiof Franceand thc United Kingdorn '. -,
In bvrk thesecases al1the non-absrainingmemhersvoted in favourof the
rwlutior S.The composition of the SecurityCounciIon both masions was as
f0lIows:

Peri~tunentMernbers:1.China; 2.France; 3. UnionofSovietSocialistRepub-
Iics ;.United Kingdorn of Great Britainand NortlrernIreIand;5.Unired
Stateiof America.
Non-permanent ,Wetnlrers: 1Burundi ;2. CoIornbiii;3. Finland; 4. NepaI;
5.Kid~aragua5 ;. Poland; 7.Sierra teone; 8. Spaii9. Syria; 10.Zanibia.

And ihe same situation concerninyabstentions prevailed iriith reswct toal1
other relevantSccurityCouncil rcsolutioiion South West Africa.
14. Thc:application of thenrdinary principlesof interpretativsel out in
ChaptcrII above, renders the ineaning of Article27, paragraph3, ctearand
unarnbiguous. An "affirmativevorcofnine tnenibcrs"is required by theArti-
cleforlhe validitof arcsolution, anditisfrirrher providethatinthis affirma-
tii'r: vinut & iinduded"theconcurring votesof the permanent members".
As a matter oflanguage. an abstentiondoes not amuunt to a mncurring vole.
Moreover,an "afirmativc vote of n inemernbcrs" cannot be saidto it~cl~tdtchc

- ..--
The expression"voluntary abstentionwiilbeuscd in rhiseme throughoutthe
presentsection.
2 Vide IJN duc.SCPV. 1550 (29July 1970)p. 81.
' Vide IJNdoc.nSiPV. 1529(30 Jan.19701,pp. 83-85.votcs of the permanentint:rnbers ifune or moreof them was absentor ab-
stainedfrom vuting '.

15.The considerations nlenlioned in the iinrnediatclyprewding paragraph
are, it is subrnittvaIideven whenregardis hadonly rotheEngIish tex1ofthe
Arlicle. Howevcr,rhe French and oiher texts,which are equalIyauthentic 2,
place the matter heyond doubt. Thus the French text reads:

"... un voteafirmatif de neufde sesmembres dans Icqucl sont coinprises
lesvoix de totu lesmeinbres permanents". (Ttalicsadded.)
The othcr tcxtsartsiiiiilar.
16. Not oiity is the wordingofthe artide dear andunarnbiguous,but refer-
encc tu lhe truvnrixprépur&foires rrcvecihat the textin factcorrectlyreflects

the intentionsof iis aiiihor:;.
nie voting formula whiçh was ultimately embodicd in Artidc 27 of the
Charter was agreed upnn althc rncetingat Yalta betureenthe Govemments of
the ESSR. the United Kiiii:dom,and the United StatesofAmerica,in Febru-
ary 1945 '.This formula gave riseto muchcriticism, confiicand contro\'ersyat
the Sm Francisco Confereiice particuIar biyyreasonof the veto puwerwhich
was rescrvcd forthc permarientniernbers.Duringthe course of theCon ference,
the effectofahstention b~a permanent member also receivcdsonteattention,as
will beseen in the sucweding paragraphs.

17.On 22 May 1945a Slrb-Coinmittee of theConference subrnitted a qua-
tionnaireconcerningthe voting procedure in the SecurityCourrciIto the Four
SponsoringGovemmenls (IJSA, lJSSK, Unitcd Kingdom and China)in order
to obtain clarificationof kticlc 27.
Amongst thesequestions wcsetwo which had a karing on the present que
tion, themore pertinentking the followjng:

"Ifa motion isrnovedin the Swurily Council on a marter, other than
arnattcrof prwdiire, underthe general words inparagrap 3, wodd the
&.qienrinnfrmn wrirfg ,3any une orthe pernianentmembers of thc Secu-
rityCouncilhave ihc .~rrtefecz as anegative vote by that nientberinpre-
venting thc SecurityCriuncilfrom reachinga decisiononthe marter? "'

The FourSponsoringGovernmcntsdid notreplyspecificallto each qucstion
poscd but isued H generrdstatement on 7 June 1945, whichset out certain
considerations,in the lighgolf whichtheseGovernmcnts considcred ihatitwas
"dear what the answers IO the questions subrnittedby the Subcommiltee
should bc *".France subsec~üenilyadhered to this statement'.

Compare in this regard. Art. 18.paras. 2 and 3, whiçhrefer tothevotcs <if
rnembers "presentand votin:r.
Vide Art.II 1ofthc Charter.ConçerningtIieapproach tornultiljnguiireatics.
videArt. 33ofthc ViennciCcinveolionon the Law ofTreatics(UN duc. A!CONF-
39/27 (23 May 1969)) and :he comments of the InternationnI Law ~~niliiission
{Yeurbunk ilJ#lze Infernriiivn(rfLuw tvrrimi1966. YtiiII, pp. 225-276). , -
For a suininaw of thehistory of the drafring<ifthCnarter,vide Chap. VIII,
para. 2,infra.
' UXCIO dws., Vol. XI. p. 707.
Althorighby agreement iirnongithemselvesspecificrcpliwert preparzd which
werc. howcver. mit ctirnrnür,icatto otherdelegarcs-vide Koo, W. (Ir.)Yoiiw
Prortdurrs iiInrernarinn Pdliii~iOrganizarions(1941) .. 56.
UNClO docs.,Vol.XI, 1,7t3. Only onc qucstion,whiçhisnor relevant beret<),
receiveda 4pecifirtply-ritirpp.71 3-714.
Ibid., p. 710. WItI'1-1.STATEMEKT OF SOWTIIArRICA 407

deadlock. ...filuch attentionhadbzcn paid to the etiwt oa negalivevote
bciny cr~.fy a perrnanm Councilmember.but it wasmore likelyinprac-

ticethat a permanent rncrnkr who foünd hiinself in ü srnaIIniinority
woiiId mercly abstuin koirtvoting. ...'I'heCanadian aniendmcntdid not
toi~chthe fundamentdl issue of rhevoiirig forniulüfor itmerely providcd
thatübscncefrom the C'ouncilwould not bcequivalent toa ncgativ vcole'."

At therequestof thc rcpr~:sentative,otfe IjSSK, thcCanadiain -eprcscntative
withdrcw lhisatneiidment.albeit reliictantl:.
19. The actual intentior,~of thc Spomoring Poulers and France appear
cIcarlyfroniIaterstatcmcnis bynienihers of theirdcIcgationsof fiighoflicialof
theirgovcrnrrients.
Dr. {IaterJiidge) iVeIlin::toKoo. who wüs a meniber of thc Chinese dele-
gation.stared thefollowing coriceriiingthequmtion now in issue:

"... the question had . . . heedccidedby the C'ommittccof Five The
repiy givenby thc Cork~riiiltea two questions ln thequestionnaire relat-
ing to theejlèct of abstcntionsby a pcrrnanentmcmbr reveaIithat the
interpretationgivento the word'concurrin bg'the Sponsoring Powersis
suçh asto requjrethcposiliireconcurrence of al1thc permanent rnernbers,

and thütthcfailureor irefusaof a perrnancnt iiieiiibto vole, eithefrom
abseirceoffrom delikrare abstention, corntitiira faiIutetv curicurin the
decisionof the rcrnainingmajority of the Security Council and, thcrefoie,
wfiuldscrvc to block an):action by thatbody in mattersother [han procc-
dure,and wlienthe atstaining permanent member was not a pürty to the
dispute'."

Ilr.Yucn-Li Liang, amcmbcr of the Lhincsç deiegation to the Dunibarion
Oaks Meetiiig aswetlas toihe San Francisco Conference and a fornicrDiiector
of the United Narion sg11 Dcpartrncril,wrote rbe following:

"ln the consuitatiunjarriongdelegationsof theSponsoringGuverniiients
and France arSan Fraitcisca stricview wüs takenof thisrequirenlcnt,and
the açrecrncntrcachedamong thescdelegations was that the concurrence
ofIhe fivepermanent inernkrs should takethe fom ofafirt}~nrivrvuterof
al/ ofrlietinfuvoii qr rhedecisiotr,."(itaIi~3added.)

The Head ofthc Lnited States hlegation to thcSan FranciscoConfercncit:
polntcd out in his reporttiithe Presiclent:

"The fivc principaltnilitary powcn: fif our tirneare made perrnancnt
mernkers of the Couficil. Furthermorc, in order thal their posilion of
powcr and ttteiruseaf pciwermdy br nade toserve thcpurpose of peüce,

- .-
' ihili., pp, 515-556.
I Ihid.,p. 516:

Sponsoring Govcrnrnents aiideFraiice which*asercspvnsihle, inter ufforhformu-

also fordrulring ihe above.,nientioncFivtePowers stateinent.YiüeKOO.op.a cit.,
pp. 121, 115-146.
Kou, up. cir.p.156.
Liang Yuen-Li. "The St,tilernentof DisputeintheSecuriryCouncil:The Yalta
Voting Forinula", H.Y.H.I.I.\'<il. XXiV (1Y41)p.358.The author ndded thrithis
.-tgrecmenwas notu?niiriunicaredto thotherdclcgations. alrhoughasnoted above,
it wasçIcarly irnpl~einthe Fivc Powcr sialement.408 NAhIIBlA (MIIITWEST AFR[CA)

it is providcdthat theyshall exerciscthcir power anly in agrt-ment with
cach ritherandnot in disagreement '."

Inan ofîcialpublication ofthe IiritishGovernrncnr in 1945it was statcd:

"Ifany one of thcrn [thegreat Powers] isa party to a disputeit has no
voteiiany judgment whichtheSecurityCouncil niay protiouncc.In sucha
case atleastthree electedsiatcmust concurin thejudgmcnt ofthe Securiiy
C0un~:il.., .
OnIy when erifBrcemen? actiionisncmssary isthe cvnzpieti~natiirniof
theCr reat Powers ~Eways required 2."(Italics added.)

Furtherrnore,Mc. Joscf C. Cirew,United SttitcActing Secreraryof Srate at
the time, rnadc s statement in 1945 beforc the United States Cornmittee on
ForeignRr:lations on theChartcrof the United Nations to theeffec ttat iwas
the intentionof the framcrsof the Charlmthat theconcürring votes uf al[ the
permanent nlcrnberswere rsquired 3.That this was the inicntiun is alm hnme
out bya report to thePresidcntofthe United SraicbsbytheSecretary of State4.
Mr. Edward R.Sietrinius,atone tinie a UnitedStatesSacretaryof State and

oneuf thedcIcgatesof theEnited States ofAineriw tothe First United h'atinns
Assembly in London, staicd bcfore the United States Scnate Cornmittee on
Foreign RcIations:

''Arnajoriy of scvcn memberswhich includesa// five ufthe pcrt?iniietI!
rnerni5.w~isrequjrcd in any decision by the CoünciI for ciealing witha
disputc cither by peacefu mIeans of hy eiiforwrnentaction, except that a
party to a dispute must abstain from vvting in the paceful seitlerrient
stage"."

T'ltcChairmanof the Unitcd StatesSenateComrnittcc on Foreign Relations,
Senator TrirnConnally, statcdasfollows:

"1 spprehend rhat there may be somc question about the proviso in
which a mcrnbcrof theSecurityCouncil, ifitisa pariy tothc disputc, does
not vote,and theother dausc that thereshalI befivcpermanent members
vote kfnre positivactioncan betaken.Thcconstruction of thatparagraph
was that hisproi-isoisan exceptio tontligenerd rulca,nd whcrca party
ta he disputeisa mernbwof theSecurityCoiinciI,thatthereare thenonly
4 permanent members of theSecuriC tyuncil e,xduding the party to the
dispute,that vote; in that casethe votes of any othcr 3 non-perniamnt

rnernberscan hecountcd fomake up the numberof 7. In ail orkccases.
houevar, ikevotesof5 permuwnt mernbersare rpquired. 1wanted10 inakr
-
Hcuriry:~heforethe Comniitte~ on ForeignR~iariotzx,UniteSiaies Senule aii
the Clrarfrr ufthe Unitedh'utinns, 79th Congress, PSession(19451,p. 41.
A C..omrt~~~nfrr rhc Churler of r11eUnirrd Nu!iorr.s,Cmd. (London:
HMSO. MisceIliineuusNo. Y t194511p. 16. Videalso Kelsen, Fi.The tuw uf !Re
United hFut:iinr(195I)p. 261footnote 4.
'Heurin~*sbelore rlwCnmi~iitrcon Foreiffi Hehiionx,Unlrud States Senate on
the Churferofthe United Nutions, 79th Congres<FirstSession (t945). p.213. Vide
also Kelsen, oprit.. p941.rocitnotc1.
Rcpori 10 iIiPrcsidenbj rhe Secrprnr,of'!u~eon!lieResi~jtz nthe SdnTmn-
C~.FCCoqferenc De,partmentof SiaitPubfication2349.Conference Series71. p. 71.
Vide alsKcIscn, op.cit.p. 941, fcainut e.
Heurings Before rhe Commirtu~~un ForfignKelufions,UnireciSraresSefInfc
tke Cliarteof flrc UnireriNurion79th Cnngrrss,FirstScssion (1945). p. 211.410 SAhi[n[A (SOLTH WEST AFRICA)

answeredin the iiegative.Articlc27, auWC saw, requiredseven affirmative
votes includingaffirmativevotes froinalIthe priiianerit memben: '."
22. Prof'cssorHans KeIsen,a noted auitiorityon the UnitedNationsCharter,
wrotein 1946:

"The ii~rirdiofArticle27, paragraph3, hardly allowsan interpretatjon
otherthan that, ifone ormorc of the representativesof the Fivepertnanent
rnernkersarc not present or al-istainfrom votirino valid non-proccdurnl
decisii-incabe takenT .he only exception tuthisrule isthe provision that,

indecisionsunder ChaptcrVIand under paragraph 3 ofArticle 52.a parry
to thc:dispute sliaIt ahstain froiii voiing. Sincu:this ruapplies to the
perrna.nentmembers,sirchdecisions requireonlythe concurriiig votes of
therel>resenlaiivcof thosc permanent members no1 partiesto the dispute.
Ofcoiirse,ifallfiuepernianeiitineinbers,or any fivcrncmbcrs,are parries
toadispute,therequiredmajority ofscvcn votesis notpnssibIe.
TheChaner ducs not provide a quorirnt forthevoting procedure of the
Security Council. The autonornous rulcvofproccdurc to be adopted bq'
theSecurityCouncil iinder Article 30 of the Cliartei may cuntiiinsuch a
provision, but withrcspect to substantivedecisions itcould apply onIy

IO thc number of representativcs of non-permanent members whox
prewficeis necessary to enable the SecriritCouncil to tramaci busimss.
Thc rillcof the prowdure adopted bythe SucurityCouncil wouldexceed
theauthori7ationgivcn by thc Charterif they provided ttiat~iotal[repre-
sentativesof thcperrnaneittrnernkrs iieed be preseniIo mukc substantive
action bytheSecurity Councii effectiv?."

Butina Iaterwork. publishcdin 1951, Prnfessor Kelsen appeared atfirsrln
accept that the wordingof ArticIe 27, paragraph 3,was susçepfiblc also of thc
inlcrprctatbn that a valid non-proceduraldecision couId bctaken despite the
voluntary abstention of a pcrmanent rnember IIe suggested that such an
interpretationmight k based on the fact that inArticles 108and 109,whcrc
the conditions for amendmentto the Charteraredcalr with, thephraseused is
"includingal/ permanentrncmbcrsof the Security Cauncil",whei'eas Article27,
paragraph3, does nui requirethecoiicurring votesof "aK'permanentmcrnbcrs
butonly"thc concurring voies ofrhc permanentmembers+".
Hoivever, in a supplcmcntto this work, ProfessorKelsen abandoned this
argument, and stated:

"... but the French tcxtreads: 'levoixde fousles membrespermünents';
and llteothcr texts of Article27, paraywph 3, have the sarnc wording.
Thcre can beno doubt tkataccordiltgto the intentionsof thefraniersof the
Charterthewncurringvotes of ailthe permanent niernbrrsart required'."

(Itaticsadded.)
23. The vieivsexpreswd by ProfessorLeo CIrosswere to the snmeeffect. l-ie
wrote:

"Intcrpretaiionof ~hereqiiiremcnt[concerningthe concurring votes of

Ross. A.. Consriiririoffhe ClnitcdNafioiis (1950pp. 83-84.
Kelsen, H.,"Organisaiion and Yroccdurcof theSecuriry Councilof the United
Nations", IJarvnrLdatv Rwiew, Vol. L.IXII945-19461,pp. IOYB-lUY9.
" Kclsen, op. ri;p. 241).
Ibid., p.241.
Ibid., p.941,footnoic1. WKITTI~K STATEMEPIT OF SOUTH AFRICZ, 41 1

thc pcrnlanentineinbezj, howcver. need givc risctono seriousdifferences
ofopinion in view of tiie IegisIativehistoryof Article27 and theinsistence
hoth liefrireand aftcr thcSan FranciscoConferenceon rhe principlcof
unanimily of the permanentmernbers of thc Security Council. Any
ren~ainingdoubt might be set airest by referencetothe equally authentic
French teïi ofthat paragraphwhich speaks of 'un vore ufflr>narifdsept
de ws mcn~bres chs .%que/ sont coingrisesles voix de totrs tetnmibres
perotur!eiitl."(Italics:idded.)

As already indicakd, th: Spaniski,Russian and Chinese texrs also cuntain
thewnd "all",and PrufessiirGrnss'conclusinn was:

"Thcre is searcelyaiiyrriotifor doubt, tliercfore,that in matieothcr
than thase falling undtArtide27. paragraph 2, and undcr tht rnandatoi-y
ruIcof abstention und-:r the socondpart of piiragraph3 of ArticIc27, the
afirmativcvoie of a11 the five permanent inembers is requiredinaddition
totheaffirmativevotc tiiwu eltxtedrnernbers2."

24. In conclusion, referr:ncemay bc made to a staterncntby the prescnt
Preçidentof theCourt,Sir rduharnmad ZafruIlaKhan, ina debate intheUnited
Nationsin 1949.1lewasrcportcdas fuIlows:

"The record of the votingin the StuurityCouncil Iiowcver, discfosed
:kat one of the permaiientrncmbers. the United Kingdom, had rcgist~red
an abstcntjon. Acwrdingly,the provisionof Articlc 27 of theCharter had
not beenobserved. ...
He was avare that t3e SocurityCouncil had praceeded on rhebasis vfa
practice it $vatrying i.establishwherebythe abstcntiun ofa permanent
rnernbe ricisionsof a subsrmtivenature was not to betreatcdas a veto.
Piiragraph3 of ArticB:27, howcver, didnvt mention the veto; itmcrcly
stipulated that the co,icrirrinvo~esof the permancnt nienibersmut bc
includedin the sevcn ormore afirmativc votes necessaryfor the adoption
of substantivedecisions. Morcovcr,regardlcssof theinterpretarion plad

bythe SecurityCorincil initsownpracticeon theabstention ofa permanent
rnember, tlie CreiieralAssembiywas nui bound by any action taken by
the Coiincilwhich faifrdtocomply with theexpliçitterrnsof Article27.
The record of the SecurityCourtcil'sproceedingsfurtherrevealedthat
wiîen the vote had becn taken, the I'rcsidenhnd statedthat aithough the
decision was governed by the rule of unlinirnitythe abstention of a
perrnanmt mcrnber did not invaiidateil, inasmuchasilhadobtained more
than the sexfenaffirmüii\lvotesrequircd by theCharter.Two rnernbersof
theCoiincifhadtakenc:xmptionto Ihatinterpreiation.. .
Morcovcr, the United Kingdoni which had abstained from voting in
favour of the Couricil'srmrnniendaticin Io admit IsraeIto membership,
h;id borhgenerallys~:cificallymade itclear thatitsabstentioncouid not

he construcd as an aflirmation.. .ClearIy,the Unitcd Kingdom hadnot
concurred in the deciiionof the SccurityCvuncil on the admission of
Israc becailseilhadnnrbeen satisfiethat theapplicantState fulfrllcdrite
conditions Iaidduwn in Article4 or that themerits of thccasewarrantcd
ariafirniative vote.
ln\*iewoTthosecon-iiderations, ~he Comrnittt~ hadbefore it no kcui'ity

Gross. Yulc I.awJnurnrii. VoI. 6No. 2 (19511,pp.209-210.
Ibid.,p. 210.412 NAMBIA (SOLTHWEST AFR[CA)

Council decision whichhad ken taken in accordancewith the condi tiom
laid down inthcCharter '."

25. From the foregoingthert:can, it issubmittedbeno doubr asio how the
Courtwotild have interpretedArtide 27, paragrciph 3,had itken called upon
to pronouncc uponthe question now underdiscussiio m nmediatelyaftcr thc
coming into fore oftheCharter. Itwould have had before itatext which was
clear and iinambiguous, which was in conicirmitywifh the actual intentions
of its autliorsand which was acmptcd by wnternporary publicists to mean
that no rejoIutioncouIdhcsdopted hy the Swurity CounciIwithout the afir,
rnativt and concurring votes of ail its permanent members. Itis thereforc
subrnitted:in accordance wilh the prinn'pleof contemporancily =, thatArticle
27, paragraph3, niuslstill beso ioterpreted.

26. The question may neverthelaers isc whefher, as a matterof interprela-
tian, a differentresultwoiiIdnow be justifiebyrason of evcnts subsequen t
to thecorriinginto force of the Charter,'2ndparticularlybythe practiceof the
Securjty Conncil irself,CIearljrsucha resuIr cnuld not k achieved by any
prmss of inrerprdr(;rion.IVkatevcrvaluthe praciiceof an organization might
haveas ariaid to the interpretationOF its constitutioit cannot override the
clearmeariing ofthe text,piirticularlywhereasin the presentcase,the mcaning
accordw sith theacictuantentionsof its auihors3. The subsequent practice iri
the prcscrit case could accordingh Iyve affected the original meaning of
Article 27, paragraph3, onIy by some prncessof niodification oramcndment
of itsternis.Whethcr such modificationor amcndment has occurred wjllfornt

the subjcctof thesucceedingparagraphs.

Ili. TheEflkcr ofthe Procriceof the~ouncil.trp& Article27, Parafroph 3

27. Situ:=the laie1940s,a largenurnber ofSecuriryCounçir I&olutions on
non-procediiral matters have been declard adripted dapite ihe voluntary
abstcnrion of oneor more OC its permanentrnernkrs '. InitiaIlthispracticc
was questioned by some of the non-permanentrnembcrsof the Council, but
after a cerfainstage it seemsto havc ken follow'edwithout dissent in the
CounciI.Also in thetieneral Asçcmbtyandehewhere Metnbers of ihr:Unitcd
Nationsdo not appear tohave ohjectedto thisprocedure in thepcriod between

approxirnctteIy1950and 1965 ;afterwhichthcsituationchangedas will presently
bcshown ".
28. In Chapter IIconsidcrationwas given to the cirçumstünces in which, if
at aII,a lreatycould be modifiedby the subsequent practice of the parties
thereto. Itissubniittedthatupon theapplicatioii ofthe principIestheresetout.
there is no warraiitfoc holding that the practim rrferrcd to inthe previous
paragraph has laçiiIyintroduceda mociiiiution or amendment of Article 27,
paragrciph3, which would enable the Security Council to take valid non-
proccdural decisions despitc the vnluntaryabstention of oneor more of its
permanent rnernhrs.

-. ..-
GA, OH, Third Sessiod,Part II, Ad Hoc Pol. CoinIn.Suintnary Recordsof
Meetinp,6 April-IO May 1919, 4Znd Mceting (3 May I949) pp. 181-182.
'4VideChap. 11,para. 8, supra.
Vide C'liap.II, paras. 23 and 3sirpuo.
+Stavropoulu C.,A., "The Practice of VoIuntary Abstentions by Permanent
Membersaf theSecurilyCouncil undcrArt. 27,para.3, nf thCharterolthe United
Nations", AJIL, Vol.61(1967), pp. 742erstq.
Which Stavropoulos puls aithecnd of 1949-ibid.,p.746.
Videparas. 33 to 34infra. WRITTIJN flATEMEhT COFSOU'M AFRICA 413

29. At thcoutset itshouldbe rccalledihat the vcrycxistencc ofa principle
of modification of treatic::by subsequentconduct is at present sübject to
considerabledoubt '. Mort:ovcr,evcn ifthe principle wereconceded, itcouid
notapply to theCharter, whichcontainsexpressprovisions for its amendment
in ArticIcsIO8and109 '.
30. However,evenif Articlcs 108and 1G9do notconsritutean absoIutebar
to the informal modificali~n of the Charter, the existenceof these Articles
rnust stleast renderit verditliculto riccept that siiniodificatioihas iifact
been effectcd 3,particularl:in rcspcctof a provisionwhich is OFsuch great

importance in the whole scilemeof the Charteras Arricle27, paragraph 3.-The
clear conscni or al[ inernlxr Stares, manifistettiroughthcirprvper constitu-
tional organs,would have to heprrivedconcIusive beyoresuch a modification
could te heldto havekcn rstablished '.
31.In the instantcm the priciice in question hstd ben pursued in the
Security Council, a body tvith a limited rncmbcrship,and it can üccurdingly
not be said that al1rnernbr:rhave participatedin the practice.And although
the practiccwas formanyyears unconreste td,rc is noihingto suaest that
this lackof oppusilion \'a: indiicedby any dcsircor intentionto mdfy lhe

Charter-indeed, the prücticeappears to have been acceptedin many quarters
a5 king in consonancewiththeCharter,a state of mindwhichis ex Iiypothe-~i
inoonsisteniwith üny intenito modify it Mnreovei', it seerninherentIylikely
that many States,whether rion-permanent mernbers oftht:CounciI or Mernbers
oY the Unitcd Nations generally, failcd to protest onIy bccause their own
interestswere not detrirnr:ntallyaffectedby the reIevant Security CounciI
rcsoIutions,and nnt hcau:c ihey positiveIy intendedtoconsent tn a rnodifiw-
tbnoffhc Charter which ivouldbcapplicable IOal1futurc proceedings of the
CounciI. The lack of positive involvementofrnany State is the procedurein

quariun a1so renders it impossibleto ascertainto what extent,if ataIl, iheir
treaty-makiny vrganscouId properlybesaid lo have advertcdIo ihe matter.
32, The uncerlainty which premils as to thc actcraintentions of mernber
States is ernphasizedwhcn an atternptisinadeto determine the exact conlcnt
of any modificationallegeii to have occurred. Fur here,distinctionsrnayhave
to k drawnbetween the vvotinyproceduresfnllawed inconnectionwithdiffercnt
funçtionsof the C:ouncil.Thus a ct.rtainprocediiremay h acwprable to Sratcs
wherc thc Council acts under Chapter VI of the Charter in pursilanceof its
function of peacefuI settlemenr but not where it actsto apply enforement
ineasurcs under Chpter W. Moreaver, an allcred voting proceduremight

havehad a conscqucnti effecton theauthority ofSecurityC:nunciIrcsulutions,
as suggestedby ProfessorLeo Grass &.
33. A furlherelement ol'unccrtainty arisesby reasonof the amendmentsto
the Chartcr which occurn:d in 19G5 '.Tf some informa1nidiiication of the
Charierhad in faa becn dlècted byconduct prior tothe-proposaisfor amend-

Vide Chap. II,paras.26-29s,upru.
VfdeChap. II, parus. 32and 34,supm.
VideChap. Tl,paras. 32and 35,supra.
+ VideChap. TI,para.35,snpra.IL might conceivably lx suffiïitoiprove con-
sent substanlialcoinplying witthe prcivisioof Articlc 108-vide ibifootnote 3
to pari.35.
Vide Chnp. II, para. 30, sitpr.tavropoiilosfAJIL, Vol. 61 (1967).p. 737)
seks tojustify thispraçiion rLibasis,inieraliofan interpre~atjooftheChartcr.
'*Vofing inthe Securic:!Council: Abstcntion in the Post-1965Amendment
Phase and its lmpacron Articl25 of the Charter", Allt,Vol. 62 (1968).p.315.
7 Vide para.12,supra.mcnt, it isdifficuto understandwhy it\vasnni pro~rly definedandincorpura-
tedivhenArticle27, pawgraph 3, was forrrialIaniendcct.Thc nüturalinference
to be drawn from ihis vmission isthat thesponsor of the ai~iendnientswere
of the opillion that there was an insufficjentniesure of agreement among
mcrnbcr Si.atcsconcerning thc cxistcncc and ambit of ihe modification ro
secure itsii~wrporütionin the Clitirterin accoidai~~ with the requircrncntsof
Article IIR-which 1sin ilseIa cogent indication thatno modification of a

sufiicntly prwisc contcnt had ken cstabljshed. And ihere is no siigges~ion
that nny modificationwas effectedbywnduci subsetjuenttu ticamcndnicnts '.
34. A second aspect or the arnendrnenrs of 1965 is theireKect upon aiiy
informa1 niudificationwhich: dcspite the contentions advanced above, rnight
have coine into existencepriorto 1965. It asa resultor any such modification,
resoluiions of theCouncilprior to 1965wuld vüIidI havebeen adopteddespite
thevolunta.ryabstention ofone or more of thepernianent niernbers. Iheposition
after 1965 .~?oulhethatdespile ttieabsreniionof afi the pcrrnanentrnernkrs,

a rrsoIiiiiocould he adopied by ihevotes of thenon-permaiient mernkrs only
-a situationwhich would have ken impossible in thesnialleSecurity Coiincil
as originallyestablished,in which the positivcvotc ofsi Icüstonc permanent
member was necessaryin order to make up ttie required nuinber of sevrn
affirniativcvota '.'i-hw, if the suçgested nicdificiiiilionsurvived rhc 1965
amendments, itcould have donc so only rvitha rnatcriallydifferentcontent.
Tt is subniirtedihüt this result cuuld bejustifiein Iaw oiily by holding rhat
the formalamendments of I9h5 changedrio: only the express provisionsof the
Charter b~it aIso al1 tacit modifications applying thereto. Apart from the

notional difiçiilties inhcrent in such a proposition,it is clear tliat Ihe 1965
arncndrnents did nnt purporr toaffectanyrhing otherthan the express provisions
of the Chrirter. rt is accordinglysubmittcd thüt the true effect of the 1955
amendmentson any modificationapplying to the pre~sisting composition of
thcCouncil wauId have ben toextinguishsuçhmudifiçaiion.
35.Posttrlating theprcvious cxistence of a tacitmodification,and its subse-
quentextirictionas a rcsultof the forinalamendments in 1965, one rnust.itis
conccdcd, accept the passibilityof itreviva1 or rcestablishmmt in a suiiably

changed form by conditclalter 1965. Evidcncc of frcsh tacitagrccmcnt wouid
of course t~ requiredfor this pürpose. Inthisregard itispertinentto note that
at lcast twn Mernhersof the United Nations (Portug and SoiithAfrica) have
since 1965 exprcsstvi rcscrvations or objections concernin ge purported
adoprion ofnon-procedural Security CouncilresoIritions inthefaceof voluntary
abstention by permanent rnemkrs '; and that inanyevcnt thcre kas not been
any concordant practicel'ora sufficientperiod of time toenahle a cnnclusion
tobe draw that any newsnodifrcalio~ hcisbccn tacitlcstablishcd.

36. Keferencemay at Ihis srage be made tr!certain cornmenls by Judge
Bustaniante inhis scparstcopinion in theCertuin Fxp~ns~scase. 1le said:
"1 tisalready welI known that anunwritten amendment to the Charter

has taken placc in the practiceof the Scuriry Council, narnely, rnthe

: Videfor instance. StavroniiuloAJII .VoI. 61 -1967.. .737.
Yid~para. 12.sai&. '
Vide lettedaied 27 AD^. 1966froin the MiiiisteroForeign Affairs ofPortugI
addressed to the ~ecretsry-~eneral. UN doc. S/7271 (28 ~pr. t966) in SC, OH,
Twcnty-first Year, Sup.for April,May and June 1966, pp. 59-62:Note Verbale
datcd22 June 1966 from the Representaciveof South Africa tothe Secretary-Gtn-
eral,UN doc.SC7392(I July 1966) in SC. OR, Twmiy-first Year, Stip.for July,
August anclScptember 1966, pp. 16-17;Itircdated 26 Sep. 1969, Fromthe Minister
of Foreign Affairsof South Africa addressed :dthe Stçrrtary-General, EN doc,
SP453, Ann. 1f3 Oct. 196Y),pp.21-22. WUIR'EN STATFMENT OI:SOUTH AFRICA 415

eflect that ~heabstenrionof a permanent Mcmbcr prcsent al a meetingis
not assimilated to th;:exerciserifthe righl to veto..\'O(hihi ihis typeof
amenaineni muy he hyally repucIic~ren a ~ivcn case by inwking rire tex!
oj'rheChorrer (Ar/. 27,para. 3)since nupernioncnr ,bienil)~*hrirdertnketi
ro uppIy ir wirkout r~ver.vrution; ut in the case of rhe Congo, of thc
permanentMembcrs absttiining,none asserrcdthat itsabstention was to
be regardedasa veto ." (Italicsadded.)

Judge Bustainantethcn prcrceeded triexarninccertain siibsequent Security
CounciIresoIutions,and IinalIyrciichedthe conclusionrhat latcr raoIu(ions,
une of which was passedwithout abstention by a permanentrnember, had
ratificd theearlieones Z.
Ifthe whole of Jiidge Bustamante'srei~oning de~ndcd ultirnalelyon Iiis

finding of ratificationhis attitudewould not necex~arilyhejiiconsistcnt with
that set oui iiereinS.However, itwould appcar that he aIso reiiedupon an
"unwritten amendment tl,thc Charter",and to that extent his opinion is
aiithority againstthc cunt<t~tionsadidvance nithisChaptcr.
Ttisrcspstful ly submitted that the relevant passagefrom the opinion pro-
çseded from a false prerniseand isconsequently unsound.Judge nustainante
appears to haveasumcd thatthe votingprocedurein the SecürityCounciIin the
respcct inquestion. \vasthe concernof only thc pertrianentmenibers, and that
on1ythoscmembers uwuld cntirld to invoke thetexiof Article 27,paragraph

3. Itis submittedthai ihis isnot a correc aplproach.Thc Charteris a mtiltilat-
eral trcaty, and al1partics thereroare entiticd ro insison cornpliancc thece-
with. This is not a piirelifnrmal ortt~hniwl ccintention--thc requil-einentof
complete unanimity on th(:partof the permanentrnembers does not enureonly
io thcirorvn ndvantage, but servesin the gcncrülinterestto guard againstthe
Council exercisingitsextensivepowcrs without theactive suppori of itsperma-
nentmernbers; 'Ih this cxlcnt ialsoreprcscnts a protectionfor srna1IerStates,
which should not be expected to compIy with Sccurity Coiincil resolutions

unlcsstheywere odoptcd *ilh thepositivc conçurreiiceof thewrmancnt nieni-
bers.
37.'I'hepraçtiçalirsipoi,tanceof this aspectmay k sccn from ihe foIloiving
exunipIes.In the debatepreceding thc icadpt[oon of SecurityC:ouncil resolution
376 (I970) t,e iqepresentt!tivcofthe United Kingdom. a pertnanent nlernber
which abstained in thevoting, said:

"As regardsthe sul)jecof today'smeeting, 1 believc thatthe positionof
my Governmcnt issidficientlwcll known 10 makc it unncccssaryfor rnc
torepeal itindctail. . . .Wehaveconristcntlydrawn artentionto ~heprac-
ticalconsiderarionsthai WC bclicvehaveto be facedand totlieneed forthe
United Nations to actonIywithinitscapabilities.Howevermuch wedeplorc
ilSouih Africa isin façtcontrnlljng thc Tcrrjloryor South Wcst Africa.

WC have made our rcjoction of this state of atfaiçrlar to the Soiith
African Govertln~ent.-I'hcaction which we can take,however, islimitd.
We have made no :;ecret ofOUF oiun inabjlity to contcmplate action
which would mpidly turn info complete econoinic warfare againsiSouth

CurlaiiErpcris~sufth~ Uniieii Noriotu (Arric17.piai-a~ruph2ofrhr ch~:horier).
Advisory Opirrioii, 1.C.J. Rcporis 1962, p. 291.
Ibid., p292.
Although it might raisedifficuftquesiitins, whicli are materialat prcsenr,
concernio tge ratificationoinvalidresulutions.416 NAMBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

Africa. Wr have expIainedwhywe havefettlhatihcadoptionof resolutions
whicharc incffective or inoperable cannotscrve the interestof the peoplc
ofthe4Territoroyr of thc United Nations; and for aIl rhesercasonwe have
abstaitted on a number of resoIiitions,nolabIy General Assernbly reso-

Iution2145 (XXI) of 27 Uctober 1966,Secürity Council rewlution 26-4
(1969)and Sccurity Coüncil resolution269 (1969).
It wiIl therefoineconieas no surpriscto the meinbers of this Council
~hoiwl!crinno!on thisorcnsiongive our s~tpporitotherlrclresol~rriobe/ore
irssinceIhebasis of that rcsoIutinn liofcourseinthoseearlierresolutions
on which we hrtvealreadyabsiainedin thc pasi.Mareover, insome respects,
ncicablyopei4ativtparagraph 5, the draft resolutionseems tu us to ignore
sonic of thc circumstances to which1 have aIready referred. MyCiegurwt~
wiifrhrrefou rbestrriliiwtîiigotz~lf~drafI resoIutinnbefure ss'." (Italics
added.)

Althouyhthccesulution was adapted, it c1earIdid not enjoy thesupport of the
prmanent rnenlberwncerned.
Another example is apparent from the attitudeof the reprcxntative of the
LSSR who inthc dcbate prewding the adoption of rcsolution 284(1970)stated:

"The Soviei delegation wishes to express its seriousdoubts with regard
tothc provision in the draft resolution conccrning recourseto the Inter-
nationalCourt ofJustice to rcqucstan advisory opinion on the queslion of
Namibia. This approval, itseems to my dekgatiun, cannot be regardedas
an cffcctivc rncasurewhich couldconlri buteto the withdn\vaI ofthe South
Africanracists from Namibia. Mo~ovcr, the adoption ofsuch adecision

would deIay the solutionto theprohlern of Nairiibia.It wouldcrcate i1Iu-
sions i:on~rning the possibiIityof a solution to this prohlern by legal
meansand nvt by the taking of seriouspolitical measuresby the Security
Council.
In vicw of these considerations, the Soviet delegation wiII take its
positicn according wIhcn thc draft resnlutioncornesto a vote 2."

In the event,the Soviet delegation abstainedin ihc voting although the rewIu-
tion did notbear its approval.
Theseexi:racts aretypical of many and showhow Security Cuunçil resolutions
have ken <IecIarcdadoptedin circurnsianccsinwhich theynotonly lacked the
positive support rifaIIrtiepermanent members, but were actually considered
undesirable by some of these mernkrs.
38. What cIcdrlyernergesisihat, wcrc thc Socurity Councilable toact validy
despite thevnluntary abstention of one or more of itsineinbers, atheMembers
of the United Nations wouId thereby be deprived O€ an important protection
accord4 tllem in the Charter-the unanirnity of the permanent members of
thc Sccurit:,Council on non-procedural matters.

39. The aforesaid argurnenis Iead,it is subniilted, lhe conclusion Ihalthe
Charterdom not permit theadoption of non-prwdural Security Council reso-
Iutions intlie facofthe voIuntary abstention of one or more of the prmaiient
me~nbersT . his concIusion rcndersitnecessary togive brierconsiderationto the
leml effect of resoltitions declared adopied despile non-cornpliunce wiih the
terrnsof A:,:ticlc27. paraçraph 3. It shouldbc notcd that this probIernwouId
ariseto sonie extent whcthcr or notthecontention5 advancd aboveare correct.

' UN dor:. SIPV. 1529(30 Jan. 1970)p,p.17-18.
UN doi:.SiPV. 1550 (29 July 19701,pp. 53-55. WRiTTFN STATEMENT OF SOUTE<AFRICA 417

Evcnif irbc ampted thatthe Charter had, by subscqucnt practice,becn pro-
perly modifiod to permit a changed voting pattern,a number of resoIulions
adidoptapi rioto or during the period of gestation ofthe modifica[ionwouId
havebeeir invaIid,or at Iezst OFdoiibtfulvaliùity. Had no such modification
beeneffected, the number of such resalutionswould, of course,be very much
largcr. But in ncithcrcvent would this nmssarily cntail rhc cornpletcnullity

of al[such resolurionsandof everything done inpursuanceofthem. It seems
cIearthat in internationallawactswhich were initiallyinvalimay be validateci
by acquicsccnm, 11apsocf tirnc, cstoppelor sirnilarprocess'.
This wouId lirobablyhave happened in the case of a11thnse resolutions,
originallyinvalid.which wtre adopted prior to1965, and possibIy evenin the
casc of somc of thosc aùoptcd subscqucntly.Huivever, sincetheSouth African
Government has clearly not acquiesceinany Security Councilresoluiion rele
vant to the question orSoiith West Africa$ itjs no1 nccessaryto pursue the
mattcr furthcr.
rcasons afcrcstatcd it is subrnitted that al1 non-promdural
40.For thc
SecurityCouncil resoIution:;which arerelevant tothe presentcxse are invaIid
andvoidof cffcct byrcasonof thcvoluntary a bstenionin thc votingbycertainof
the permanentmembers of the CounciI.

41. 'I'hereis. iissubmitred.a further respectinwhich the SecurityCounciI
did noi comply with the requiremento sf Article27,paragraph3, dealingwith
voting onnon-prxedural matters. Inso far asit isrelevanto thc presentques-

tion, the proviso to that paragrapiaysdown that "indecisionsunderChapter
VI ... a partyIoa dispute 5halIabstain from v~ti~g".SccurjtyCouncilresoiu-
tions 264 (I969), 269 (1969)and 276 {1970),c1carIryelate tonon-prwxduraI
matters and,as willbe shou-n inChapter V, j&, those resolutionscould only
havebeen aùoptcd by the (YounciI,if ataI1,iinderChaptcr VI of the Charter
and, therefore,constitute"c.ecisions"within the meaningofthe aboveprovisu.
The questionwhich ariseshert:is wheiher certainmembers of the Council
shouId nor have abstaincd iithevoting on the resulutionsconccrnd. It wiIIbe
shown in Chapter IV,infra, that if theJudgmentof thisCourtin 1962relevant

to the existenciof a dispuic in thc unikd Nations was correct'.then there
existsadispute on thequestion of South West Africahetween South Africaand
a numkr of meniber State. of the United Nations consistiiigprobably of al1
thoçi: which votd infavour of Cientra]Aswirlblsresolution 2145 (XXI). At
al1relevanttimes 13of thesesameStates were reprexnted onthcSecurity&un-
cil andif is subrnittethatin accordance with the proviso to Articl77, para-
graph 3, aIf 3 shouldhave abslained in ihe voting on thevarious resoIutions
in qiiestion.In factcxceptinthe case of resolurion269 (1969w )here oriftwo
of them abstained ',a1113\rited afirmativeIy

Vide LatiterpachtE., :'l'hLegrilEf~t of IllcgaActs of IntcrnatiunalOr-
ganisations",+nibridge Essa1,inIni~rnoiionniLaw (19651,p.88.
Vide footnote3 to para.-35sirprir.
Soüih W~.rAJiira, Pr~Iim;irar.vObjcc~iom,J~rd~mi.C.J,Keporis 1962, 345-
' Finland and tbe IJnii4 Sraies-vide IJN dnc. S[PV. 1497 (12 Aug. 196%
12-15.France and the Uniied Kingdom which alsoabstained didiiovote inravour
of GA resoturion2145 {XXI).
Vide UN docs.S!PY. 1465(20 Mar. 1969),p. 71{resolution 26(1969))S:IPV.
1529{30Jan. IY70) pp. 83-85{resolutio276(1970));wd S/PV. I550(29 JuIy19701,
p. 76.France and thc Llnitcd Kingdom, whichabstainedon thesethreeresol$ions
also abstained un GA resolutio2145IXXJ).418 SAMIBLA (SOUTH WES'r AFt11Ch)
Had thr:seS~aicsabsrained,the Councilcould not, of course, have adopted

the rafnluiinns.since ihe requisitenineatlirniativevotes wouldhave boen Iack-
ing, and t is acccirdingIycontendctd hat thcir failurcta abstain renderd the
adoption .>tfhe resoIutionsconcerned invalid andof no IegaIeli'txl.

E. The Yon-Procedur iiature of Securify Council Hesoluticiti284 j1970)

42. Thr:nextquestion io bt:wnsidcred isrvhcthertheadoption ofSecurity
C:ouncil rcsoIution 284 (1970) canbe resarded as a decisionona procedura[
mattet wilhin the aiiibitof ArticIe 77, paragraph 2, of the Charter. If not,
it follows from what has bcen stated in the precedingpamgraphs that the
resolutinn was not vaIidIy adopted, and that the Coiirt is consequently pre-
cluded It-cbainsweiing the presentrtyuest for an opinion.

43. Thr: Charter ilseIf contüins no definitionof "decisioiis. . .on prow-
dural inaiiers".Ho~lever, according to theordinaryrnming of the words, such
drçisions;ireconfined ioihosc:rvhich rclatcsolclytotheintcrnalfirnctioningand
structure .d a pariicularargan (;ricasIlthe Security Council) and create tegal
rights?coiiipetcnces and obligatinns for thatorgani, ts subsidiary bodiesur its
nienibers yuri ~nernlierswhichcan only beexcrcixd or carricd out within the
framewvorkof the organ itsclf. In contras!, a decision wnuld be a substantive

oneif ithas externa1 legaleffect,i.e.ifit creatrsrights,cornpetenlTsand obIi-
gafionfç or vther biidicsur pcrsons.
In terms of the ChartertheCourthas no power to give, or to offertogivean
ndvisory opinion proprio ir~ntitircan acl only when sei;led of a cornpeten1
request2. It fotlows that such a requcsi confers upvn thc Court a concrctc
competcnce to consider itand, if deernedadvisable by tlie Court,to accede
thereto. Butsince tlieCourt curnot besaid to bt:a partof the interna1structure

of(hi Security Council, it issubmittcdthata decision oftheCnunciI to request
an opinion cari consequently iiot be regardedas a decjsioiion a procedural
matter.
44. This conclusion appcsirs to bc borncout by the staienient made inJunc
1945at the San FranciscoConference by the Sponsoring Governments, and
accededto by France, to which rcfcrcnce was madeabovc '.One of the qucs-

tions put to thcx Govcrnmenis was :

- --.- ..
: 11is alstribe otiservedth& at Ieaçt Iivofthe States whiclvoted nttirinatively
for rrsiiIuririns264(t969), 2(1969)and 276(1970) wereainong tiiose States wliich
requestedttteconvening of the Council inordcr to considcr rlic question of "Nami-
bia" (videLi: dacs. S!9090 (14 Mar. 1'159),and Add. 1-3:Si9359 (24 July1969);
519372(1 Aug. 1969); and 5/9616 (26 Jan. 1970)and Add. 1-3(dated 27. 28 and 29
Jan.1970 rcspcctivcl -y))regardsresolution 264 (1969): thStatesconcernedwere
Algeria,Nepal, Pakistan, Smcgal and Zamb~a: as regards resolution 769 (196'1).
ihey werr:theszimr fiveStatcswith thc addition of lolornbia;andas rcgardsrcso-
Iution 276 (9701, iliewere Rurundi, Ncpal. Sicrra Lconc, Syria and Xarnbiii. As
wiltappear froiii Chap.\?,infiu, ifthe1962 Judgnicnt averetu be rcillonredithe
relevantrrspcct, these States mus1 he regardecas piir1iti~in dispurewitli Soutli
Africaovc:rSoutli Wcst .\Fricand, itissubrniiied,shouldlliereforehave abstziiied
inthe votiog on therelcvant resolutiunsHad theydone so, tbeiitogether with the
ritherSiates whichabstained on these resoluiions.there couldatno tiniehave bceii
more tiiaiicight votes castin fariour of tliresoliitions (vide note 4,417) and.
consequently, therestilutit>çould not have becn validly adopted-
Roserine,S., The Law and Prarticp ofthe Inr~rndional Cour1 (1965), Vol. II,
pp. 540-5<i9.
' Vide para. 17, strpru. WRI~TCN SI'AT~MENT or S:OL'TIAFRICA 419

"Would the veto beapplicable to adecis~onof the Çecurity Council . ..
tn ~e~r ujit~iiciahlc di:purtu tht: InternationüI Coiirt of Justi'7"

The Five Pou7erStatemeiitineludcd the foilowing:
'-... under the YaIta Iorrnua Iapro~~duralvote will govern the dccisions
made undcr the cntirc:Section D of Chapter VI. This nieans that the
Councilwill, bya vote of any scveo nfits menibers,adopt or altcrils rules
of procedure; dererrniiie the method of sclecling itsPresident; organize

itselin such a rvayas to lxab[eto function coniinuously; seIec thtetiines
and places of its regulaa rnd specialmeetings; cstsblish such bvdies or
agencies as ilmay deem necessary for the perforrnai-tceof its funçtions;
invite a mcmbcr of th: Organization not rtpresented on the CounciI tn
parlicipaie in its discussions when rhat Member's intcrcsts arc spcciul ly
affeçted; andinvile any Siatewhen itisu partyto a dispute beingconsidcr-
ed by the raunciI to psrticipüle in the discussion rdalin10 that dispute.
Furthei, no individual n~enlberof the C:nunctcan alonc prcventconsid-
eration anddiscusçion bythe Council ufa dispute or situation broughtto
ils attentionunder pariigraph 2, SuclionA, ChaptcrVITI.Nor cm parties
tosuch dispiite lieprevcntedhy these riierinst'romking kard bythc Coun-

cil.Likewise. the rcquirement for unanimity of the pernianentmembers
camot prevent any mrniber ofthe Council fl-omreminding thernernbers
of thcOrganizaiion ofilieigeneral obligaliona assurned undcr thc Charter
as regai-dspeacefulsctilcmcnt of international disputes.
Beyond rliis point, rlecisions andactions by theSccurity Couiicii may
weII hiivc major pu1iti:aI consequences and inay even initintc a chain of
e~~entws hicli might, ithe end. rcquire the Council underits responsibil-
iticsto inbloke measures of enforcetrieiiunder Section B. Chapter VITT.
This chain of cilcntsIxgins when the CounciIdecidesto make an invcsii-
gation, os deterinines iliat the time hascrime to cal[ upon Statesto settle

thcir diflerenct5or ni:ikes recornmendalions to the parties. II iro such
decisions and actions that unanitriiiyof the perrnanent mernbcrs applieç,
with the important prcaviso,rcferredto abovc, for übstentioi~fromvoting
by partiesro a d~sptite.
To illtistratin orticringatiinvestigation. the Council hau to consider
wliether the iiivestigation-ivhich may invoIvccülling for reports, hcaring
wirnesses,dispatching acnmmission of inquiry, or other means-might
not furthcr aggravatc the situaiion. After investigation, ihc Council must
deterinine whetherthe continiianm of thc situation or dispute would be
Iikelyto endangerinteinational peace and security. If iso determines,thc
Council rvouId bcunt!er obligation to take Îurther steps. SimiIarly. the

decisioiitoinnke recornmen&tions, even whcn al1partiesrequestir to do
so,or 10 cal1upon par!ies to a dispute tofulfitthcirobligations underthc
Chartcr, niight lx iht: firststepon a course of action front which the
SecurityCoiincilcould withdr~wonly at thc risk orfailingto dischargri:ts
rrsponiibiIitie?."

45. Icwill be obçerved ihat iir this statementa subsimtive chharacter was
attriburedalso to deçisionç which tnightcrcate"external" obligations, rigbtsor
conipetences.Comrnentingtherwn, Dr. Yuen-Li Liang hs remarkcd :
"In ihe context of tl-,eJoint Statcmentof theSponsoring Govemmcnts,

CXCIO docs.. Vol. XI, 1).704.
Ibid.,pp. 711-712. WRITTE.~ STATEMEX or;SOUTII AFRICA 421

meiiibersof the SecurityCoi~nciI thalth? ddasions set forih in the anncxto the
rcsolutionbedeemed prowdural l.
'I'heTntcrirnCummittee cc,ncludedthat a reqüest to t11eCour1foran advisory
opinion isa procedural deciijun In introdiicing the reIevant draft resohtion
in theAd lluc PoliticalCorninitteethe Unitcd Stittw:rcprcsentntiveçaid:

"With mie exception. the hft did no more rhan repeat the decisiom
listed in the first conclusioaf ihe rnterim Cornniittcz. The onIy decision
which had bwn ornitietwas theone wherehy the Securily CounciI could
request an advisory opinion from the InternationalCourt of Justice on
Icgal questions. I'heUnited Starcs &lcgation was convinced that sucha
docision shou[d aIso b: regarded as procedura[. In view, however, of

certain objections raiseil in thaconnecrion by other dclcgations, it had
agreed ta deletethat decision from the Iist which hadken submitted 3."
In the rcsult thanncx to the resoiuiionas eventually adopted ais# contained
no referenceto arequest foranopinion. Ifxems clear thatthisitcm was dclctcd
kause the sponsors of the draft resalutinn wereconvinced that the neçessary

n~ajorityinsupport of thcinclusionofthe said iterncould no1 beobtained.
49. There has been a wide divergence of opinio anmongst writers on the
question as to ivhcthera decision by the SeciiritCouncil (and, inthe tirne of
the I.eague, the Council theiwf) to rcqucst an opinion, isto be regardcd as a
praccdural or substantive ciCiecisinrSi.ome maintain that it is a substantive
decision +;others that itisa decision on a proceduralmatrcr '; andsiil1others
that ii is a procedural decisian only if thc rcqucst concents a questio of
proccdurc
For presenrpurposes it sii:Yicto sriythatthe writers rallinpinto the second

group fail io fnrniulate a convincing critcrion for distinguishing between
proccdura1and substantive decisions,and that even if theviews of thefhird
group were tobe adopted, the presentrequest wouldsti1I bcinvalidsinc the
qitestionclearly does not relate to the proccdurc of thc Smrity CounciI, but
on thcconlrar o,thesuhtantive rightsand obligations of States.
50. For thc reasons statcd above itisconsequently suhmitted ihattheadop-
tion of remlution 284 (197qi was not a dccision on a pmwdural marler, and
that S~IICGrhree perrnmentinembers of the Security Council abstained fmm
voting, rheresolution wüs noi validlyadopted.

F.Tfie FaiIureof the Swurity Couiicii toInvifeSoufhArica
toParticlpateInIts ilismmions

51. The lastquestion io bv coiisideredin connection with ihe forma1validity
of the relevant SecurityCuuricjIrcsolutionsis the eFîectoftheCouncil's failure

' Il~id.tirsoperative paragraph.
GA, OR, Third 'icss.Sup. No.IO. p.14.
ings,A16Nov.Thto9 De&.1948,rtpp.A197-198.. Ct,rnrn.,Summary RecordsofMeet-
' Vide, cg.,thewritersrtfe:re<to inpara. 45, supru.
Vidr, e.g.authors citedbi,van Roijen, R.D., Procedure-Kwesries inhet y~f-
krnhndxrechr {t933, pp. 132-134: Dahm. G.. Vdikerre 1h96Ij, VolII,pp. 22 -
222: Jirntnezde Aréchaga,op. cii.pp. 8.9.
Vide, cg., authors ciiedtiyvan Roijen. op, ci/.pp. 129-132; McNair, A. D.,
"The Council's Request Torr:n Advisory Opinion rrom the Permanent Court of
lntcrnaiionalJustice".AY.B.!.L., Vol. VI1 (19261,p. 13; Dubisson, M.,La Cour
int~rnarionaiede Ju.r!fce TH), p.307.to invite South Africa to participatc in the discussions which preceded the
adoption of ihose resolutions.Article 32of the Charter, in so faras itis hcre
pertinent,providcs as follows:

"hy 1Mc.rnbx of tlietiriited Nations which isnot a ~nemberof the
Securit):CciunciI. . ifitis a pürty to a dispute under conïideration by
the t~curity Catincil,.shalI binvited to participate,withotit vote,in the
disctissionrcIatinto thcdispute ..."

South Arrica was ai al[ relevanttimes ü Mcmbcr of the United Nations but
not a rnt:rnberof the Security <:ouncil,andif, as this Court has dccidcd, the
question of South Wcst Arrica iu to be regwded as a dispute between South
Africaai-idother McmbcrsoftheLnitedNations ',it issubmirtedthat Arricle32
imposes upon the Swurity CounciIan imperativc duty to inviteSuuth Africii
ta participale in itsdiscussions wlienever the dispute isunder considera ton
by the <:ouncil. This rhc Counçil Pded to de-not only in the case of its
rcçoiution284 (1970) but aIsriin thecase of its rcIatcdrcsolutivns264 (19691,
269 (1969) and 276(1970).
frorn the
52. That the provisions of Article 32 are rnandaroryappears
wordingor rhe Article itself-a party to a disputeshaU bc invitcdiopar~içipatc
in the discussionrclaling tothe dispuie. UnlikeArticIe31,in terrns ofwhicha
Mernber of theUnitedNations not representcd on thcCuuncil "may" participate
in the discussion"whenever [he (Council) considers that theinterestsof rhat
Meniber arespwriailyaffected", Article32lcavcsno discrciionlo the Council-
it nirtsinvitethe participationof an unrepresei~ted State which isa party to a
disputc undcr considcration.Thar is rht ordinary rneaning andnaturaIeffect
of the words "shallhe invited?".

53. Morcciver, in the practia of the Smky Councilitself, "on al1 those
occasions in shich the Articlc wasconsiderd appiiable Iherehaz never ken
any exptrssian of dissent as to its mandatory charactcr ... 3" In 1946 the
Counçil'.;Corniiiilteeof Experts didnot consider itadvisable IOprovidein the
provisiotial rules of pro~~dure"for Members invireid n accnrdancc with
Art icIe32 of theCharter hecaidseIIIPincirotion ra ,We~nber u~uierrhisArticle
is ~>~~zrfc~f ory And statements emphasking the peremptory nature uf the
Article have freqnenrly becn made in theCouncil. Ttius, inconnectionwiththe
C.'orfiC.'hntinel uestion,theI'residenrof thcCounciI(Australin),afterquoting

Article32,strrwd:
".. .there ivoiilseentto bean obligationon thcCouncil lo invileAlbania
topirticipatc inthc discussionof ihisiietof theagenda ?''.

Soalk Wt'srAjrica, PftliniinaOhj~riions, judgint~nl.I.CReports 1962.p.345.
This qiiesriciisriealwith furlherin Ckap. TV. infi.q.v.
IL i10 he ohserved thatin Chaprer VI, sectionD, paragaph 5, of ihe Dum-
barton Oaks PropcmIs, tbeçrirresponding phrasewas"sfiouidbc invifed".{LNCIO
dots.,Vci1.111,p. 1.1This phrase, which ai thc San Francisco Conference was
rctaine bdCornmiss~on 111,\vas cliangeto itsprcscntform in theTentativeDrafaft
of thc C'o-ordinationComrnittecand thc Advisury Ctirnrriittof Jurists {ibid.,
Vol. XV. p.73).and isinIincwith arncndmcntsproposed hy C~aiiadaand \7enezuela
theoChartcrcintcndcdithatthc issuingof1anIhinvitritiobycthesCouncil wasmto he
obligatury incase of Art~clc32,
Reptrroro yfUnited hroiionrPractire (19SS),Vol. Ip. 183.
+ Y& SC,OR, FirsiYear, FirstSeries,Sup. No. 2. p.22.
SC, OR, Second Yrar,No. 6,95th Meeting, 20 Jan. 1947,p. 123. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SOIlTilAFRICA 423

And, aithe following meetirigof theCouncil, he observeci:

"Thc CvunciI has i~iviied thAlbanian C;overiiment to participate in
the discussio ofthe toinpIüint broiight againstit.TRat isonly fair,and
itis a procedii,~ which isenjoined by thc Chartcr. The obligation ofihe
Councii . ..as rcqrtirc(iby thetexrqf !k Charter and as required by the
dictatesof common ju:;ticei.rui.rs~rIIICMvitn?iofiand give [he Albanian

Govemmeni a reasanable opporttinityto bc rcprcscntcd '."(Italics addcd.)
Onanoihcr occasionr he represcniativeof Syriadeciared:

". . . Article 3States !ha[ siich rnernbcrs'shallbc invitcdto participatc
. . .' Thc Sccurity Couiicil shouId nowait untilsuch a party to a dispute
makes an application to behe;irri.'I'haparty should be invitedipsofirrto
without any requesi onits part"'"

According to thc rcpresentaiiveof theLSSR :

"Article 32 essentialy provides thar wlien internationaI disputes aie
uncierconsiderritionhy the SecurityCouncil, both partiesrnust bç invi~td
tobE hcarda~ ilsniectirig3."

And during discussion of the Vier-Nam question, the representative or the
CSSR, after quoring Arricle32,decIared:
". ..1 shouldthink it iiecessarto obxrve Ihatif the Government of the

Dernacratic Republic <rFVie{-Nam wishcs tu takc part in thc rnee~inysof
thc Swuri iy Council, ?r willbe theuliliga!ioriI rrptat: rheobiigo~ion-af
!ke Security Corrizcil,inaccordancc witlithe Article 1 have just quored,
ru iivilJorrhwirhrrprrasriltufiveoj'IIICDCI~IOCÏ~R ~epubiicofV!cf-:V~nr
nroticerotnkepart in ~f,eCow~cil'swurk 4.'(italics added.)

Many furiher cxamples cf statemcnts tosiniiIareffectare to befound inthe
recordsof theSecurityCouticil ",
54. The mandatory charsicier of Article32 has aIso bcenemphasizcdby the
publicists.Bcntwichand Martin,forexan~piep , utthematterthus &:

"Any Membcr Statc:not rcprcscnted on tlie Council iscntirled,m n
rtruflcofrixhr, toparticipate, witho~ila vote.in ihe discussionOF anydis-
ptite10which itisaparty.TheCouncilinu.~riss~t~ain nvitatiunbutthe Mem-
ber iscntitlcdtodcclin{:."{Italics added.)

Inhis rvorkdealingwi tlthe SecurityCouncil.Professor (now Judge)Jiménez de
Artchaga stales:

"'I'hereis a differenu;betweetitheinvitationunderArticle31 and under
Arricle 32: whilt in ttieLirsicase an invitation may bcexiended ifthe
CounciI considcrs that the interestsof the Mernber are speciaIlyaffected,
intliesecond, as was :.uidin the Report of the Cornmitlaz of Experts of

Ihd., No. 7,96th Meeting. 28 Jan. 1947, p.133.
' Vide Rrper~oirc ofthe Prricricofthe S~cirri!Cuitnçil 1946-1951.p.126.
Ibid.,p. 22.
Sc, DR, Nineteent11Year, 1140thMceting, 5 Aug. 1963, p. IO.
Vide. for instance: SCCE(,Second Year, I8Ist Mccting. 12Aug, 1947, p.1933
(USA) and p. 1935(China); thid., Fifth Yesr, 483rd Meeting, Aug. I950, pp. 3-3
(USSR): ibid.. 488th Meetin:;. 17 Aug. 1950.pp. 2-3 IIISSR); ihid.Second Year.
lxrst Mccting, 11 Aug. 1947.p. 1920.
Churtrr ofrireLlniredcil~ions t1951fp.75.424 NAMIRIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

rhe W:curityCauncil, it 'ismand-atory'.Thc CounciI is requird lo invite
anyklernberof rhc United Nationswhich is a party toa dispuiç '.
...ariinvitation under Article32 need not be requcsred; itmustbeissued

by ihtCouncilevcn ifnot roqucstcdby the State Partyrn rhedispute '."
Gwdrich andSimuns considerthatunderArticle31ttieCoun~ijis"ubligiited"
to invitc a.piirtyto a dispute ta participate in the disciissions. And Kelsen is
clearlyof ilisanieopinion 4.

55. The conchision fo bc dwwn from these arguments is ihal in failingto
invitc So~.th Africa to participate in üny of l'ne discusions relating to thc
questioiicf South WestAfiica, tliSecurityCvunciI did not act incoriformity
with the niandatoryprovisions of Article 32 of the Charter.It is ticcordingiy
submittcd that thc various resoiutions adopted as a resultof thoscdiscussions
were forinallydefective in a vitalrespec and thus iiirrarirc.the Coilncil and
of no legai effwi.

56. Foi thc rcasans set out in titis Clhaptand cven ififcan be said, despitc
the dou bt:;expresxd by some Slatcs uincei-ning the represeniation of China,
tht the Security Council was ital1 pertinent tirn~spropcrly constituredin
terms of the Charter, itis neverlhelesssubmittcd that in adopting its wtriuus
r--olution; relevant tuthcissucs now before theCourt, theCouncil did not act
inaccord;ince with the procedures prejcribed in the ~hartcr. It is accordingly
contended thar a11these resolutionswere formallvinvalid and ofno IemI efkct.

Thus,rt:solution284 {1970),which itissubrnitied,was adecision on-arnatter
oihcr thari a prcrcedurar lnatterwithii~the triuaningofArticlc 27, paragraph 2,
of the Charrer, waq invalidnot only becaiise ii\vasadoptedwitliout tIieafir-
mative and concurringvotcs of a11the permanent members ofthe Council,but
alçu kaùsc South Africawas not, in accordnr~c weith thc provisionsof Article
32, invited by rhe CounciI to participa itethediscussionspreceding11sadop-
tion.
On [he othcr hand. resolritions264(19691,269(1969)and 276 119701,which
wcrc cicarl resolutions ot'a non-procediira1 nature, were invalid not only on

the saiiie tivo grounds just rncntioncd? but also an the further ground that
certain rncrnbersof the Council shouId.in ternisof the provisu to Article 77,
paragraph 3, have abstainedin the voiing on them, but faitedtodom.

Jimênel .e Aréchaga,op:.çir.,p. 57.
riid,p. 58.
.' T~P Lii?itpd hfafiom andtiri. ,Mni~tlenu;lcr ufIr~rrrffazi euceanri Seciiriiy
(19551,p. 28. , . < . ,
+ Vi~ieK.elstnop. ci!., p223. ... WKIT'I-ENSTAl't5ftNZOF SOUTIt AFRICA

CHAPTER IV

TI-31S~l!j(~HEï'ION OIi THE COURT . .,

1. ln ternisof ArticIe65of the Statuteof theCourt, readwiih rheprovisions,
of the Charter, the Coiirtt?:riygivean advisory opinion on any legal quc~~ioit

ar therequest of,itzreahia,tliSccurityCourtcil.
It icIear that .4rticI65 cotiferson the Cour1 a discretionwhetheror no!
to accede to a competent n:questfor süçh an opinion '.The Court itselihas
siated on a number of occasinns thateven incases where itislegiillentitled
todo su,ilis no1obligcd toi:ivcanndvisoryopinion '.
However, the Cotirt has refrainedfrom forrnulatingcr~tcrw iahich cari be
applied in deciding wheiher in any parficularcase it shouId or should no1
excrcix- ils discretion.In th-ftzterpretcttiofPcace Treniiescase " the Court

merely stated thatArticle t5 of the Siatutc-is.permissivein thai ilgivesthe
C-rt the power to e.arn~ne whether the circumstances of a case arcof such a
characlcc asshciuld lead itro d~cline toanswera requat foran opinion. The
Court alsopointcdout, hov~cver hat itis anorgan ofthe Unitcd Nations,and
that inprinciplea cnmpeteni requestfrom anoiherurgsnshould no1 lx refuscd'.
: In ht:Jlidgments ut-rlieArlinirrisircrr. ribtrnnio~he IL0 iiponC:oriip!ainrs
Mudc againsr Unesco case, tliCourt went further bystatingthat only "conipel-
ling reasons" should Iead it to reruseto givea rcquesiedopiiiion 5.The rame

iitiitude wasadupttdinthcCerrnirr E~-ge~tsesase b.
2. On theassumptionthat rheprescntreqiiest is a valid and competent one,
itis subntitledrhatthereare indeed compell ingrusons why the Court should,
as a mattcrofjudicial propricty,rcfuse IOiiccedeto the request.Thesereasons
are asfollows:

(ajThc qucstion poscd by rhc Sccurity Council isintertwinedwith political
issuesand liasa politic;backgroundin whichthe Court iiself has pccorne
embroild to an extent ;endering itimpctssibleforthc Court to exerci.~its
judicialfunctionproperly.
(h) Ifthe 4952 Judgnient was correctly decidedin a respectto bcindicated $,
lhe relevantlegal question in the presentcase relates to 'aii existingdis-
pute betweenSouth AfricaandfitherStates,

p. 708.nne. S.,The Lus and Proc~ic~ofrireInicrnarionaiCoicri, Vol.11(196S),

Vide, cg..the advjsory 0.31nionsreferreto below.
Inrerprv irarofPeace ??parieswRIi Bllfpriu, Hirnggarynnd RnnrrriiiuFivsr
Pl'aIhï(i.p. 71.Opinion. I.C..Kcporrs 1950, p.72.

iig~iirUnv~cu,sAiJvisury Opir!iuI.C.j.R~yorlrf1956.p.086.rponCott~phints Mude
cerf ni^E~ptnscs ofthe Ljfittd hrutionAdvisory Upinioi~I.(,I.Rcpvrrs 1962,
p. 151.
? Snuth W~st Afiira,Prclini!norObj~rtion.~,Judpni~iii,I.C.J. Reg1962.p. 319.
' ifideparas. 37-38, infui.(cl Thc qucstion can onIy be answcrcdbydwiding, inter ali(~disputedfactual
issues.

3. As regards thcfirstrcason,theSouth AfricanGovernineni wishes to inake
itclear ai the outsei that, in prescnting this argunient, it ducs not inicnd to
cast any refiectioiurithestanding orinipartialityoftlieCourtor any individual
Meinber t'ncreof.However, in supportof the conteniion that for the reasonç
set out (a! ahove the Court should refrainfroni giving thc rcqucstcd opinion,
iiwiIIbc Jernonstruted thatihere existin ihelegül systenlsof civilizecoun tries
pnncipks--which have alsv been recognized in internaliona1 law-whidi
demand tl~atnot only should judges be impartia1 and unbiascd, but that
circurnstarrm should riot existwtiich riirrygive riseto i-errsoaor doubras CO

their impartiality.

B. The Political hckground to the Questionand the lavolvement
ofthe Court

4. States have at timcs contended thüt certain qiiestions rekrred to the
Court were not "legal questions" within thc contcrnplation ofthc Chartcrand

the Statute of the Court, but in fact politicaones whichfell outside thejuris-
dictionof theCoiirt.As Rosennt 'points out, thiscoritention has beenraised,
for the mmt part. iii connection with advisory opinions conmrncd with thc
inlerpretntioiof tlieCharter.In the Adniisb-ioncasethe Court said:
"lr kas. . . been conttnded rhatthe question put niust be regard4 as a

politicaI oneand that, for this reasonitfaIlsoutsidcthcjurisdiction of the
Coürr, The Coun cannot aitribute 3 politicalchancter toa rcqucst ivhich,
frarned in absrractr erms, invires il ro undertake an essentially judicjal
task, theinfcrpretatian of a trcatyprovision. It is notconccrncdwith the
motives a!iich may haveiiispired tliirequest, nor with the considcrations
which. in the concrele cases siibmitted for examination to the Secirrity
Councjl, forrned the subject of the excIiangc of vicws which tovk pIace
inthat body, It isthe duty of theCourt toenvisage thequestionsubmitted
ro it onlyin theabstractform whichhas ken given ro it; nothing whichis

said in the presentopinion referss,eitherdirect l yindircctIy, toconcrclc
casesorto parlicularcjrcuinstances '."
Itwill beobserved that theCourt, in uplioldiiigits jurisdictionernphasized
two factors, viz., thatthequestion beForeit was an abstract oneand rhat it
invoived the interpretation of a treaty provision. Thex is cIcarly no prwiçr:
Iinesepaniting "legal" and "politi~l" questioiis. and a "political" qucstion

niayalso tira "legal" one. Having foiind lhat thequestion under consideration
wiu:ü Iegal one, the Couri \vasconsequently obviausly entirleclIaccede tothe
request to give aii advisoryopinion irrespwiive of the politicalnatureof the
question, ifindccd ithad such a nature.
5.Wherherthe Court might, as a matter of propriety,havc rcgard lo the
political nature of a requesi foran opinion, was considered in the Ccriirin

Roseririe,up. ci!., 704.
Condirionsof Admivsiun uflrSrtrrrru!M~iril~ci~sy the UnilcdNafinfis, Advisor)'
Opinion, iY48, I.C.J. Rcporl1947-1948. p.61. Vide alsoCornp~teficeofrke Gcnrrrrl
Asseirzbiyfi~the Admissioir ofSmr~fo the t'niied Nations. Advisory OpinioI.C.J.
Reporrs 19.50,pp. 6-7. E~penses case.The Colirt specificallrcicrrrd 10 its discretionprovidcdfor in
Article65 oi he Statüte andthtnwntinued:

"ne Court finds n3 'çompelling rcason' why ilshould no! give the
advisory opinion whjch the Gcnzral Asseilrblyrcqucsted by itsresolution
... It has bccn argucd that the queslion put to the Court is intcrtwincd
with politicalquestions. and that for this reascithe Courtshouldrefuse

to givc an opinion. Itistruc that most interprerrrtion sf theCharter of
rhe United Natiunswill have politka1 significance,great or small. Inthc
nature nf things it coi-Id not bc othcrwix. The Court, howe~er,crrnnot
attribute a politicalchz.ractcrto a requestwhichinviresit Ioundertake an
esçentiallyjudicialtask,nainely, the interpreiation of a trcatyprovision'."

Tt will have bcen ubserved that the Court stressedthe "essentiallyjudicial
rask"involvedin the intcrprclatiorof a treaty provision which precluded the
Court froni iit~ributinga priiitical charmer tn the rcqucst for an opinion. fi
did no! state that in cvery caseit must lx ublivious to the pnliticalnature or
background of the question concerned. In none of the case seferredio above
did thcpoliticalbackgrriunc: involvethe Cnurt itsclfand il is indecdobvious,
t issuhmittcd, that in siich circurristancesdifferent considcrütions must
necessariy appIy.

5. lnChapter Xi itwjjl be demonstratedthnt a politicaI carnpaign,wilh
strong ernotionalovertones,againsr South Africa led to the imtitution of the
SortthWpsr &fiiracasas by I.thiupiaandLiberia.11 was conRdentIy expected hy
certain Statcs [ha( the Judgmentwould hold that South Africa had violated
iis obligationsunder the Mandate 2. in the sçuceedingparagnphs it will bc
shoiw that when theJudgment of18July 19hGfailedtofulfiltheseexpecrations,
there was aviolent rca~iion *hich took the form of verbal abusc of th Court;
statcments of policy thatnariona[originand pvliiical attitudeswouId tetaken

iiitoaccount infiitureelecticinsof judges,tvhich policy,accorclingto cornmen-
tatom,hada miirkcdc1T~xo tiitheelecrionof tivenewjudgminNovembcr 1966 ;
and which led to a rejectionof thesupplemcntary appropriationof an aniount
of 573,50 i0 respectof theC'oüri for the 1966financialyear.It wiIlfiirthermore
be shown that certain Mcmbers ofthe Cuurl. as constituted aipresent, wcrc
individuoIIyinvolved iiithe .iforesaiemotional poIiticafcampaim. Inconclu-
sion itwillbesubrnitted thai inthcIightof the IegaIprincipIesto which reference
has ken made abovc-and which wilIbeset out in more detail-thc Court

should, in the exerciseof itsdiscrelion,refuscto üwedeto thepresentrequest
foran advisoryopinion.

11.TheRecepfioa ufthe Currur's1966 Judgrn~nr

7.The Court's Judgmeni oii tlieSrçond Phasenf the Sourh West Africu
cuses was giveiion 18 JuIy 1966. Thc Twcnly-lirst Sessioii of the Gcneral
Assernbly comnienced in Scptcrnber 1966. Thc Juqgrnen t, the Cburt. and
individualMcmkrs lhereofwre immediatelymadethc targclsof nmr-hysteri-

cal abuseandvilification.ThcJudgment wws variot~slydescribedas"depIorable",

' Ceriain E.rpensesofihc United ,VutioriRdb*isor.vOpinion, I.C.I. Rcporis 1962.
p. 155.
Vjcfte.g..staicmcnt made by ,MissSmcllit(Janiaica). GA,OR, TrvcntiethSess..
Fourth Cornni., I570th Meeting. 26 Nov. 1965, p.328.
- And thcrç isno reason tc.assume thai ihis policwas not pursued during the
IY69 cfcctiunciljudges.428 NAM~BIA(SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

"shocking","shaineîul", "ti distortion of Iaw", "a denial of justic", "an
insultto tbeinternationalconscienceandto mankind","oneof thcmostflagran t
denials ofjusticein it[the Court's] history","scandaIous", "a scandalwithout
pradent", an "infarny","disgracefiil", "pzrvcrw", "scandaluusand wicked",
"iniqiiiru~is""a veritablescandal", "shamefut~',"grotesque", "travaty of
justice" and "tangentia1 anddcvious I''.

Thc mmostvitupcrative attackscame from represenintivesofccrtain Afro-
Asian States.It is not without significance thatas willbe demonstrated 2,it
was precicely these countries thatfor years hiid Icd the politica1 campaign
against Souih Africaregarding its adrninistrütionof South West Africa.When
the Court failcd to provideammunition forthe firrtherantxof the caiiipaigit,
the polirial represmtativesof these Stateswould nritaccepi the Judgment asa
judicialpronounccrnentbut attrj biited a political character thereio,stating,
furinstance,thatthe Court was "a bodywhich was inirnic toatheirinterests,3"
and that the onlyinteresiwhich the Court "deen14 worthy oflegaiprotection"

was that olS'outhAfrica 4.
8.The inosf serioriszspect of the dcbatcs was the reffecrionscast on the
standing and impartiaiiryof the Court and individualmcmbers thereof, and
direct and blatant a1Icgations ofcorruption and extraneousmotives. In their
rnildestformthcyconsistedof insinuationssuchas thefnllowing:

Mr. Grimes (Liberia)(quoting the President of Liberia,one of the Applicani
Slates)

"Thedccision of the C'ourt,that Applicantshad na IqaI interestin thc
cax. :ind itsrefusalto goinio the mcrits ...savaur of caçuistryand legal
pyrotwhnics,uthichis, iosay theleast, mostsurpnsing and puzzling. Irin
factgcneratcsunpIeasantsuspicionsabouttheCourt )."

Mr. ~aif& (Sierra Leone)

"This[i.c.,the Judgmeni]came asa greatshockto my Govwnmcni and
to most of tlrereasonablc nation sf theworld. It dcaltastunningblow to
the authority and integrityof ihc IntcrnationaI Court and raised serious
questiuns inthe minds ofthosc whocherish the value of thc rulc of Iawin
internationalreIations6."

- "The decisionirscifhas snshaken internarionalconfidencein the Court
asta havebroiight ittothe vergeordisrcputc '."

,Wr .apwepwe (Zarnhia)

". ..tlle InternationaCourt of Justiccat The Hague took sixlong years

'ThiswiIl appear[romthgc~tractsfrnm srarernenrsi~otedbclow andinhnnex A
tothisChapter.
VideChap. XI, secticiR, itifra.
' Mr. Bakrito (Carneruoii), GA,OH, Twcnty-firsSess., Firth Comni.. 1124th
Mceting, IOOct. 1966.p. 23.
* Mr. TIiiam (Sanegal),GA, OR, Tivenly-first Scss.,1414th Plenary Meeting,
23 Scp. I9M, p. 25. Vide also Mc.Binafi (Carncroon), 1412th PIcnary Meeting.
22Sibid,,I714lti PIenary Meeting, 23 Sep. 196pp.8-9.
Ibid.,1419th Plenary Meeting, 27Sep. 1966,p. IO.
Ibid., p.13. WR~EII STATEME~T OF SOUTH AFRICA 439

of costly Iitigati...onIy to frustratefinallythewishes of the indigcnous
peoplc of South West I'rfrica,nly to disgracc thisour own Organization
by co\vardly shirking itsresponsibilityto the peoples of the wurld, by
shamelesslyjudging no1 10judge ... '"

"There is no doubt ihat thiç judgrnenthas reduwd even further thc

pratige of the Inientziional Coiirtof Justici: asiininstniment for the
perrcefulettlernmlof internationaldisputcs2."
Mt-. fk1puruga2u(Rwanda)

- "Thedccision of lasiJuIy was,in our cycs,asurprisingand disappointing
contradiction, andWC wonder whetherone can pIace any furfhrr trust in
thcCourt "."

~Cfrfirich Slim(Tunisia)

"Many bcliçvc, us we do. thatitIi,e,, theJudgrnentl dcaalseriousb[ow
tuthe prestige ofrhe Cuiirt as thejudiciaIorgan responsible for scttling
internationa1disputes. Itshould therdore not corne as a surprisethat
driubthasbwn casion tlieusef'ulnessothe Court asatprescntcvmposeJ4."

". .my deiegstionfccl: thatthe Court's decisjon has givcn rise to well-
founded distrustandsuzpicion as to fitiuredwiuionsofthathigh trbuna[ j".

9. nere were also more Katant statcmcnis in whichthe Caurtand Members
thererifwere aocuscd, cithcrin so many words or by the dcarcst implicntion,
of uIteriopoliticalinotivesandevencorruplion.Thuv ilwassaid:

"By itsrehsal,in 19Sii,togiveadecision on ihesubstanceofthcquestioti,
the rnternationatCoun. of Justice-lhat is,the seven Judgcs rvho voted
against the 1967 decisionon compctcn~~--has notlivedup to itsresprin-
sibilitimandobligation:. How e[secrtn oneinterpretthe so-mlled technical
Judgment deiiveredon 18 July 1966 in circumstancesthat cast doubl on
the infegriiy osonieof the Judges and un theirimpartialify? A gIanct:at
thc ntrtionaltyandçalihre ofthese seven Judges who chose torepudiate a

verdictof theirown Court chatwas of an irrevocahienature, is enlight-
ening in ihis respect. Itis enough to sce that thcse Judges are frorn
Cire-, ItaIy, theUnitcd Kingdom and France-al! countr~es that give
tinqualifiedsupportto tlierashpoliciesofSouth Africaandsecretlyiiphold
rhatcountr byecauseof ~heenormous ~rofitsthat theireonornies derive
from the pitilessimplemcntation orthe policy OF econornic and socid
slaveiy known asapartheid.As fortheAustralian Judge, SirPercySpender,
whosc namc, I think. means'spendthrift'-he needs money-his deciding

l ihid.1425t hlcnary Mccting. 30 Sep. 1966p. 1.
= Ibid., 9.
Ihid.1431sttPlenary Meeiing, 5 Oct1966. p.3.

PIeoarydMeeting.V23 Sep. 1966.tp.e3; Mr. Conntar~l.rrÿamy(Siqvpore).),1420th
PIcnary Mceting. 28Sep. 1966,p. 12Mr. El huri (tibwj, 1425thYlenaryMeeting,
30 Sep. 19M. p.7; Mr. Adc;~o(A'i4trriuj,1429thPlenary Meeting, 4 Oct. 1966.
PP. 2-3; andMr. MiidenEe (ih'wnndo), 1439th Plcnary Mceting. 1Oct. 1966. p1. some ofthe rnetliodçvrhichwereeniployedin nrder todisquaIify some of
ihe JudgesthatshouIdhaverakenpart in muking adecisionon rhis wse '.''

Mr. El Bofiri(Libya)

"UnForttinateIy theJudgrneni of18 Julyhüssuggesled tliatheiiiterestof
international finsncc. vrhichishanin gIove wththe ràcistrcgime in South
Africa. niight influenceven the highes itternationallegat authorityy."
1%. &kola (Congo- nrazzaïille)

"We wiinot understandhow a few unscrupulous judges cc~uldhave so
Iightly shirked their cbligations whcn, on 18 July 1966, iaking refuge
hehind rechnical quihling, they disinissed Ethiopia and Likria with
rcvoltingcynicism and reaciid a decisionfavoiirabIeto racistAkita ...
We may assume thar the motives which dictatcd thisùccision,... arc
totaIlyiinrelatern theCourt's funciion, whichistoadrninisteriustice.

. .............. - - -- - **....
Wi-reredoesthis victcirylie, not in the fact that the Coirrr, witha few
corrupt judges, has tipheldSouth Africa in itsobstinate refusat1o heed
theGcncralAsscnibl y '?"
:W. Bortrhoko(Congo, Kinshasaj

"A sacrcd Mandate entrust4 toSouth Afrim has been travestieciand
betrayed in the most xbominable fashion and turned into a criloniaIist
instrunientfor.rhevileitand mcist contemptible servitud.e .,.regret to
have IO ricile ihat theInternational Curirc of Jiistice, tsanctuary of
iriternationaIiaw, ha',made itseIaf cconipIicc in this unprecedented

scandai,sothat we cansay ol iiaq Racine didof 3ero :
'Awotig inetf nsyef utiborttlie rinine wiii bc FoaI insr!Ofhefoziie.~t
iyr~n~~~'"
Mr. Bttdo (Albania)

"As far asurcarecorioerned,thejiidçmentof the Court, hvwever unjust
and mndalous, does surpriseus.WC haverievercherishedany illusions
abouttheIntçmarionatCuuri or Justiceand that is,fcourse, weIlknawn.
Under the pretextof -3roceduralquibbles .. .the Court rcfused topass
judgmen tan the subsrance aTamat tcrconcerningSourh Africa'sMandate
over Soulh Wcst Afrira, ... In so doing, the Couri has dernonstratedtu

worIdopiiiion what the iiltegritofjiidgs means as far as ihe inajority
of thernemkrs of the Court are conccrned, arid wliatthe international
justicc of thcCourtitsclf iswort'."
11.Iltre and there niore soher voiccs WCFC heard. The represcnraliveof

SouthAfrica pointcd out that oiher representativcswerc attacking not only
the cornpetence but also tlie integrity of jiidgwho had mcrely done their
duty in çiving ajudgment .Iccording rothcir conscienc $eIle was joined b?
the rcprexntatives tifinla. afin, New Zealandand Fran~~ who rejectcdany

Ibid..1422nd Ptenary Mileting, Sep. 1966,p. 14.
Ibid. ,425ih P1enai.yhleetiiig,Sep. 1966,p.7.
ibid.1431st Plenary hla:ting, Oct. 1966,pp.3-2.
Ibid., 1445th PlenarMeeting,17Oçt. 1966, pp.11-12.
' Ibid., 11448ihPlenary Mrstin19 Ott. IYM, p.1.
IhirI.1417i1Plenary Meeting, 26 Sep. 1966p. 1.432 NA~~IRIA{SOUTH WEST AIRICA)

suggestio~ thatindividualjudges hadken lacking in integriryor tiadactcd in
respoiiseto govermental prsurr: 'Thc rcsuitofthcseremarh was that their
authorsivere jojne wdiththe Courtastarçers forattackaridabuse. Thisreactiun

is hestilliistratedby the~ollowinystatemcnrmadc by Mr. Tchcrnouchtchenko
ofthe B:+clorussianSovict SocialistKepu bric,after Mr.Kamani of Malaysia
had said* that hisinstincts miliiatedagainsi condanning thc Court and its
personnel :

"hlüny rcrnarkshave already been rnadehere-and justtyso-about
the lnternationa1Coirrtand about those judges who did everything in
their pwcr tu rcject theIegitimate complainr lodged by Ethiopia and
Lihria. But we cannot overIook~ltefact thatcvcnarnong thosc rcprcsen-
tatives who have spoken here, thereare stiladvocates and defenders of
ihose judgcs. We even witnessedrhisai our meeting this morning.Those
judgcs, asweli astlieiradvmatcs,prcfcrrd toclose thcicyes tothe policy
of tht Govtrnment of South hfriw vi.rd-viSouthWestAfrica and to ihc
violationof internationalunderiakingsand decisiunsof rhc UnitedNations

GeneralAssernb l'."
Many moreexamples oftheabuseshoweredupon the Court anditsindividual
Membcrscan begiven. lowever, in orderno1 to burdcn thetext iinneccssarily,
fhereisattachedto thisCkaptcr anAnnex A containinç exoerptrf;rom relevant

statemmts madcduringtlieTwenty-first Sessionof theGcneral Assembly.
12. Caupled with the aforesnid atlacksweresuggestions,madebyrcprcsen-
tatives ofcertainStaies,that thecomposition of the Courtshould be changd,
ostensibly"inordcr tocnsure a more equiîablerepresentalionof therion-aliyied
countrics and theforcesof progres '",butquitecIcarIy in anattempt to ensure
that inany prissibIeuture litigaiioconcerning South West Africanrinvolving
similar isiiiesIhe politicaviervsof such States would be upheld. Thus Mr.
Yifru of Eihiopia "tated:

"WC have also ben taughtone cardinal Iesson,thatis,wehave io iakc
an activepartin a11theorgans of the United Nations, incIridingthe Intcr-
mticinaICourt ofJusiicc.To this end, we shall demand equitable repre-
sentationon thebcnch ofthe Court, a representationcornmensurate rviih
ourroIcin the United Nations, a reprcsentationwhichwill aiIow LIStocon-

tributour due sharcto thefulfilmentof allaspectsof theobjectivesofthe
UnitedNations &.."
AndMr. Mgonja of the UnitedRepriblicofTantani said:

"We believe that this experience-the most rocen: Judgrnent of Lhe
IntcrnatinnalCourt-sad as itis, haskn a salutaIylessonto thenewly
independent wuntries intheir struggIe for ewecriverepresentationin a11
interriafionalbodies'."

l'Ibid.,1439thPIenaryMeeting, 12Oct. 1966, p.12,MT. Corner (NewZealand);
p. 17, Mr. Seydoux(France). -
GA, OR, 1Yicnty-tintSes., 1449th Plçnary Meeting,19 Oçt. 1966, pp. 7-8.
3 Ibid . .16.
' Mr. Thiarn {Senegal), GA, OR, Trventy-tirst SessI414th Plenary Meeting,
23 Sep. 1966, p. 25.
' Eihiol~iawas one of the AppliçanStatesinthe South LYcstAfrica çaws.
CA, OR, Twenty-firstSess..1414tli PIenarMeeting,23 Sep. 1966,p. 3.
Ibid. 1417thPlenary ,Ucctin26 Sep. 1966 ,.19. We alsostatelrierriadeby
Mt. EI Mtifti (Sudan), ibid., 1440th PleMeeting, 13 Oct. 1966p. 16. WRIlTEX STATEMEST OF SOüTH AFHICA 433

i3. Withthese staternentsshouIdbe contrastedstatenients to tlie efecthat
theciun <ohviouslyas theilconstituted)cnuld not beenirustedwiih qitestions
rclatingto the wclfarc of the inhnbilants of South West Africa. Thus Mr.
Baroodyof SaudiArabiastated:

"So cross ouithe Iniesnational Court of Juslicefrom thebook OPSouth
West Africaand any ideathal we shallever deriveany tangiblcrcsuItfrom
approaching itl."

And in the Fourth rsmmittee Mr. Nyirinkindi of Rwanda was reporteù as
follows:

"1-he InternationalCourt of Justice,whose rnembers should have the
higheçtrrioralquaIifica!ions,haxi an iniquitous prccedentin the caseof
South West Africa. Ithad sidedwith the brute force of eviI, whichwas
what South Africa reprtsrnled. The iveIrareof the pople of Soiith West
Africa couId be cntruitcd neither to thc LntcrnationalCourt of Justice
nor to SoiithAfrica2."

14. There can he IittIetloubt that many representatives, in censuringthe
Courtand its individualMcmbcrs, intended to cxcrtpoIitical prcssurc onthe
Court.Thc most strikingex:impleofrhcexertionof such pressur iseto befound
in the rejectioby the Fifth Cornmittee of thesupplernentaryappropriation of
the airiouniof $72,50 in rfsp~ctof the IniemationaICourt ofJustiw forthe
financiaIyear 1966. Althoiigh the rcprcsenrativesof Argentina and Norway
stressedthat the Fifth Coniniittee was notconcerns wdithpolilics, buf solely

withbudgetary mat iersj,thcdixussiuns regardingthcsupplcmcntary cstimate~
for the said financiayear ivereintersjxrsedwithattacks on the Court and its
Judgtnent 4.Tnthe event,thesirpplementaryappropriationfor the said amount
or $72,50 w0as rejecteby40 votes to 27.with 13abstcntions S.

Ili. The /nvolv~mm~ of the C:oürim ConsiirrrfedutPresenr

15. Mention has already kn made oftheintentions expressedby represen-
tatiws of certaincountries !hatrhcconstititrionof theCourt shoiild beaItered

so ihat it shouId be morc representativeof suchcnuntria~.Certain rcprcscn-
tativcsindd wentfurtherby implying that in future ihe politicriviews of
candidam should be takct~ into account in theelection ofjudgcs. Thiis Mr.
Murumbi of Kcnya stated:

"Before Ieavintghis qtiestionof SourhWestAfrica, my delegaiion would
liketo draw ihc üttcnxionof theGeneralAssembly IOthe composition of
bath the International Law Cominission and the InternatioiiatCourt of
Juçtice.Kenyasupporththeenlargementofthese two bodiesto refiwt geogra-
phical rzpresenlation. Butmuch more important than thiscnlürgemenc,
Kenya woiiIdIikcto einphasizethat whenthetirne cornesfor theGcneral
AsscrnbIy to eIeci thenew Judges, eiforlsshouldbe made to ensure thüt
nienof the utrnostinte;:ty arechosen. We must trytoawidei~cring turhe

..,-
ibid., 141stPlenary Mceiin~,5 Oct. 1966,p.14.
Ibid.,FourthConini.. 1f03rd Meeting, 4Oct. 1955,p. 41.
ihid., Fikh Comm.. II2Aih Meeting, 10Oçt. t966,p. 24.
' Ibirt.p.23,pp. 23-24and pp. 24-25-statemenis made by the reprcscntetivrlf
Canieroon, Union of SovietSacialist Republics anTantania.
Ibid.,p.25. iVRITT1:KSI-ATE.MElrOF SOUTH APRlCh 435

"The inipact of the decisinnfie, tlie 1966Judgment] wu scen in rhe
eIection ufjudges whch took place in 1966, It had &en expectcd that
Sir Kenneih hiley would succcedSir Pcrcy Spender, but this did not
happcn '."

18. Otlier wrircrsalso o~mriientcd on the eletion of thc fivenew Judges.
K.P. Anand wrrite:
44
Itwas, .. .suggested that thc Court's rnenibershipshouid reflect the
changed politicalsiuiltionand rhat itshauId coritainmore Afro-Asian
reprexniation, if necersar by an cnIiirgenienof the Court. Indeed,at the
firstpossibleopportririityin 1966 itselthe Arro-Asianeuuntries exerted
a11theirpressurc to çIn:ctftvenewjudges who swrned Io bc more sympa-
thetic towards their views. There rvasIitfIe rloarholVutzo~Itercase nws
broughtby ifi'erenrpu.,iieiirwuuldincet n di#kretirforl."(ltalicadded.)

Elizabeth S. Landis, hating pointed out that African initiatives vis-&-vis
South Africa did tiotend ~ith the adoption of Generat Assemhly resolution
2145 (XXI) 3,stated:

"Sincc ihe electionof newjudgcs tu theInternationatCourt \vas xhe-
dukd for the 1966 Assernbiy scssion, Afriçansfor the fint time cürefuIIy
screenedal1candidata;, and, with the ieassisiancf theirAsian coIleagues,
blocked thc clatjon OFAntonio de Luna of Spain, presuniahlybecause he

was a nationalof a colonial potver.. . .
Throughciut the A:i~mbly session there wcre repeated sirggestions,
frnninon-African sou]ces,that the unrcsulvedquestionsin theSourh Ives{
AfrirclC,'USEbc taken back tathe Court in one way or another ....How-
cvcr. the Africans werc not in the mood to gn back to the Coiirt ahout
anything. And althoiigh the balance of the Court probul>lv rcvcrtçd,
irnmediateiyafterthe decision,to une favoring rhe 1Yf-dniüjurity again, if
seemed biser, in any c:ascto \mit untithe arch-villaioswerereplacedand
rhe newjudges 5ately instalfed. Afler fbe Ad Hoc Commirr~eniakes ils'

repurtin Apri!,new jirdiciul iniricrrivrsmnngniii ticoiisirlered-pnrric-
afurlyifihey urerukm crtU!kir,rpensc4." (Italicssd&d.)
And CI.Fischer stated (freclytranslated):

"In I967? foliowinp thc 1966 elections[of new judges]. the develnped
countrics hsd oniy 5r.e representatives. Auvtralia was elirninatcd,the
Greek Judge was rcplaced by a ncutrat, the Swede, I'etrkn.The attiriide
adopted by his gnvernnicnt un racialquestions cnsured hisvictory ovcr
the Spanish and S\vi:~îcandidates. Africa retained two reprcscnüitive~

(Se~tegaland Kigeria) white Asia had four{Pakistan, Philippines,Japan,
Lebanon). At the mm,:timc, itwouldappear that theproportion of intcr-
tiationalisof world reputc was gettinpsrnalierwithin the Court.
One seesin this evr>lution wiihout nny doubt the wcighr of the Third
Worldandparticularl:~ of thcyoungcrSiales. 'Thceffortswhichthes ii~üde

p. .- .
"The Enited Narinns, :;outh-WcstAfricrtand the Wortd Court", The Indinn
Journal ofInternotion~i LUW,Vol. 7, No.4 (OCI.1967),p. 521.
Studies inIni~rnclrional4djrrdiraiinri('11, 145.
Quoted inChap.,YI, paru.1, injil-.
' "The South \Vat Africa Cases: Remand %O the United Narioos", Curnril
Lon: Qunrrerfy,Vot.52. No. 5 (Spring11.l907),pp. 668-669. WRITTIiN STd\TE.MEKTOF SOUTH AFRICA 437

tu suchan cxtcnt thatpolitical viewsand motives were attributednnt only to
thernajorityjudges, but also tutrjudge wlio didnor participatc in the 1966
Judgmcnt.
21. Iit thedebares premding rhe adoption by the SecurityCouncil of the
resolution çontainin tge prcscnt request for an advisory opinion, further
prilitica1prcssure kvasbroeht tokar upon the Couri, coupledwith references
io its changed membershirisince 1966. 'I'husMr. 'TerenceoT Burundi stated:

". ..itwould h proycr to sires that rheInternationa l ourt of Justice,
whose prestigewas viotatedby ihepartiality osome of itsmembersin 19h6,
would gain in pre.rfiI>ynabpring a new ultiiudewhichrvouid r~liabifirrrre
~keCotrrratidthe Uniri:rlN~tiiorasa rvlwk IV.(Italicadded.)

Mr. Khatri of Nepal siaied rhat his deLegatioiiwould support the draft
rcsoIutionif it"wouid providcan opportunity for the InternationalCourt to
redecniits impaircdiniage ,"while Mr. Mwaangaof Zarnbia referredto"sorne
Iingeriiiuiiceitainty"thar remailiedabout the opinion envisagedby the drak
resoIution"despitethechange in thc Court'snientbership 3."

The irnplicsti isnlcar; ~hecharrgein the Court'smenibership renderd it
probable that it woüld gisc an opinion unfavoitrable to South Africa whjch
\r70uldserve"torrdeern itirnpartedimagc", wouIdcauseirtn"ga~n inprestige",
and would "rehabilitüte"ilself. Bycontrast,shouldthc opinioh nefitvourable
to SouthAfrica,theCourtwouldfail to recieeritsimage andfurtherdamageiis
prestige.

IV. The iivolvevienrof-lndividtral,%fptrthofsheCoarr

22. [teferencehasaIrcildyken made to the maitnerinwhicliSirMuhammad

ZafrullaKhan bewmc invc~lvcd in the political rcccption of 1956Judgmcnt.
Hc was also involvedin aitother manncr. Sir MuhammadZafrullciKhan was
the PermanentReprcscntai ive of Pakistanat the Unitcd Nationsfrom Augiist
1961uritilhe kcatne a Menber of theCour1in1864. Ilewas a Mernkr ofthe
Pakista Dnclegütionsto th?Sixteenthand Eigh~eenthSessions (Le.in 1961and
1963)of theGcncralAsscmbly of[heUnitedNations+andduringthose yearS he
on =casions actedas Leadtr of suchDelegations. During both rhesaid sessiuns
the Pakistmi Deiegation played an activcrolein discussionsanddccisionscon-
cerningmattcrsin dispuic in theSecond Phaseof thc Soufh West Afi-icncases,
inostof whicliare again in disputeinthe presentproceedings.Starements made

on behaIf of the Pakistani Delegaiion,as well as resolutionssupported by it,
wrr: strongly condcmnatoryufSouth Africa'spolicics and actionsreIating to
South West Africü.Particiilarsrhcrmf are set outinAnnexes R andC tu this
Chapter. ,.
Moreovcr, Sir MuharnriiadZafrullaKhan ~35,-prior,to his.clwtion as a
pernranentMeniberof theCourt,appointedas adhori Judge in the OUI!?West
Africn cases by Elhiopia and Liheria. Hc isreportrdto'havc stated that this
was the reason for hisdisqualificatioin thoseprococding~". Ifso, tMs-reawn
worild, it isuhmitted,ret:iinitsvaIidiry,inasniuchas thepresent procccdings

are inetfectmerelya continuationof thcprevious ones ". -.

UN dm. SiPV. 1550 (29 3uly 19701p. 71. .-
Ibid,pp. 38-40.
lbid,p. 53.
' Annnd, op. cil., 138.
Vide paras.35-41,in];-o. 73. Thr position of JudgePadillaNervo is inceriiiirespects siniilarto rhat
of SirMuliaminadZafrulIaKhan. IIewas Chairman of theMexicanDclegatiori
ta rheGerreral Assembly of I~C Unitcd Karions during, intc rh, theFifteenih,
SixiccnthimdSevet?tet.~~r hession sfthe Gssembly(i.e., in 1960,1961and 1967
respectiveD lu)rng this period ihe Mcxican Uelegation also took an active
part indelxitesand pitrticipü!edin dccisionsconcerninyrnattersin issuein the
prcscnt proceedi~igs.Ami11the staterntnts and resolutiiins irlquestion were
strongly condcmnatoryof Sotith Afriw. on relevantniaitcrs and indeed asso-

ciated ihe MexicrtnDelegatiun with the cause of rhc Applicant Sfates:inrhc
Sccond l'hase or he Sozr~h Ives!Africccüscs.ParticuIarsare setout in Annexes
l3and 13 t:,this Chapter.
OS specdal interest is the manner in which Judge Padilla Nei'vo exprcsscd
himsclf in a lertertvririento tlie Under-Stxrctüryfor '1-rusteeshipand Infor-
marionfrclrn Kun-SclBCioverning Territorieson Ih Juiy 1957. This letterwas
reprodiiczd asAnne?; V to thc 1963reportof the Special Cornmittee for South
Wcst AFric:a',and is attachedto this Chaptcras AnnexE.
24. Ancther Judgcwwho was,in a likc manner,invoIved in ihc poIitimI cam-
paiçn agai7st SouthAfricaisJudge Morri7ov.As a reprcsentativeof theUSSR

airhcUnited Na tioiisaslateas1967.hccondcmned theSouthACricanadminis-
tratioii ofSuuth West Africa in the stroiigest imayinablc tcrrns. He stated,
iji~rnfirrthüt ---

"... ihe South African raçists have exiended ICISouth West Africa the
régimeof repression and terrar against the indigenous population that
prevaib in Pretoria.?hz Sou!h Wcst Africanpatriolswho stand up for the
Iiberniionof their fatherlandaresubjecr 10 savagc pcrsccurion,arrestand
torture?.''
1-Iealsostiited tlitheacis of "SoutliAfriçanracists" \irera threatnot onlyto

the people of South West Afriça but nlso to othcr African peoples. In this
regardhe referredtu incasant mjlitarywnstruction gojng on at trieair base
bituatcd in theCaprivi Sti-ip,and ru"the Zumed [sic] Rocket Base inSouth
West Africa".Thcw statenienrswereindeedsurprisingin view of he fact tha1
the only thrcejudges (two of whom forrnedpart of the rniiioiitywho iri1966
exxprcsredan opinion on the Applicants' subniissionthat South Africa had
niilitarized thc Territory, found that this subrnission hadbeen disgroved 3.
Specilic and unmniriidictcdevidence of a foreign mi11 tary expert had bccn
given thati.heinstallationatTsum~b hadno rnilitarycharacterbutwereindecd

csrablished Forihc scientificreerirchofthe ionosphcrc 4.
Furrherdetüilsof thestaicnients nude byJudgeMorozov appear fronlAnwx
F tu thisChapter. The gcneraltontuf thc staternenniayk garhered from the
LIct that,;iItlio~rpthisAnnex consistsof IGS Shan scvcn pages, the words
racist"."racists"atid "racisrn" appear no Iessthan 22 timw therein with
referencc to ihe SoiithAfrican Governnicntand its ~)olicies.
25. IIthe Aiigio-lraninn OitCorngony case Sir knegal Rau was cxcludcd
frtlrnpar1icipati oonntheground rhat he had"representedIndiaon the Security
CounçiI, when it dealt with the United Kingdom's cornplaini against Iran for

' CA, OR. Scvei~teentScss.,Sup. No. 12 IAp2 12),pp. 18-19.
UN do<. A!PY. 1627 ( 12Dcc. 1967) ..63.
Jiidges Jessup, Taliaka and van Wyk. Soiltk Wesr Africa. Second Phosp. Judg-
~ii~nrI.C.J. R?portiQ66 ,p. 330,320-322, 205-23.
' Virk'I.C,J. Pjeading~~,SuuIvesrAfiicaVol. XI.p.585andChap. XI, para.25,
inf~il. WKllTIN S-A'I'EMENT OF:SOIJTII AFHlCA 439

,fail~ircto cori~plwith the interimrneasuresindicated by the Court" '.Ttdoes
not appeiirwhethcr thc Prcsirlcnluf ihe Court or ihis Judge hiinseIrtnok the
initiativwliicliresuttedin iiirecuation. The relevant Yeclrbookof thc Court
inereIysiüredthatSir RttnegiiRau had, inagrccrneni with theCourt, considered
ithisduty nat to siin thc iasc.
Wiih rdtrence to thisder:isionJ.D. Morley liaswritten:

"This, however,socrrisnot to have kn follorvedwhen,after anapplica-
tion by Svuih Africa, the Court refiisedto disallow the participationof
Judge Padilla Nervo irtthe South-Wesr Africn cuse, althouglithat judge

bad been the Mexican Repccscntative oii the Tri~tceshipCouncil frorn
1947-49, having held ihe position of Vice-Presidentof that Council in
1449, and had ken Iiead of his country's dclegiaiionto the General
Assenibly from 1917 to 1963. and I'residentofthe Assemblyin 1451.
It is diffic~1Itu rnnkr:a subsrantialdifferentiation hetween the two
situatioiis. Bothplaycd a major role in UN organs in niatlersiiitimately
connectedwi ththe Iegaldispute consideredby theCourt. The fact, possibly
athcrwix impurtani, lhat JudgePadiIla Kervo heId oRcial positions in

UK argans isof littlsignificance,in that,as thc MexicariRepresentative
on the TrusteeshipCounciland thc Genenl Asseiiibly,hespokcand voted
on sirnilar rnattcrs repardintlie statiis ofSoiilh-Wet Africa as wcrc
consideredduring his periodsin office 2."

Mortey proceeded to refeito "the indistinguishübtechüracteruf ihe relevant
activitiesof Judgc Sir Bcncgal Rau and Judse Padilla Nervo"' and it iscon-
sequentlycleai.that he was of theopininnthat the latter Judgc should noi have
parliciparedin ttiesecond phaseor the Soufh Wrsf Africu cases.
25.As wilI bc shown, a nurnber of factualandlegal quesrions which wcre
beforethe Court in thesoi ifWestAfricu cases, are again inissueittlie present
procredin~ st.follows that an application of the decision relaring 10 Sir
Bcncgül Rau would, iiis sulxnitted,inevirablyleadto ibe rececusatinfJudges

Zafrulla Khan, I'adillNervo and Mornzov. However, iiskas been deinon-
straied, ihe Court itseIhs becorne soinvolve idthe politicaldisputeswhich
havc [cdto thc prcscnt prutwtungs t hat itis the South AKricanGovcrnmcnt's
submission that,in view of thelcgal principls set out below, theCourtas such
shoiild ineffect"rectise"itsrlfby refusingto give the requestcdopinion.

77, Mcntion hüs alrcady Iieenmade ' ofrhc existence inthe IegaIsysternsof

al1 civilizedcountries of legal principles ivhichreqüirc that justicemust be
seen 10 be done and lhat tiiere should bcno reasonable cause tu doubt the
irnpartialitof the Court or of aparticularjudge. Inan Engfishcase. Eckcrsley
arid Clihrrsv. The Mwsey ,3ocb nrd Ifurhtir &rd, 1894 2 Q.R. at p. 671,
Lord Esher stated:

".. . the doctrine ivhichisapplied to jiidgesnot mcrcly oC,tbe Superior
Courts, but to altjudges-[ha[. not only must lhey be not biassed, but

Yearbook of theInr~rnarh ?nuaitufJusiicr195/-IY5?, p.89.
MorIcy, 1. U.. "Kclntive Inçumputibilityof Functions in rhc internaticinal
Court", The Irrte~~ariatial Coi,~purasiv~Law Qrrrrrieriy, Vol19, Part2 (Apr.
19701,pp.321-322.
~hid, p.322.
Vidr para.3.Aupro. 30. lt hasbcen dcmonstiated above to what cxtent the Court's 1956 Judg-
mcni was madc the suhjechtof vituperativeattacks by rcpresentatives of a
nun~berof States merely k+:ausc thc Judgmcnl was not unfavourablc to Soiith
Africa and did no1 sarisfy the poliiicril aiins of suStates.ft has also ken
shown how politicalpressuitwas appliedto tIieCour! andtu what exientthe
electionof fivenewjudges in 1965 was poïitical m1utiirate'.Ithasfurrherrnore
beenshown thai anumber cf judges,thiough their participatioin rhepoliticai
organs OCiht: Uniied Nations, have becorne identified with theircwnlries'

pl iticaIcainpaign againstSouth Africacnncerning its ad~ninistrationof South
Wesr Africa.
It is not difiiiltu imagine what rhc poIiticrireactionwill bc shvuld ihe
Court decide to give the rtquested opinion and should its decisionagain in
any way be favouiahle toStii~thAfrica.If possjbje. it will beevmore vinlent
khanin 1966. Moreouer,any süchopinion would certaînlynot be amepted by
niajnritiesin the UnitedN~rions.'Thismuch \vasmadc clear by Mr. Terencc
of Burundi.Prior trithc adoption of resolution 284 (1970) emhodying the
prcscnt reqi~csthe stated irthe SccurityCounçil that there%as- -

"... the hope that an impiiriinljudgrnent,which would be in conformity
rvith thc jnteresisof the Namibian peopIe, would xrvt: the Iwo-fold
pürpose of rehabilita tiiprietige of the Intcrnirtional Courtand also
harmonising the position of the Court with the position taken hy the
Gcncral Assernbly in putting an end to South Africa's Mandate over
Nami hia".

He then added:

"At any rate. whutci~ctheTESI&, my detegation believethat thepolitical
decisionor the General AsscmbIy with-regard tothe statüs of Namibia
is ÏrrcvombIc,because the poliicaInature OCthe !\'miibianprobleniissuch
thalir is definirei-irh,rhe sph~reof p~iiiicfsolutioa~to be impoxd by
the Seçiirity Council ;ind the Gcntral Asseinbly, the most competent
organs *.'(Ltalics adde-j.)

Furihermore. iitthe dehites preceding iheadoption of General tissernbly
resoIution 2145 (XXI) a niimbcr of rcprcscntatives made il abirndantly clear
that thcy considcrcd thc probtein of South WestAfrica to ix ü puliliwI and
~iota iegal one.Thus. Mr. Pirzada of Pakislanstated that"the failureof the
Court topronouncc on nrherneritsof a casc [\va]no1an end of this [natter",
and that "it only gave pro#'. ..of the futityof thejiidicialproccssfor ajust
settlemeiit ofthe issueof thr futurestarusof SoutWest ~ff'ica3";Mr.ElBouri
of Libya said lhat "the prc7blerniwas] a politicaone; the IegaIaspect could

not be decisivc4"; hfr. Tarabanov of Hulgaiiaexpmsed the vicw thal "it is
onty too obvious ttiat thrrcrYessence of the question of South WestAfrica
is political; [hrrefoilcanlie sertledonlyby politicalineans'";andMr.Sharif
of Indonesia statcd that "l-rithis politicaprohlern we cannot scck recourse

' I'hereisno reasonto sulipose thar thjs motivation wuulnoi.and did not, at
kast attempi lninfluence the electiat'new judgcsin hieryears.
UN dot. S/PV. 1550 (29 JuIy 1Y7U),pp. 71. 72-75.
+ Ibid.,1425thPIenaryMerting, 30 Sep.1966,yp.e7.ng.23 Sep. 1970, p. IO.
' Ibid., 1449thPlcnaryMeztitig,19Oct. 1966, p. 4.to ajuridiwl bodylikr: thc IntcrnationalCourtof Justice ...'". Thc rcpresen-
tarivesconcerncd madeit abundanilyclcürrhat in ihcir opii~ion [lieproblrm
of South IVmtAfrica was a politicaone to besolvcd by politicalmcans, aiid
that any judicial dccision in conRict wirh what thcy rcgard as the proper
poIitiçalsolutionwould beunacc-ptableto them.
On the other hand, should any opinion which the Court rnight dccide to
give be u~ifarourablcto South Africa, iis inevitahlethatthtre wilIexisrin the
minas of rcasonahleiiiendoubias to rvhethertheCourt didnot bow tcpoliticaI
pressureand as io whetherjustice was in fact done.

C. 'ïhc Dispute 3etween South Afrim and Other Statcs

31. The leading caseconcerning the questionwhctheran internationalcourt
inay or shouId accede to a request for an advisory opinion ielating 10 an
existing dispute ktween Siatcs,is theEasiern C(~re!iacase=.
Ln 1923 the Coumil of the Leaguc of Nations requesredthe Permanent
Court of Intcrnational Justice ro givc an advisory opinion on the qiiestion
whethcr the'l'reatyofPeaw bctwoenfinland and Russia signedai Dorpat on

14Octobsr 1920, and the DecIarationof ihc RussianDelegation regardin ge
autonomy of Eastern Careiia, cnnstitutcd internationalengagements whicli
placeci Riissia underan obligation to Finland as IO tlicarryingout ufthe
provision< thereof.In a telegram dispaichcd to thc Lotirt, Russia repudiated
thejurisdictionof the League of Nations and the Court, and declareddiat it
was impossiblefor the Russian Government rotakt part inthediscussioon fs
ihc quation befnre the Court. IIaving hard thc representativcof the Finnish
Govertmieniin Junc 1923 the Court ùelivcredan Opinion on 23 July 1973.
Dy a majority of 7 to4 the Court decIined to riiIe uponthe question rcfcrrcd
to it. The Courtslaleù:

"... the opinivn which the Coiirthad &en rcquestcd to givcbcars on an
actu;ildispute between Finland and Russia ... It is wcll estahIislii ned
internatiunlillaw rhat no Statecan, withorit itconwnr, be cornpelledto
~ubrfiitits disputeswith ofher Stateeil11ertomediation or to arbitraiion.
or to any other kind of pacifisettIcrnent3."

32. It isnot cIear whether the PermanentCorrrl, kause of the exislence
ofa dispute,decided that it wasnnt competcnt iogive an opinion, or whethcr,
in the exr:rciseof its discreriitdwIincd to do so.
In thel'eoc~ Treari~.rcasthisCourt expressecltheviewthai "naState ...
prevmt rtiegivinçofan Advi.m~* Opinion which thc United Nations çonsidcrs
to bedesirable in order to obtainenIightenrnentas to the course of action it
should takc 4",'I'heCYoirridid not express disagreeinentwith the decisionin

the Easrer~ifireliaçax, but said diai"the circumstances of Ihc prcscntcasc
arc profoundly diremntfrotn thuse which [cxistedin theformer casewheii the
PermaneriC ~ourt]decIincdro givcanopinion kause it foundrhatthe question

--

Srarii:: of Eff.'n.rtcrCnAd>,isorj Upiniotr1923: P.C.I.J.. Seriex fi. 5.
Ibid . .27.
Inirvprernrionof Pence Tr~uiieswith Hulg~rin,Hiingur.~~r~tRomariia, fiïrst
Pl~use,AdrisoryOpinioti, I.C.Rc,ywr!s1950,p. 71.444 NhMIRlA{SOL~THWEST APKICA)

ers cver thc Union as niandatory;the Union has repeatedlyrejected its
contention '."
36. In its PreliminaryObjections South Africa didnot deny Ihat thcre was

disagrecnientbetwen itselfandthe AppIicants concerning a nurnher of points
of law, biitcontended that theredid not exisia disputc within themeaning of
Article7 of thc Mandate '.
In rheir Observations on the PrclirninaryObjections the Applicanrs, in
further argunient addressecito the question whethcra dispute existed,stated
that they had in fact. printn rhe filing of thcir Applicationsand Memorials,
announccd theeir position onal[ points mmprising lbeir side of the dispute,
and contjnued:

"They [Le., the Appficants] havc consistently voltd ro approve and
adopt the AnnualReports ofthe C:ornmitteeon South West Africawkh,
since1954, have set forthdetailed criticisrof Respondent'sexercisc of
the ifandate. Indeed,one Applicant, Eihiopia, kas becn a nieinbrr of
that Comniirtee. If duringalI the titne sincc 1954 Respondeni has noi
seerfitio rcspond to these contentions, but has coritinueto exerciw the
Naniate without regard to the criticismssupportcd and adnptedby the

nverwhelmingnurnber of ihe members ofthc internationaf ccrmnrunity,
il wouldappear rhat Respondent disagreeswith the criticisn3."
37. Tn its 1462Judgnientihis Court round iht a dispute existed,and that
it was a dispule wilhin the rneaning of ArticIc 7 of the Matidate for Sou~h
West Africa which could not beseltled by ncgotiation.In the course ofthe
reasoningIcading u~ito this CrnJinthéCourt stated:

"... iishould be poinled out tiut beliind the presenl dispute there is
another and similardisagreement an poinfs O€ law and fact-a sirnilar
conRict of [egd vicws and ititerests-bctwecn the Kespondent on the
one band,andrheotherMernbers of the UnitedNations,holding iden ticül

viewç with the Apptiants, on the other hand.But thoughthe dispute in
the United Narions and the onc now befnrethe Court may bcregardcd
as t~-Odifferenidisputes,thequestions at issueare idcnticalj."
Regarding the'question whcther there had ben ncgotiations in order to
solve the disputc, the Courtsaid:

"?'he nuniberof partiesto one side or the other of a dispute içof no
iniportance; itdepnds upon the nature of the question a(issue. If ilis
one of mutual interesl to nlany State s,hetherin sm organized bdy or
no!,i.hertis no rcason why each or them shouldgotliroughthefurrnality
and prerence of directnegotiati woiththe cornmon adversaryStareaRer

thcy have alreadyfully participatedin tlicollcctivencgotiationswith the
saine Stnk in opposition'."
Iiseerns clear, thereforethat thc Court wax, of the opinion ihat a dispute
could bcjgcncrated,and negotiations to setle itconducted, within the framc-

-. , .

'I.L.1. Pleading.South Wesr Africa, Vri1. p.89.
Ibid. pp.376rf seq.
Ibirf.pp.452-453.
* Sorrfh Wesr Afrira, Prr/iminarj Objecriom, Juàgrnenf,I.C.J. Reports 1962.
pp. 3444-345.
Ibid.,p.345.445 NAM1 ElA (~0~3.11 WFST AFRLCA)

"Following the adjudication tl~atSouth Wcst Africa is an inrernational
Territory ovcr which the United Nations hasjurisdiction, ihcn the power
to terininate theMandatc thcreo -fonce itteMandatory Powerhas failed
to riieet thsrandardof tlie Uaiidate aridthe Unitcd KarionsCharter-
isu~qucstionably within the çcrrnpctcnm of the United Nations '.'-

At a lüterstage the South Afriwn repraqentative, having anaIysed the super-
visory pcniversufthe Lcügue of Nations, and rclying on thisCoiirt's 1966
Judgnicnt, statedthat aiksi the Lnitcd Nations could huvcno greater powers
than tliosz whichtl~ Ltaguc of Nations had enjoyed,and thattlie Lxagucitself

was ~iutrrrrpowcredto revoke a Matidaie ?.Huwcver, representat ivfeihcr
Statc stilmaintained that the General AssembIy did iriraçt cnjoythe power
to revoke the ~Mundatc for South West Africa. Thus h1r.Kirondeof Uganda
expresscd the opinion that in view of thc fact that the Unileù Nations had
"inherited the assets and liabilitieof the League of Nations, including the
Territoi):or South Wcst Africa", it was its duryto transfei-the Mandate fronl
South Afi-icato 0th 1bwei.sof ils ownchoosing '.Exampleçof furtliersimilar
expression of opinion are to be found in the sturemcntsmade hy kir. Swardn

Siriphof InJiu ; Mr. FucnteaIha of Chile5, and Mr. Martiii of Canada 6.
41. In ihemms debates a nurnbcr of rcpresenratives txprcsxd the view that
South Africa, by the iriiplemeniatioii oilspvticiesin South West Africa,had
actedin conflict with its ~hligarionsiri terms of tMandate, whilst the Soiith
African rcprcseiitative iiiaintainthat his Ciovernmeni had in fact proii~oied
to the uiniost ihe material anmoral well-king and prrigressof thepopulation
of thc Tcrnlory '.1t isthusabundantlyclear that there arose duringthe course
of the sairidebates a dispute os loth(itll~gedpawer of the GcneralAssembly

to revake the Mandare, andthat tliere continued to ixa dispute as IOwhether
South Africa hüd acted in conAict with itsobIiwtians under thcMandarc,
ifit wcre stiliiiexistence. Furthcr cvidenc oefrhe existeno cfethex disputes
is to be found in the adoption, agaiiist tlie opposition or.inrrrdia,South
Arrica, of rcsoIution 2145 (XX1) in which the CIenerrtlAsçcrnbly purportcd
to exercisea power to revokc thc Mandate hecairseof the aIIeged failures of
South Aft-Îcato îulfil iobIigations in ternis thercof8.
12. A furihcrdispute wasgeneratedbya lellcr to the PresiJeniof thcSccurity
Council, dated 14 March 1969, in which the representatives of more than

40 States, niosrlyAfro-Asian, stated that itwas incurnbenr upon the Securiiy
Council to t~kc rneasuresand aciion to enable the people of South West
Africa "to exercise iheir right tu self-determination and independence" in
the lighrof the adoption of the aforesriidresulut~onof the GeneraIAssenibly
and SuutIiAfrica'smnrinued presence in South #'est Africa 9.Inresponse to,
int~ralitr, thi[etter,the Sccurity CounciI adopted resoIiition 26-4of 1969 in
which ircalled upon rheGovernmentof SouthAfricüto withdraw its adrninis-

GR, OR, Twenty-firstScss., 117Lh Plenery Mccting, 25 Sep. 1966,p. 19.
Ihid.,1431stPlenary Meeting, 5 Oct. 1966,p.24.
' Ibid. 1433rdPlenary Meeting, 7 Oct. 1965,p.9.
Ibid. 1417thPlenary Meeting, 26 Sep.L966.p. 13.
lbid. 1,27thPlenaryMeeting, 3 Oct. IY6ti. p18.
Ibid., 1433rdPlenaryMeeting. 7 Oct. 1966,p. 5.
Ibid.. 1414thand iolloinr.Plçnarv hfectinns.
~ide-~:ha X~I,scctionA,-injiu. -
Y UN duc. S!9090 (14 Mar. 1969) in SC. OH. Twcnt-fotirtiiYar, Sup. for
January-M'arch1969. pp, 126-127. [rationfrom South West ALrica I.The teztof a f~rrtherresolution(269 {1969)),
rvhich was bajed upon this resolution, was transinitteù by the Sccretary-
tieneial of the Enirtd Nations to the Sciuth Africati Ministcr of Foreign
Affairs, who, inhis reply,dated 26 Septe~nbcr 1969, stated that the South

African Govcrnriienthad no doübi tha1resolution 2145 (XXI)of the tiengral
Assembly as invalid, and that sincethis rcsojution Comed the bbasis of
rcsolution269 Il969) ofthe SecurityCouncil, itwasconsequentIy alsoinvalid=.
I lstated furthcrthat the findingof thisCoiirt in its1966 Judgrnentindicated
plai~tlthat theLeaguebd no pnwcr of unilaieralcancellation of a Mandate,
and thattheGenecal AssemliIy,evenassuniingtl~ati thad succeeded rothe super-
visoryporvers of thc Lcaguec ,ould not possibIy clairn greatcrrighrs than ihe
Council of the League itsellhad enjoyed >.

Ttappears, iherefore,that thcr!:also exists a dispute betweenSouth Africa
and the afnresüid Statcs, which addressedthe ltlter datcd 14 March 1969,
to thc Presideniof the Srcqrity Council, as regardsthc question whethes the
Security Council tmuld vaI~dIytüke steps relativetothe continued presenceof
South Africa in South Wesi.Africa 4.
43. It will thereforebe s:m that the dispute (or disputes)between, on the
one hand, SouthAfrica and, on thc othçrhand, certaiiiMemkrs of the IJnited
Nations, comprises a nuniher of important façiual and IcgsI issues.These

include theqiiestions wherlter the General Assenibly succeeded to the super-
visorp yowcrsof ~hr:Leagul:ofNations; whethertlie Leagileenjoyeda power
to revokea Mandate; if so, whether sucha power also vestcdin the General
Asxrnbly ; whelher South Africa in kt acted in confl~ctwith its obligations
under the Mandate,aauming thc samc to br still inexistenceor to have ken
in existencewhen Gcncral .Issernh!yresolution 2145 (XXI) was adopted;and
whet her SecurityCouircil ihesoli~tion2h4 (1969) and subseqiient rcsolutiuns,
inchding rcsoIution 275 (1970), wcrc validly adopted. These are the vcry
isstieson which theCourt isrequested to pronoiinmin thepresentprtimedinpS.

44. As hasbeen pointed oiit bin the F~~cfernChueiiu case the Permanent
Court declincd to givc an opinion bccausc of theexistence ofa disputebetween
Finland and Russia. The Court \venton to state thatihere ivcrcothcr cogent
rasons which rcndered itincxpcdicnt thai il shouldattenipt ta deal with the
question inissue.The queitinn whether Finlünd and Rtissia had contracted

on the ternis of the Ueclar;rtionas to the nature of theautonomy of Easlern
Csirclian:as,according 10 tIicCourr,really one of fact, andto aiiswer irwould
have involvecithe duty ofascertainingwhatcvidcnce rniglthave throwri Iight
upon the contentions whicti had been put fciward on the subjcct by Firiland

Vide Chap, V, para, 9,itfru.
SouthAfrica's Reply ic:heSecreiary-Gene orate Ilnitcd Naticins (Secui'ity
Council rcscilutio269 (L969) r)prodiiccd in L'K doc. S:946(3 Oc!. 1966).Aniiex
A, p. 1,and in Annex C toClliap.XI hereof.
Ihiri.,p.42. The rciisrifor theviewstifthe SouthAfricsnGavernment (vert
set ou1 atsome length.
Vide atsoChap. III.footnt>tti <in p. 418sirpua.
* As to thc intcr-relationsiibeiween Gencriil.4sscmhly resoluiirin 2145(XXI)
and SecurityCouncil resolutions 264(1961));269 (969) and 276 (1970). ridCitap.
V: paras. 6-5,iiifra.
fiVide para. 3l,stipra.and Russia rcspcctively'1-heCourr did not say that thcrc wasan absolute rule
that the request for an advisoryopinion rnightnat involve some enquiry as
tu façts, butstaredrhatunderordinary circumstances itwtt5cerrainlyexpedient
that the fiictiipon which the opinion of rhe Court was desircdshouId notbe

incontroi-ersy and ihaiii shouldnot bc lefttothe Churt itsclftoascertainsuch
Pdcts'.
45. As Roxnne points out. jt mus1 stilbe rcgardcd as rrnsettlcdwhether,
in the exerciseof iis advisoryjurisdiction,the Court may ansiver a question
dircctcdexclusivclyto theestablishment ofracis.Roscnne also mentions that
hoth the FermanentCourt and thepresentCourt have regularlymade relatively
sitnplefindings01 friçcstablishcdon the basisofthe documentationsubrnittcd
to theCo~.rt,bur stütesthattheseinstancescan hardlylxrcgrded asconclusive,
since thei'aiirihasnever bwn f;iwd wirhthe prablein of cstablishing tinder-

Iying unsb;i-ccfacts inthc course of rendering ;uiadvisory opinion 2.
Tnrnunicipai law itis often necessaryto distinguish brtween questions of
law and qiiestionsof fact3.A distinctionisnornially drwn heiween prirnary
facts4and sluondary füctsthe latterbeing inkrenceç rromprimnryfactu.There
appear to be difierencesor opinion asto whcthcr decisions insolving inferences
from prinury facts may be viewcd as decisions on legal questions. Hoivever,
it un clcarIynot be douhtedthat a findingrelatingto a primaryfact is n pure
factualfinding. Since the Couri may only givean advisary opinion on a iegul
quesrion,it may consequcnrly bc doübtedivhether il isentirtedto fumish an
opinion if,in order to do so, italso liato makefindings as to primary facts.

On the-assumption,ho\vever.thal the Court isindeed entitled rodo so, itis
suhmitted ttialthe Court, in theexerciseof itsdiscretionshould refiiseta givc
an advisor- opinion if ihas to establish controvert prirnary factswhjch do
not faIlwiihin a limiiedccirnpassiidmittingof easy and speedy ascertainmeni.
46. Tn ;iddition lu the theorcti ocbjIctions,based upon the wording of
the Statutc, tthcmakingof factualfindingsby Ihc Court in advisoryprococd-
ings, thcrc are obvious praclicaldificultics in this regard. These diffrcutties
da nor obrajn, or nol to the same extcnt, in contentious proceedings,wherk
thert:arc partiestrithe Iiiigatiotwho would normaIIy adduce such cvjdcnce

as they consider necessary to estsblish thcircontentions. In any evcnt, the
Couri may itsellinstrchproceedingsrequst thecalliiig of witnessesor experts,
or the pn~duction ofevidence, dociiments or explanations Moreover, thc
Courtiseiititled toentrust any individual,body, bureau,Conlrnjssion or other
organizaliw oith the iask of nrrying out an enquiry or giving an expert
opinion6. Thc effectiveexer o riseese powcrs would normally requirc thc
assistanceaiid CO-opera io[n of thc parties, rvhich,in contcntiouproceedings,
canreasoriabIybe cxpccted to be forthwming. Becauseihc parties PX hyporhsi
consentcd. inone form or another, 10 thejtirisdictionof the Courtthcy can bc
presurned to desirean authoritativepronouncement by the Courr.But in any
,-"- - .

S;«tiiojfksrern Carelia,Advisor);Opinion, 1923P.C.I.J.. Series 3, Nop.28.
Rosenne. op. cir.pp. 700-701.
The probIern riftenariscswhcn provision is made for an appeat torihigher
tribunal on aqriesiinn olaw only.
' These arc alsoreferredt<irs"hasicfacts". YfdcPlunkcttE.A. (JI.), "UN Fact-
Finding as aMeans of Settrng Disputes"-, Vir.qNiio JouruJ Inturnritinnul Luw,
Vol. 9,Nn. 1(1969) .. 156.
) ArlicIe 54 <itheKules ofCourt and Article 49 nTihr Siatute.
Vi'dtA.rticle 50 the Statute ofthe Court. WRIïTEh SI-AltMtNT OF SOUTHAFKICA , 449

event, ifthey Faitio w-oprrlte, they da so al iheir prit. Afaiiure toaddu=
evidence or provide informationmi&, inappropriate çirciimstance~,lead to
an advcrse inferen=, or it inight result in insufficientevidence heing pIawd
More the Couri to dischar# the oiiitnf proof resting oiia pariy. Irilhese
circumstances. a failureiocrr-opcratcwith the Court inan investigation ofthe
facts might havc isignificanteffecton theoutcorne ofcontentinusprrimdings,
and wouid in any went not r~mrleritimpossiMefor tht: Cour\ tomake any
findingof fact which jsne~~sary for thc dcterinihation ofthe case.
47. 'I'hposition is proforindlydifferentinadvisory proceedjngs. There are
no parties to such promediris who niight rcawnably be expccted io adducc
the rteccssary~vidence-indeed, the Statcsin possessi oonthe requiredinfor-

mation rnightwcll disirgrcewiihthe decisionto request an opinion or takeno
part in the proceedings. Altliough the Court would wnmivably bc cntitlcd to
conduct an enquis. incm inplu by exercising the poR7ersmentioned above ',
therewould not be the samc incentivefurStates roco-operaie and a failure10
do so wouldseldoiii,ifever, justif},any inferencewhich mightbcof assistance
in detemining disputed Factua1 issues-the only legiimate inference u70uld
nornially be thatthe Staredccs not wishto beinvofvcd(or Lu be invoIvedmore
dccply) in the proceedings. hnd in advisory prmeedings the Court lacks thc
final mcans of cutling the Gordian knot - there is noutrusof proof which, in
the absence of suficient cvidcncc, wouId lead fo the rc;oIiilion of factual
disputes.
48. Tt has already ken nientioned2 that the Court. if itconsiders that a
valid request for an adviso~ opinion has ken made by theSecurityCourtcil,

would have ta decidewhethrrresolution2145 (XXr) of thc Gcncra]Aswrnbly
was wlidly aàoptcd. ShoiiICthe Court find Ihat theGeneral Assembly was
legallyempowered to revokc thc Mandate,it will also have iodecidewhether
~hÎsorFan in cusu had valid grounds for doing so.As will bc dcrnonstratcd,
the said resolutionwas basec.onan allegedfailure ofkuth Africa to prornote
the moral and materia1well-+kingand sccurity of the indigcnousinhabitants
ofSouth Wcst Africa " In th: Sgcond Phase of theSnrrih WesrAJrica cases one
of the most controvcrsialand conte$tedissucswas whetherSouth Africa had
in factfailedto prornote the moral and materia1wcI1-bcingand çecurityof the
inhabitants or the Territor>-.This was essentially a factual issuc, and still
remains so.The Governmefii of South Africa hüs aIways n~aintainedthat it
has in fact pronioted thesaidwell-king and security,and in resoitilion 7145

(XXI) isincludcda purpurtedfiriding oftheGeneralAssemhly to thecontrary.
In a Iaterchapter refcrencewiIl be madero facts and circuriistancesrelating
to theTerritorysegardin wghich therchasken a fiictualdispiite betweenSoulh
Africaandceriain otlier Menibersof the UnitedNarionsover a periodof many
pars. It wilt beshown tu what extent tkctswere and arein issue and it wilbc
made clear thatthefactuaIis::ucwhichtheCourtmay bemlled upon to decide
çertainIydo not FaIlwjtliia sinaIlor confinedambit. it foIiowsthat ihc Court
wiIlnot bc ina position tu $;ivethe cequesia cdvisoryopinion unless itaIso
rnakes findingson controvcrtcdand conlroversfi aclal issiiesofsuch pro-
portions thatthe present question,in ultimateanalysis, cannot bc reyardedas

I The abovc-mcntioncd pro.:isionçouldptissil-be invoked in lerrnof Article
18 of thcCourt'sStatuteand Ariicle82or the Rules.
Vide pari.43, supru.
Vide Chap.XI, sectionA,infiu. .
Vide Chap. XI, infi.a pureIy!egtiIonc, and thar itwould in anyevcnt at least be"iiiexpcdicnt "'
furitIO givetherequestedopinion.

49. Fo:. the reasons statcd above, viz., the politicalbackgrotind of the

question rcfcrrcdto the Court, and the manner inwhich the Court and indi-
vidiiaIMr:rnkrs rhereofhavc bccome invnlve idtliepolitical struggce ncem-
ing South AMça's administration of SouthWcst Africa; and theexistence ofa
dispute aiid ofmntroverted Sactuafissues, itissubmitted that the Court, in
the cxerciseof iidiscrelion,should declineto accedcto the SecurityCounciI's
reque5t togivean advisory opinion. itfr. Nsariz"The roui 1 atThe Hague delivereda deplorable verdicl on
the legal aspecrsof the question of South $Vat Africa."
(GA, OH,'Twenty-firstSess.,1454th PlenaryMeeting, 27Oci. 1966, p. 16.)

Byelorus&in Soviet Saciaiist Itepublic
PLENARY

Mr. Tchernorrchrchenko :h?any ~emarks have alrrady ban nisde hm-
and justiy so- ahut tht:Internuti onoart and alioutthose judges who
did everytliingintheir powcrto rejectth legitimate cornplaintlodgcd bu
Ethiopia and Liberia. Bur we canno? nvedook the fact thak even among
!hase representatives who havc spoken here,there are stiladvocales,md
defetidersol' ihosejudgss. We even iiiitnessedthis aiour meeting this
rnoming. Those jüdges, aswelI as their advocatcs, prcfcr to dose their

cyes ta thc ppolicyof the Guirerninent of Soutli Africa vis-à-visSouth
West Africa and tu the violation of inremaliona1 undertakings and de-
cisions of[he United NarionsGeneral Assembly. Onc cannot heipnoticing
ihat the prcsent activititof this internarionalhdy do nor comply with
tlierequireinents and rak ddelcgated10icby the United Katiuns Charter.
The memkrship of the Court mus! bc changcd and it shouId have, as
statcd in Articic 9 oth: Court's Statute, e.uitable re~resentarion 'othe
iriaiifurli3soîcivilization and of theprincipal legal systuftheworld'."
(GA, OR, Twenty-fir:;t Ses.. 1449th IJlenary Meeting, 19 Oct. 1966,

,\gr. Bittif"Even iiiterratioo rgaa1s have joined in this battleagainst
Afrim. On 18 Jtily iY&i the International Court of Justicedelivere isd
ucrdict on Suuth Wcst iifricaThe unanimous msiire which this ci-oked
throughout the m~orldarid[tir:rejoicin[ha[ followed in South Africa are
eloqtienl testimonyand iieed noconinient. Soundiusticdoes notconsistin
thc casuistic dccIarnatin11legatmysteries.Itlies, rather. inpripulacccp-
tance and in the knnwletlge thal rhjiiscause and the good Iawhave beeil
defended. In the circum:;tanccs, thc vcrdimtay be interpreredas follows:

'Ethiopa inad Libcria sbnuIdmind their own business! South Africa is
right in annexing South West Africa! The mode of administration isin
conformity with the Charter aiiditsobjcctivcs.'Over-simplification, the
juristswillsay! 1retort: a translation of scientisubtIetiesinto practiçal
and concreterealities. Besidcsiriseasy to discussthe legal basis of rhe
dccision wirhout beingajurist, forwhat isat issueisthe ven;ftiture othis
'I'erritov, which is iindcr an international mandateand which has never
forrnedan intcgral part of South Africa.The Charrcrand the historical
Dcclaration appwring iiGcncraI AsscmbIy tesolution 1514 {XV) cal1for
the graniiny of indcpcndenceto al1countries and terrtorieswhicharestill
dependcnt. How caii tliisfulurc be giraranteed by thc verdict of The
Hague?

This Sudgrnent hau drmonskrated onceand for all, and in the cltarat
possible füshion, thecrisisfaciny m'rtainorgans of the UriitedNations.454 SAMIRth [SOLTH WEST AFRICA)

Hereyou havean organ basedon the Charler,and ihisorgan handsdowna
verdiclcuniran tu the Charter! Itisquite simple: the laritseIfiviiited,
and theinacfiine esiablishedexpoundsthe 'law'for which it wascreated.
The privilege of the vctoenjoyedbysomc nicnihrs ofthe SecurityCouncil
isa rcsult of thissame concept. Why, then, shoiitd we be surpriscd rhat
iitteriiatioil robtemsrcrnain unrcsolved?Their solutionisnotconsidered
just unless thc grcüt'Powersalone arc satisfted ivithi; ioo bad V it is

injuiiousto the peoplesdirectIyinuolved.This curioussubjcctivc niorality
niiglil bc surnmod up in a single sentenc 'E:verythingis weIl whick is
acccptcd by tlie great Powers' . . ihe RepubIic of Sourh Afrim seizes
Sour.hWest AFricaby forc eiththe blessing-which no one can understand
-of the IntcrnationsICourt of Justice., ."
(€:A,OR, 'Twenty-firstSçss.,I412tli Plenary Meeting, 22 Sep. 1966,
pp IO, 15.)

Mr. &knro: ". .. his couniry hrtoriginiillhad ü greüt respecftor the
1nte:naiional Court ofJustictet had brought ncasebefore iheCourion a

rnattcr of great iniporlance Ioit, but because of the manmuvres ofa
certai colonia Power rheoutcornehad not btzn satisfactory.'I.hsame
Power hadkcn bchind the recent decision in the SouthWest Africa case.
a decision whichwas contraryiii law andjustjce. The African cotintrics
wert thereforebound ro ask thcmselveswhat thcy stood to gain from
participatingin the proceeding sf a body which wns iniinical to iheir
iriteresrs.His couiitry nould havvotai against the approprialionunder
scction 19 if that suni had becn intended to financc futurc activities.
Sin,: the money had alrcady been spmt, huwci~cr,itivouldahsrain iiithe
voie on the section asa whole, tl:hilcapprising tincreast.."
((;A, OR, Twcmty-first Ses., Fifth Comm., 1124th Meeting, 10 Oct.

l966 p,.24.)

CentralAfrlcanRcipublic

(i) Mu. Goiiirz-Doimthe:"The Court. inhanding dtiwn a Judgenient which
1ain sorryto haveto describe as totally unsouridrrorn bot11thclegal and
moralstandpuinis, hasjust bccn guiliyof the most shattcringdcniriIof
jusiice inits historyby refusingto enprcss an opinion on the substance
oftheissuc. That is whynniyGuvernrnent wasone of thefirsttoproçlaim
itsdisappoiiiimeni and indignation at the Juàgcmcnr, which, asmany

delegalionshave alrcady said.has arouscd great cnncern in countries
suchas mine, rvhich believeinilleruleof Iaw.
The Court 11x3îuIlyjusifjcd aurprevious exprewedreservalionscon-
ceriling its mernkrship,which failsio rcffcctthc currcnt rangeof Iegal
aridpotiticaltrendsin ihe United Nations."
(GA, OR, Twet~ly-firsScss., 1427th PIenary Meetii~g, 3 Oci. 1965.
:'.)
(ii):W. Guintnli:"By a Jüdgerneni unforrunatelydevoidof any fciundation,
tiflierjuridicalomors[, the InicrnationalCourt ofJustice, as we have
had occasion tostaie.Iiajsuscrornmittecloneof theniosi flagrantdcnials
ofjustice inils historyby refusingto hand down a judgcment on tlie

subsrancc ofthe case.T'ha1iswhy my Government usasamong fhe first
tr,prcxlaim its disappointment and indignation in thc fiicc uf sucha WWnE N STATEMEKTOF SOUTH AFKICA 455

judgcmcnt, which,as iiinnydelegationshavesrressed,ha% cIisttirtKcoun-
trieswhicli, likinine.or course, believe ithc rulc of Iaw.. .
I shoiiIdnot like taIcavc thisrostrurnwithoiit saq'inga femwords on
the conditions of work and. in particular,thc prcxnt struçturc of the
United Nat ions.To our great satisfact ieohave alr~xly achieved th
eirlargcmcnrof the SezurityCouncil andthe EconotnicrrridSocialCorin-
cil. Fnrthis rcason,irt viewof theflagrantdenia[of jusiit~ of which the
InterrialionalCourt O€ Justicewas puilryIastJuIy, rnyCiovernment mn-

sidersthar thecuntpo!:itionof thatimportant body ~nustlx enlarge dnd
without delay."
(GA, OR, T~vcnty-rirsrSess.,1441~1Plenary Meering, 13 Oct. 1966,
pp. 17-18, 19.)

:W. Puittturnholuni"Thc püticna uf rhc intentatioiial corninunity hs
bccn straincd and taxed by the trinsparent subtlctiesand nuances of the
Court which. by lhe ai-cidenor certainrortiiitoitscircurnstanccbwarne
differentinconiposition. Onc would have thought that a judicialtribunal
of such standing ivouIi1avoid procedures of siiçhiitterC~rtiliynd place
a Iiigh premiuni upon predictability,imread of whIch wc sccthc pürii-
doxicai spectacle of tenaciouconsistency on the partof individual Judges
and damaging inwnsirtency on the part of the Court. One bemoani the

factthat the Court in 1966 appears ro have abdicated ihe rolcassignçd to
itto serveasa fina[bilwark of protecrion againstpossibleabuseor breach
OF the Mandate."
(GA. OR, Twenty-first Sess., 1419th Plenary Meeting, 27 Scp. 1966,
P. 6)-

?W. &ror,,i~: "l1orfuy;t1and ilsally,South Africa-&th supported by
sorne yrcat Powers-aiiitinue to make a inockery of worldopinion, and
hai~eeven botdly seliEiemselvesup as the charnp~onsuf rccolonizat ion.
South Africa. wirhits palicicof apartheid, isthe syinbol of a rerurnof
Irian.with a11bisünim;ilinstinctsreawakened, to the dark agesof history.
It isagreiit challengeio tiiankindasit is ioda)and a constant challenge

to alfAfrica.Yarrowly ~cIfish intcrcsthavc always cngendered sitchsitua-
tions. but veroftcn th:y arebut a Iasref~igeand these interests arthere-
fore mistakcn interesis.
It was thisfeelingwf:ichIcd thcIntcrnatiunal Court of Justice30render
a disgraceîulJudgnren!on the South West c2fricansitua1ion."
(GA,OR. Twenty-firb;Sess., 1428rhPlenaryMcctiny, 4 Oct. 1966.p. 8.1

Mr. &~C;rrki":... Iniust mention the question of South West Africa,
rvhich has becorncexircmely iirgcnt bccauw of the scandalous Jirdgement
handed dnwn by the International Court of Justice on rhc cornplaint a~dinstSouthAfricasubmitted joint1y by Liberiaand Ethiopia on behalf
of al1Africa.

I ciinnotfaitto n~enfionrny country'sindignation whcn we learnedof
thisirifamy....
Th: situationinSouth-WestAfricaha5 reacheda dangerausphase. Tthas
wrioirsly dererioratedsince theJudgerncnt ofthe TnternationaICoiirl of
Susticcof 18July 1966.South Africri'annexationistdesignsarc now more
transliaienttianever.The veryevening thalhe Iearncdof theJudgernent,
Mr. Ibrwoerd, the tchenPrirnc Ministcr othe LiepuhItcof Solith Africa,
declai-cd: 'The Judgernent delivered this afteriioon the Intcrnationai
Courj of JusticearThc Hague is a greavicton, for SouthAfrica.'
Wkre dms thisvictoryIic. ifnot in the fact chat the Court, with a few
corri13tjudges,ha$tipheld South Africa in ilscibstinatrcfusülto hced
theGeneralAssernbly?"
(GA, OR, Twcnty-firstSess..1431stPlcnaty Meeting, pp. 1,2.)

Congo(Kinshasa)

Mr. fiourboko:"ln regard to South West Africathe scanda!isevenworse.
A sat:red Mandate entrustcdto Soiith Arrica kas been travesticd and
beirayed inrhe mat abominable fashion and turned into a colonialist
instrümentforthe vilestandmost contenrptibleservitude,the most sharnc-

ful bondas that tlieworld hasever known. Iregrettu have IO notethat
theIritematjc~naICourtof Jus~icc,thc smcfuary of infernafjonallaw,has
mudc itscIaccornpIice inthis unpreŒdentedscandal, so iha~WC can say
of it,asRacine did of kru:
Among men as yetunborn thy namc \vil[ he FnuI insult to the foilleft
tyranily."
(GA, OR, Tivcnty-firstSess.. 1445th Plcnary Meeting, 17 Oct. 1966,
pp. 11-12.)

cuba

Mr. Rodrigws Astiazarain:"The pcopIc and hc Rcvolutionary Government
of Cuba wndcmn the shantefuIdecisionof the InternationaCourt of Jus-
tice of 18 July 1965 favouring imperiaIisrnandother rcactiona fryces
in the worId and reaffirrnthcjr intcntito Iendmord and material siip-
porl to thc people or Soulh West Africa iiitheirjust struggIefor indc-
pcndenŒ."
(GA,OR, Twenty-firsSess.,1449thPlcnaryMcct~ng,19 Oct. 1966, p. 6.)

rWr. i3u.tnirrrThc delegatjun of the Ctechoslov aokciaIist Kepublic
fulIy;~ssociatesitself witti the representatofethosz Stareswhich havc .
cxpre:;sedtheirindignationai thcJudgrncnt of thcTntcrnationalCourt of
Justiceof 18July 1966 on thequestion of South WestAfriw.
As thedelegation of Czccchosiovakiaindicateddirrinythegeneraldebate,
the C:rechosIovakSociülist Rcpub[idisagrceswith this Judgrncntanddoes WT'iEY STATEMENT OF SOUTE4 AFRICA 457

not accept if.Thereis iiodoubt that thisJucIgmenlhasreduced even fur-
iher theprestigeof the InternationalCouri of Jusliceasan insfrunicnifor
the pcaccfulsettlementof internationaldisputes.The Court's decisionon
South Wesr Africa has proved once again fhat that organ'sacrivitiesare
hardly consonant with !hetasksIaid upon itby the Charter.
In this connmtion itis pertinentto note that the composition of the
InternationalCourtof Justiceisnot represenlariveand dorsnorcorrespond

tu thepresentsituationin the world. thc InttrnationaI Court itohecoitie
a usefi11inslriiment anrto acquircduc authority as oneof the pri,ncipal
organs of thc United Kations, a change must bemadein its compositian
so that itreflectsthe leg,an doliticaIrcaIitics of thc'prcscnt-dayworld,
in conformity with Articlc 9 ofitsStatute.In the view ofthe CmhosIo-
vak delegatiun thismeansfirstand foreinosttht the new Stafes of Africa .
and Asia, arid also thesocjalist çoüntries, must be properlyrcprwnted
on theCoiirt."
(GA, OR, Twenty-fii'stSess., 1425th Plenary Meeting, 30 Sep. 1966,
P. 9.)

Mr. Zinsou:"lnaddition to the impofcnce we havejustdiscussed,oiirown
InternationalCourtrectntlydeLiver4 a scandaloiisand wickedjudgement
under the guise of legaiand fallaciousreasoningwhich, in ordcr to safe-
guard whar it.erroneously ctainto h the letteof the law, ha vioIated
itsspirit. It aserious matterthat such an institutionshould have failed
in iiduty, and itisurgcntthat we correct the situation."
(GA, UR, ~wenty-Zrst Sess., 1432ndPIenary Meeting, 7 Oçt. 1966,

p. 12.)

(i) Mr. Yifrzt:"We have aIso ken taught onc cardina[lesson, ibt is, WC
have to Lakean nctivc part in s[l the organî af the United Narians,
includingthcIniernati.r>naCourt ofJusrice.To thisend, we shalIdemand

equitable represenlat inathe knch of the Court, a represcntation
cominensuratc with OUT roIc in thc LinitedNations, a reprcxnration
whjch will allow us trcontribute Our due share ta the fulfilmcntof al1
aspectsof the objectirw of rhe United Nations.-'
(GA. OR, Twcnty-first Scss., 1414th Plenary hleeting, 23Sep. 1966,
P.3.1

(ii) Mr. Yifru:"Secondly, sinceit ha kwmc incrcasinyly'apparent thiit a

change inthc cornpusilion of thc IntcrnationaiCourofJusticeisurgently
csllcfdor, rnydeiegatinn would like IO propose that such a change k
instirutedon the Iinfs adopted in enlarging thc mernbership of the
SectirityCoiinci[ and of thc Ectlnomjc and Social Councjl in order to
ensure an cquitable gr:agraphicdistributionof .Member States inthose
organs. The Ethiopian delegarion specificalIy urgcs the aniending of
Article 3 of thc Statutl:of thc TntcrnationalCouof Justicewith aview
tuenltirgingthenrenib1:rshipftheCourt so lhatitwill reflecttincreaçe in thcfamjly of nations andthercbycnsurc the effectivercprmeniaiion
of al1regionsin thai body."
(GA, OR. Twenty-firsi Sess.. 1413rdPlcnary Mccting, 29 Sep. 1966,

P-6.1

m. Engotic:'*Itnhisconnect ionrnyGovcrnmcntcannot but add irs voice
tothoseraised in al1partsof thcworld in denunciaiion ofthe rcccntJudyc-
ment of the InternationalCourt of Justice at The tlague which maintains
and consolidates South Ai'rica's domination ovcr South West Africa.
Briscdon lcgal artifice,withoutregard to thesubstance ofthe rnatter, thai
purety fornia[ Judgcrnent,ivhichwiuld not have been bndcd hwn but

for tliecasting votof tliePresideniof thc Court, isa vçriiablescanda1 in
thccps of al1the S~taresf rhc 'thirdworld'."
(Cd, OR, Tiventy-hrsi Sess., 1438th Plenary Meeting, 12 Oct. 1966,
p. 3.t

Ghana

(ilMu. Arkhurst: ''lH-~eInrernationaICourt ol Justice, by itsgrotesque
decisionof 18July1966,kasconfrontai thisOrganization with acrisisof

imnienw diniensionsregardingthe question oftheMaiidatedTcrritoryof
South Wst Africa.
'1he decisioii itslf has so shaken internationalconfidence in tCourt
as ta have brought itto the verge of disrepute. For the Court to havc
abdicated ilsrcspansihilirieas the highestcour1 of internationaljustice
and to appear,bydcfault,at any rate,to support the positionofan inter-
nationaI pariah like Soutti Africa is a very grave issue. The GcncriiI
Assembly isthcrcforeboiindscriously to take stock uTtheCourt's perfor-
maliceand toensurc ihat its memhersdo not tiikeheir responsibilitieso
Iighly asto iiiakone of theOrgai~iïation'sprincipaisubsidiaryorgans an
in~ernuiiunalIaughing stock.-Inpari icular,the composition ofthe Court

must reffectthe reaIity of thc rncinbcrshipof thc UnitcVations and the
tiventy-ftrssessio onfthe Assenihly niustensui-e tthatrepresentaiionon
the Court begirü:ta conforrn to the proper geogtaphical distributiun of
the mcmbrship of ihc Organization.Furthermorc,and this is extiemely
important,since the Court is tlie fcireniostbody for tlie developnieoft
inteinaiioncillaw and jiisticejudges eIectedto the Court mus1 be men
of agilc mindandwilh thc coilragc toadapt to thc cvolving norrnsof the
internationalconimunity.It is only ttius tliat tlieq.wn rnakc!heIaw or
tiationsa living th~n: and serve the inrerestsojiisticand internütionaI
harinony. Ttis, thercforc,in thispirithat rny dclcgationwill vote inthe
Forihcomingelectionstn tlie Ii~teriiationalCourt of Jujticc."

(GA, OR, Twcnty-GfstSess., 1419ih Plenary Meeting. 27 Sep. 1966.
p. 13.)

(ii)iWr-Kcrfokn:"Thcrewnt dccision of theInternational Court ofJusticeon
the South West Africü case hasundnuhtedly detractedfrom theprestige
and reputationor theCourt. nui itisiheview ofniy delegationthai every
alirmpl shouIdnow be made to strcngthenthe Court and to make itan WKITIE V Sl'A~l~E.WOF SOUTIIAFHlCA 459

effcctiv~insiruinenfor the dcvclopmrntof a body of internatiunalaw
whichwillhave as its mainobjective not thernere interpretao tfisntic
Icgislarion,huprincipallythe dispens~ngofjusticx:and equity wittiinthe
framcwork ofan evoluing ~nternationalrriorality."

(GA, OR. Tnrenty-lirsi Sess.,1435th Plenary Meeting, IU Oct. 1966,
p. 17.)

Guinca
PI.ENAKY

(i)iWr. AchA-ar:"On 18Jlly 1966theInternationalCourt of Justice,aftcrsix
Iong years of deliberntion,deIivcwd ilsJudgrnent on the application of
Liberia tind Ethiopia çoncerning South Africa's administration of the
MündatedTerritory OF South Wcst Arriw. The disgracca fnudlunexpect-
ed narure of thisJudlanentimmediatcly arousedindignalion throughout

the world. . . Byitrefusal,in1966, togivc a dccisionon thesuhstanrnof
the qucxiion,theInteriiational Couri orJustice that is, the scvJudges
who votedagainst the 1962dccisiution compeience-ha not lived up to
its rcsponsibilitiand obligations. owetsecanoncinterprcitheso-called
technicülJudyrnent dtdivtred on 18 JuIy 13% in circumstanccs tha1cast
doubt on the integritof sornt:of tlie Südges andon kir impartialify?
A glance at the natiurial itdycalibreof thesc scven Juùges who chose
to rcpudiatea %verd ifttheirown Courr thatrvasof an irrevwable nature,
isenlightening inthis rcspect.Itis enough to çee that these Jridgeçare
from Greece, Italy, th: United Kingdom andFrance-al1 countriesthat
give unqualifiedsupyxirttothe rashpoliciesof South Africa andsecretly
uphold thatcouniry b-causiuf 1heenormous profitsthai tl~eircwnomies

derive from the piti1e.sin.iplcmentationof thcpolicy OFeconornic and
saciül siiivepknownas apartheid. As for the Ausirü\ian Judge, Sir
Percy Spender, whasc narrie, 1 tliink, mcans 'spend~hrift'-he needs
money-his deciding vote and his conduct throuyhout the prowcdinp
show that heisnot werihy of theconfidencewliichtheGencralAssembIy
plaoed in him in eIci:ting hirii and whiçh his colleagues expresçed in
raising hirnto thc highofficeof Presidentof iheCourt. The undcrhand
tacticsofSir Rrcy Spender, both in theimproperdisquatiticationof the
Pakistan kdge, Sir 2afrullsi Khan, and in Chetiming of the Judgriient
handeddown whcn the verdict favotirablto Soulh AFrica and crronc-
ously Iiibclled 'techi>icgave ri= tu no doubt, show clcarty that this

Judge, from a counir:]whcreit is not so long sinc the aborigineswere
treated warse than th:non-U'hitesof South Africa,bas chosen ta hold
high the torchoi'anachronisticracism and cutonialism, tothc detiiineiit
of ihedignity t,spect:ibiIiandiriipaitialitofhis officeIt is indccd the
allianceof crilanial atrxist forces wiihthe illcgitimrtteinlerests of an
ohsolctc world thatp~evailedin the decisionof this Judgc, who is guiIty
of rheattemptcd rniirileof iheltlternationaCourr of Justice.AS Torthe
Polish Judge,whose kchaviourkas kitfidennunccd by his own Ciwcrn-
ment, WC can only wi:.hforhim rhatin thc goldenexilehewiIl no doubt
arrangefor himself jn a couniry inwhich he will clairn to have'chosen
freedorn',he may qui~itienjoy the money he has bwrt able ro arnassIo
rhecxtcnt to ivhichhisconscience wiIlb~ :bleto ka thc hcwy Iiurden

tliahe is now helping tu impose 031the unforrunate Africanpzople of
South West Africa. .. .
Wc must spare no c:tfortorcdrcss ihtincalculablewrongwhiclithese460 NAMiBlA (SOUTII WESTAFRICA)

Judges,oiit of turiwiththerealit i esur timc, andsametirneaccorn-
plices, if not 'promoteof,obsolete prcjudices,have infiictupon the
edilicso IitboriousIysup forthemaintenanceofpeac end murity and
for.thedevelopment of CO-operati anndintemtional law."
(GA, OR, Twenty-firsiSess., 1414th Plenas Meeting, 23 Sep. 1966,
pp. 14, 15.)
(ii)Mi-. Achknc "Immediatelyafter theshockin Jugdgcmentdelivcrcdby the
1nii:rnationalCourt of Justice,the Afrimns and theirfriendsdecidto
cndeavour to inake the Court rcficcthereatinrernaiionaIsituationof

todlv. We know that there was oirlone AfricanJudge on the Court.
The hopc that was fhenexpressed was thatthe Intemationai Court of
JusiiceshouId reflectthe prcscnt membershipof the Securiiy Council.
The votes jus! takenshow thata step hasbeen ttikcntowards fuIfilling
iharhupc."
(GA, OR, Twenty-ficst Scss., 1456thPlenary Meeting, 2 Nov. 1966,
P. 3.1

Mr. .Youyafe:"Siinilar ilthe pastthrccyears,theexpenscs ofthe Inter-
nationalCourt ofJusticeamountirtg toover 53.5million had produd a
scaniialousresulwhnseconçeqtienes might beevenmorc costly to the
internationai cornmunity.A complete reorganizationof the Couri was
imperatir-.The Court,whileremaining alooffrvmpolitical issues,should
bea faithful refiectionof the internationalcornrnunityas it was tciday and
not as ihad been inthetimeof colonial and imperialistventures."
(GA, OR, Twenty-first Scss.,FifthConim., 1I32nd Meeting, 25 Oçt.
1966,p. 70.)

Mi-.tlhfmers:"My delegationwishesta saythatitconsiderstheJudgment
of the TnternationaCourt of Justiceas a distortioof law, a denial of
justicean insuIto the internationalcomcien~zandto mankind."
{GA, OR, Twenty-first Sess.,1440th Plcnary Meeting, 13 Oct. 1966,

P.3.1

PLESARY

Mr. Csalorduy "Inrcndcring its judgementthe InteritationrIourt of
Justicz has cntireIydisregardtheintcmstional characterof theproblem
and the \i~eIl-foundedintereof thecommunity ofnations-firstof aIl,
that ofthe African muntries-and bs madequesiionable itsown legal
compelence, inifs presentcomposition,and thc usefulne ans nccessity
ofitsownexistence.Thejudgement oftheCourt isdiamctricaliyopposed,
also, to the requircment of the Charterthatinternationalpeand secu-
rityshould be ensured inaccordanccwith the principlesofjustice and
intcrmtional Iawand on rhe&sisof respectforthe rightof self-determina-
tionand the sovcrcignequalityof peoples."
(GA, OR, Twenty-firstSess.,1429th PIcnary Meting, 4 Oct. 19&,
p.Il.) W. Snwmii Sin&: "Thf Judgment is un1iktIy10 inspireconfidencein the
TnteriiationalCourt.Th:re is growingfeeIing in the worId that thc Inter-
nationai Court asitiscc+nstitutctodayisoutmoded in ils conceptand is
incapable of rcsponding tu the needofmodem timcs.
(GA, OR, Twenty-firsi Sess.1417th Plenary Meeting, 26 Scp. 1966,
p. 12.)

Mr. Sharg "With a11rrn;peco thegood name of rhelearoedJudges who

have heen able to foIluv,the conscienceof mankindof the post-war era,
itis onlytoo obvious b:~now thai that legal forumdos not andcannot
deserve the confidcnccof'mcnforproblernsofthiskind.The basicconcept,
as wellas the strucrures-ntheprocedures,should be broüght up to &te.
A reviewis inevitable.i; the Court is to sefurtheras an independent
organ ofour world 0rg.inization to which mankinùçanput its trust and
confidenceforan honest appraisalofmattersin thespiritof the Charteof
equalityol man and oneness of mankind."
(GA. OR, Twenty-firct Scss., 1449th Plenary hleeting,19 Oct. 1966,
p.14.)

.Wr. Vnkil: "Thisbringsme to the conclusion thal the Court might have

reachedits opinion, noton judicial, buon poIitical grouncis. WhiIe1do
admit that thecaseis primarila political anmoral problem X cannotsee
haw acourt of justice, rspcciaIlythe InternationalCourt of Justice which
iiiuçtexercise the greatescaution to safeguardits nitme and integrity
againstduubts and aspersions,shouIdbeguidcd initsjudgement bq'poIiti-
cal considerations."
(CA. OR, Twenty-firstSess.,3427thPlenary Meeting,3 OEt.1965,p. II.)

Mr. Aiken: "ive must, of criurse,accept thedecisionof theCourt, but,
as anon-lawyrr, itswms tome to havebeen an outrageouswaste of time,
cnergy and money. Indccd, I feel sure that al1who supportthe clection
of those.ludgeswho vri!ed for ihedecisionas men who would givc wisc,
eyuiiable and s~edy d#:cisions,ust bitterlyregretthar thcconfidence
&as mispliced ... "

(GA, OH, -1wenty-firstSCSE..1427th I'lenary Mecring.3Oct. 1966, pp.
4, 5.1

IvoryCoast
PLEYARY

Ci)Mr. Usher:"... and the IvoryCoast condemnedtheJudgment delivered by the International Courr uf Justice on 18 JuIy 1966 kause it \vas
poiiticallyratherthan juridicalll;motivated."
(GA, OR,Tweniy-first Sess..1418thPIemry Meeting, 17 Sep. 1966,pp.
7-3.)
(ii) fi.Ake: "The question arisw a5iowhat motivesprrimpted the judgesof
ihcInternatiunalCourt of Jusiice todrny an wlicrdocision which
acknowkdged that aIiformer Mcmber Stateshad thcrightto suhrnit to
it:ttanytime, individuallyor collectively,any dispute whichniighr arise
ixt.wc~nihr:mandatory Power and themçelvcu conccrning the interpre

tationor theapplicationof theprovisions of the Mandate.
Ftisour tèeIingthar theChiirt'sjudgement or 18 July 1966is a scanda[
wir,houtprewdcnt in ihcanuals of Iaw. That is why itwas vigorously
denouncedby alljustiw-loving Ciovernments.In acommuniquépubfished
immediately afterthe judgement, theGovemment of the Republic of the
Tvr>ryCoast exprcssed itgriefand indignation in thefoIIowing terms:

'The Govemmmt of the Republic of the Ivory Coast was deeply
upxt talearn that the Internatinna[Court of Justicehad rejectedthe
cornplaint of Ethiopia andLiberia againsiSouthAfrica in thc South
West Africa case.
The judgenientjust deIiveredseriously and dangerousiy undermines
ihe presrig octhcIn tcmüiionC ülurta.ndthcrcby,of the United Na-
tions.
'Ihe international tribunalat The Iiague has not onIy shown itseif
incapable of con~iviny of andtaking hejusl and rcasonablcdocisions
i-cquircdtosettla problein involvingthe honour, freedomand digtiity
<-if an.hutalso deIiveredajudgnient * hich ial1 the mort:scii~ldaloris

sinceil Ilayriintcuntradictsthcadvisoryopinion whichthesameCourt
detiveredon 11JuIy 1950.'
.4sthe headof my delegatirinsaid here Iasweek (1418th meeting), we
feel that thejudgementwhich the InternationalCouri of Jüsiiczddivcrcd
on 18 July 1861was basednot on Icgal,but on political coitsidei-ations,
a11cRortsto prnveothenvise notwithstand~ng.

'lntheIvvry Coasr \vc havr:scrupuloiisrcspcciforinsiiiu~ionsbut this
repeci cannot prcvcntus frorn depioring the fact that thejudges ofthe
International Court of Justicedid not consider ittheirduty to confine
theniselvcssirictltolcgaIargumcnfs invcrifyingthc many andcontinucd
viulürionsof the Mandate by Soutli Africrt.Insteadthey ailowed tiienl-
seIvetso k distracteciby considerationswhich had no beariny on the
suhjeci-mat otfthectiniplaint... Thejudges musthave aIIowedihem-
selvesto he su7ayedby other rnoiives.Torwe findithard tubelievetbat
these eminent judges çouId have deIiberaiely committed suçh a &ring
err-or,which discrcditsthe Court and the United Nations, unless they
hadbeeiiguidedbyottierconsideratioiis.
-Knawing in advance the vcry ncgativc reaction South Africa was
bound iohttvc if.by chance, the Court had honourcd fhc Africans'

request,the judges-influencedby severaiI'owersdeepty involved in the
prewnt situation, which enables them to pillage the Terrilory'svat
raourccs-saw inimediatelythe possible conscqucnccs for thosc Pow~rs
ifthe United Nations dgided roinipiementthe provisions of Article94
(21of the(::barrerThe judges preferredto coniniit an injusticerather
thm providciin opportunit? to haverecourse to thoscprovisions. . .
WC muid consider a new iippeal(O the Court, but such an üppeal4b4 NAMIRIA (SOUTH WEST AFIIICA)

the Govcmment of Ausrraliais determincd to putup anothçrcandidate
for electiototheInternstio CoaurtofJustice."
(GA, OR, Twenty-fint Sess.,1422ndPlenary hfeetinç, 29 Sep. 1966,
pp. 14,15.)
Libfria

PLENAKY
(i) Mr. Grimes: "Thus, as a resuItof dearh,diuabilityand spurious dis-

qualification apparently engincered by the Court'sPresidcnttranspar-
ent justice was dcnicd and seven men perverteù justiceand brought
upcn theInlemationalCourtthegreaicst opprabriumin itshistory.
P.sthePresidentO€Liberia,speakingon26JuIy1966,dcclafed:
'Thc decisionofthe Coiirt, rhatapplicantsliadnu IcgaIinterestin
theuse, and its rcfusto go into the meritsaftcritprevious detrr-
niinationinDeceniber 1962thatapplicantsdid havea IegaIinteresand
thc Courr hadjurisdiçtiotodeterminethe caseon its mcrits,rcavoof

casuistryandlpc yrntlechnics,whichito saytheIeastmost surprising
andpuzzling.ItinfactgeneratcsuopIeasant suspicionsabout rhCourt.
Tbelievein due respect,regardandsubrnission tothe final decision
ofaCourt ofJusticebecause1beIitveinthcruleof iaw; butadecisionor
jiidgemeritofa courtsuchos the InternationalCour1of Justiccin the
SouthWestAfrica casedvcsnot adinittoobtainingsubmission because
itisopaque as to law,justice, equity and morality.
11isJOopaque that icannot borrow Iightfrom anylegalor moral sun
lo ilIurninit but ir is transparentwith riicismand the old gamof
colnnialism;and itlead%oneto wonderwhcther itinot thehandiwork
ofmen srillinfuseanddimbucd with bias and race prejndice'."
{GA, OR, Twenty-firstSess.,1414th Plenary Mccting, 23 Sep. 1966,

pp. 8-9.)
(iiMr. Grimes: "On tlie mostflimsy pretextimaginable,for whichno good
word has ken said by any reputable Iawyeror schoiolar,th1966judge-
inent refusct dogiveeffectio the dcar rneaninpaiid scope ofthe 1962
judgement, whichwas 'final and withoutappeal',in termsof the Court's
own Statute.The Coun evaded itresponsibiIity-and, Irnighiadd, its
opportunity-to adjudicareripon the realmerits of thedispuic, as the
19G? judgeiiientobviousiy required.Instead,the Court made a futiiity
nf fouryears ofpIeading and oral argument on the meritof thecase by
holdingthat aIthoughthe Applicantshada suficient standingo'activate'
the Court-whatcvcr that word may mean inrhiscontext-they were not
enticledtoa judprnent on thc vaIidityoftheiclaim. Such anaberration
of thcjüdiciaprocess canhardly lxcaIIeda 'victory' Foranyonemncern-

cd. Ttrepresenicda totaIIoss,most of al[ for the reputationand dignity
of theCourtitscIf."
(GA,OR,Twenty-first Sas.,1433rdI'IenaryMeeting, 7Oct. I966 ,.12.)
Libya

f LENARY
Mr. Ei Btmri: "Unfortunately IheJudgment of18 July ha suggesiedthat
ihe ii~terestof international finance, which is hand in glove witthe
racistrkgirnin Soiith Africa,iiiightinflucnccevhenhighestinternational

legalautliorily."
(GA, OR, Tweniy-firslSess.,1524thPlenary Meeting, 30 Sep1966,p. 7.) Mr. Rokn~o~~tnlaio "1-n South Wesl Mrica, that sanie tiovernment is
introducing seyregationlaws which havealready becn rcjcct eydthe
universa[ conscienceat~dis claimingthatthe Mandate which it hoIds from
ihe League ofNationsputs it bcyond a11 Unilcd Nationscoritrol, despite
the decisions handcd d3wn in 1950 and 1962 hy the Iirternationai Couof
Justice,ivhose~&lous remnt Judgment has not aItere tde substance
of the operativepar1of rhose decisions: namely, fhat thc United Nations
isthe sucessor aftheLeague ofNations."
(CA, OR, Twetity-fir.tess.,1445thPlenary Meeting, 17Oct. 1966.p. 2.)

(i)JWY. Ou.stnaiBo: "Tt isno1 niy intention to undertake a leml exegesis.
I inerelyurishto ernphasizethc flagrant çontradiç~ionktween the 1962
and 1966 judgemcnrs. between IWO decisions bl; thesameCourt. WefeeI
that the1atterjudgemc:ntseriousIyimpairstheinstitution'sprestigeanditç
authority whjch should beuniversa1.
Ttthus sccrnsessentialand urgent for the A~wrnbIy to decideon the
reforrn,ar I should siy,the complete r~oristructioriof the Court, and
on a fresh look at the Court' Statute and its inrerpreiati foorthe
mcrnbershipOFthe G~urr no longer reflectthe relationshipbetweenthe
various world fores, or thc lcgaland polilia[ realit oiethe present
internationalsituatjo~i.It cannomeet current necds inthe areaaf inter-
nationalrelations,forii sliI1adhereto anarrow,staric and anachranistic

interpretationof internationallaw that is out of step withthe present
intcmtional situation. ..
The prohlernof Sosth West Africa isnot,moreover, a legal problem,
and itwas simply toshoiv that they had faith in that legal institution
that fhe African courttriesappealedto tlie Court. But thafaithcan na
longer exis;the Africiipeopleshave losfaithin rheCoiirt.
A nation's future cannor be placed in the hands of a juristwhoever
he inay he,but must nkpcndon politicaljudgementandchoice, adopted
judiciousIyandnot on a falsetechnocratiebasisd-igned to scrvc huge
financialcapitaf intercstsfhare soabundantin this Africancountry."
{GA, OR, Twenty-first Sess.1433rdPIenaryMeeting,7OCI. 1966.p. fi.)

(ii) Mr. Ba: "The cecent siatemeni by the TnternationaCourt ofJusticewas

likc a daggcr in the hcarofail Africans,for ithas rnerclystrengthmed
the lust of South Mrica for aIlthiarca leftto itsmercy hy the defunct
Leagiieuf Nations. W: urgethasejudges who assurncdthé giave responsi-
biIityof such a decisinnto examine theirconsciences as men. Therecan
be no doubt tliatthe)-iviIfeel,aswell asthe wejght oftheir verdict,the
disappointmentandicdigtiation of othermen.Wethink of the throcmiIlion
Africansnow handedovcr to theirexecutionersbecauseof the complicity
of seven metribersof ri institutiowhose aim, by a tragic ironof fate,
isto dojuslice,tocnsure equaliryaridta defend thc rulcoflawandinter-
nationalcustom."
(<;A, OR, Twenty-lirst Sess.,I443rdPlenary Meeting, 14 Oct. 1966,
p. 13.)Mongolia

Mr. .%i~~r: "Events in South West Africa have taken an even more
criticirturn as a resultof the ienjusand unjusiifxdjudgenient handed
down by the international Court of Justi~~ in thepruceedings instituted

by Ethinpia and LiberiaagainsttheCiovernment of the Republic ofSouth
Aftiw.
Thi:Internatioital Court of Juicehashanded down a decision which,
inefftxt,encouragestheirntair;factionsof the SoiilhAfricanracist régirne
instcad of condcrnning Souih Africa'svirtual annexatioOFthe Mandated
'Terriroriro.f SauWest Africaand the ap- -cation of thecriniinalpoIicy
ofapitrtheito ils popukation .. .
Thz judgcmcnt of the InternarionalCourtof Justiceon the question of
Soutlt West Africa has once again sliown thnl in its wvrk ihai budy
isincapableolrefieçting the spiritofthetimcand isno!equal tothe tasks
cntrustcd toitby the Charterof thc Unitcd Nations.
In this coniiection, the delegatioof Mongotia shares the view that
serioiisconsiderationshould begiven to the necd tonlake the structure
of thc Courtreflecthe changes rvhich have accurred in the alignment OF
forcesintheworldandwithinthe United Nationsitself."

(GA, OR, Twcnty-first Scss.. 1429th Plenary Meeting, 4 Oct. 1966,
PP.5-6,7.)

Niger
PLESARY

Mr. .Yidikou:"For our pari, nudoubt ispossibicand itisnotgoing too far
to rcfcrto this iniquitoujudgement as frivolous. Be thaas itniay, nly
country, in thnameof hurnan rightsrcjcctsthe conclusionsof ajuridii~il
forrn:iIisinspircdby obsoleteiiotions of race,colour or civiIization."
(G,4, OR,Twenty-firstSess.,I434fhPlenary hrfoeting10Ocl. 1966, p.Y.)

Kigeria

(i) >W. Adeho:". .. theIiitertiatiorialCoofiJusiiccnow stands discredited
and theconfidence, particularlyof the developin cgiintries, in the inter-
nationaljudiciary hasbeenseriousIyundermined ..."
(GA, OR, Twenty-firstSess.,1423rdPlcnaryMccting, 29 Sep.1966,p. 24.)
(ii),Wr. Adebo:"NO comment onthe presentsituation ofSouth W'CS A~frica
wiIIbe cvmplete wiihout a word about the recentastoundingjudgment '
of the InternationalCourt of Justiw. On this also,1 shallk brief, for
the las said about the remnt dccision of theCourt he betrer for its
reputationand its cffcctiveness asan insrrumentof internatinna!justicc
and Iaw .,.
The C'nurtreverscd itself, after six yearanddecided that Ethiopia
and 1-iberiahad no Iegal standing or interesin thecase. if this is not
irrespunsibilitywe wonder hoivcisc itcan bc catcgorizcd. Our consola-
tion fram the whole sorry cpisode isthat as many ashalf the members
oftheCourtrcfuscdtajoin in thistravestyofjustice."

{GA, OR. Tweiity-firstSES., 1429th Plcnary Mccting, 4 Ocl. 1966,
pp.2,3.) WRITTF N STATEMEhTOF S(>lJTIIAFRICA

,'MiBrluwrJe: "...I an1 nrit rcfcrriny to [he tangential and devious
Judgmcnt theCourthaijust handeddown."
({;A,OH,Trvcnty-Lir:S es., 1439thPIenary*Meeting ,2Oct. 1966,p. 5.)

MY. Lopcz: "In the face ofthisseries ofthrccadvisow opinionsand the

Judgment of21 Deceniber 1962, the Court'sJudgnlent O€18 July cm be
regarded onlyas a fllil:an accident,pcrhapsas an anomaIy. Kt was not
a clcsr-eut miijoriiy dec,ilxcause onemembcr, in accordance with the
rules oftheCourt, had to votc twice in order rocreatethestatutoryrria-
jority. Morenver, three Judges, who wcre known ta be sympathetictu
thc applicantswei'eufiabIeto participatein thc final JudgmenIone had
diedshoi-tfybcforcJutigment was duc,another wx ttakengravetyi11while
a thjrdwho hd been ,rhreatened ithdisqualificationwas too nobIeand
* dmnt to fighithciricibcodisqiial hif.yThus by thc accidentalçircum-
stancesof deathand sickne~? ,nd a scnsc ofdecency on thepart ofone
Judge, wkich his oppcnents niight havedonc welI to emulate,a decision
has been foistcd un tht:worltkat mèn of gond sensr:andgoodwillshall
rue foralong tirnetocorneand none niorc dceplythan theloyal friendsof

theCorirtitseIf.
For this isdecision which thetcchniçal rnajority oftCourt, knuwing
full well thatit\vassiire oolyof this kind ofmajority,did no& have thc
courage to make uporithc subsiance of tlicase irxlf;tu have Jorie so
would have beento violatetoacrudely thcreason andtheconscienceof rhe
vas1rnajorityof nianbind. The aitematilte, thercfor\vas to give South
Africathe appcaranw of a victorythafwould iiohe quitea victoryonthe
issues, and this could bave been done only brulingupon a filie point of
Icgalprocedure. Inshcat, rheCotirthasgiven thc worIdadecision thrnugh
theback door kcausc-it ivouldhsvc ken too embarrassingto givc fhat
decision hrough the frlintdoor."
(GA, OR, Twenty-lirst Scss., 147th I'lenary Meeting, 76 Sep. 1955,
p.20.)

Mr. Ceur&rrsr.u:'*Thi; decisinn nf the lntcrnational Cour1 of Justice
obliges us towilect artew upon the 'irnpartiality'of the Courand upon
its abilitto serve thecause of promoting one of theprincipalpurposes
of fhc Unitcd Nations.namely.thai of hringingiibuul 'by peacefumeans,

and in conformirywith the principlcsof justice and internatio Ina,l
arljiisrmentor sett1err;cnof internationü1disputes or situations which
rnightlead lu abrcach-3fthepeace'."
(GA, OR, Twenty-fitstks.,1439thPlenaryMeeting.12Uct. 1966,p. 4.)Rwanda

PLENARY
(i):tir.&waraga:a: "The Govcrnrnent of the KwandeseRcpublic did not

hesitarto jointhe Afro-Asiancountris and other friendly countrics in
calegoricaly candemning the Judgmennt rcndered by the International
Court of Justice. We wclmrne the decision taken bythc African Siaies
inr-quesring that theGeneral AsscmbIy should consider tht qucstion
of South West Africa asa matter of priority. Indeed,rny delegation
eagerlyspoi~soredthisproposai (A/6386).
We continue to believettiatht prclirninraurlng of the Internaiional
Courtof Justice inDecembcs 1962,when theCourt dcçidedthat it was
cornlietentto pas un the substanceof thedisputc,has not changed and
istil1completelyvalid asconxrns thestatus ofSouth WestAfrim. The
dcciiion of last Juiywas, in our eya, a surprisingand disappointing
contradiction, and WC wrinderwhether one un placeany further trust
in ~heCourt."

((;A,OR,'Twenty-firs tess.,1428t PlenaryMeeting, 4 Oct. 1966,p.4.)
(ii)!Wr.Mudenge: "Sincethe InternationalCourt ofJusticehandeddown ils
Judi;menton 18 JuIy laslthc situationin South West Africa hau b~cn
thrcateningtoexplode at any momenl. The Court's dccisionaroüsed the
revulsionof thewhole world and pIaced in question thevery existenca
oftheCourt . ..
Tlie [niernationaCourtof JusticewasestabIishcdto act asan arbiter
and to heIpmcmber States setilctheirdisputes;but hy itsJudgment it
kas!estthe confidenceof thc whote w~rIdand derrionstratcdthatit ino
Ionger adapled IOour times."
(GA,OR,Twcnty-first Sess.,1439thl'lcnaryMeeting, 12Oct. 1966,p.1.)

FOURTH C~MMITTEE

Afr. ,V~irinkitidi: "Thrernatioiial Cour rof Justice,whox menibers
should havethe highest moral quaIifications,had sct aniniquitous prece-
dentin the caseof South Wesi Africa. It had sidedwith the brute force
ofevil,which was what South Africa represented.The welfüre of the
peopleof South Wcst Africacoiilùbeenlrustd neither tothe Intertiational
C:our~of Justicenorto South Africa."
(GA, OR, 'Twenty-firsSess.,Fourth Comm., IS03rd Meeting, 4 Oct.
1966,p. 41.)

Saudi Arahia

I'LENARY
Mr. Barwdy: "1t took the International Court five years to pronounce

itselfonateciinical ointyrm. 1 ihink rnostof thcJudgesare gentlemen
of mare than sixty yearsold. If thcy were pronounce theniseiveson the
subs~anoe, ihey wouId be deadand theirbones bIeachedwith oiirbones
heforcthey couldyivc anyverdict.Su crossout thc InternationalCourt of
Justicfrom the book ofSouih West Africa and any ideatliatwe shallever
derive anytangiblerestilfrornapproaching jt....
Now, Tam nol makingfun ofthe Judges-fur, aftcr aIl, I am ovcroO
ni~self-but they must havc bccn too reIaxed,enjoyingthe tulipsof the
NethcrIand?, looking at the windmilfs, and those uf them who wert:
smoking ciçars watching the curIs ofsmukc. Tttmk ihem five years- fiveyears. Poor Liberiaaiid Ethiopia; pour SaudiArabiaif ithadjoined
them in plaçing confIc.,encin the hope that theCourt wcirildpronounce
iiselwitlidisparch.Ttiank Gnd WC wcrc not one ofthe pleadersbecau.%
we haù Oursuspicions of certain rnernbersof the International Court,
dcspiteour cunfidcncc incertain individuals."
(GA, OR, Twenty-tirs1 Sess., 1431st Plenary Meeting, 5 Oc!. 1966,
pp. 14, 15.)

PLENARY

:Wr.Thicrm:"Yet insrite ofeverything howcan we faiI to feeIsomewhat
pessinlisticitheface clihe recent Judgment detivereby the Inlrrnatiunal
Court of Justice in tlie case of South West Africa?This problcm wiIl
ccrtairilbe taken up ;[gain during thc sppecialdebatBut we cannotheIp
drawingattention, inpassing, tothe actual deniai of jusricthat we are
witnessing.WCal1know,of course,that theTntemativnalCourtof Justice
is above ail a politica! organby virtuc of ihe verymanner in which its
rnernberasre çelectedHütit rnight have been thought thatceriaingeneml
principlesrhat havcbccnrepeatcdly afirmed, particulariythatofthe right
of peopIcsto self-determination,weresa wicIelyaccepted hy the univerd
conscience that theyverc nuw parr of the unwritten law of intcrnotional
society.... 'I'hconIy iriterestdcçmed worthyof Iegal protoclioccording

to thc logicof the Cr~urt-a iagic that wasno; formulated, biitlogicjust
the saine- isthe intet4etof Soutli Africa. We shall haveto sa, during
subsequentdehata, what solutiotls van be contempIated.But itseernstu
us thitWC shouId reflxt hereand now on thc composition of the Inter-
nationalCourtofJusticc. WC have requested andobtained thc er;p;uisiait
of the specialized oreansof th United Nations, such as the Security
CounciIand the Econn3iniç and Social Council. We shouldaIso studr the
Statuteof the Internariona1Court of Justice,examinethe composition of
the Courtand cal1 foritsenlargenic nto.der IOensure a morequitable
representationor the non-aIignedcounirics and the force of priigress."
(GA, OR, Twcnty-fi-rstScss., 114thPlenary Meeting, 23 Sep. IY65,
pp. 74, 25.)

Sierra Leone

Mr. Kuilon: "Thal dixision, deliveredon 18 July 1966. disrniss teed
charges of Liberia and Etltiopia againstthe Kepublic of South Africa
withouf mling on the meritsof ihe cax. This came as a great shockto
Iny Government and iomost of the reasonabIc nations ofthc wortd. Tt
deaIt a stunning blow to the authority and integrityof the lntemational
Courtand rliisedseriousquestions in thc minds of those who cherishthe
value of theruie of laivin internationalrelations."
{GA, OR, Twenty-first Sess.,t4191h Plenary Mecting, 27 Sep. 1966.
p.10.)

PWSARY

Mr. Cooinarnswotr~y:"My deIegation does not beIievcthat thisdecision of theCourt hiis enhanced its reputütioiasan institutionserveùby wisc
and jiisinen,for the Judgernent ofthe Court on this issueiuneitherwise
nor jiisnor is it eveninaccordance wirh the dictatesof caiiinlon scnse."
(GA, OR. -1wenty-firsScss., 1420th Plcnary Meeting, 28 Scp. 1966,
p.12.)

(i) ~tfrtl :iiitf&iThecntire Afiican pcoplc expecrsthis Asscmbly to pas5
a Judgnierilwhich wilI resroreto the paple of Suuth West Africa ttii:
right ioindependena ced progress thalhas bccn deniedtheni by rhe
Govcrnment ofapartheid iiiPretoriaand betrayedby the International .
Court of Juslicc."
(GA, OR, Twenty-firslScss..1427thPlenay Mccting, 3 Oct. 1966,p. S.}
(ii) MI-.EIMuBi: "We now declarethai thc timc hascornefor a more equit-
able and ndequatcrepresentationof theernergeninations on this Court,
in ct>nsunanccwith tlicir rcprcsentation in other organsof the United

Nations. And again we decIare,kforc this Assembly, our irreversible
corninitnient(oshodder our sharc ofal1Unitedhralions cRorts towardj
the restorationof freedvrnto thepeople of SuutIrWestAfrica,"
(GA, OH, Twenty-first Sess.!1440th Plcnary Meting, 13 Oct. 1966,
P 16.1

(i) Mr. ~Mgüiija:"We helieve rhat thjsexperience-the most receirtJudg-
tnenl of the InternarionalCourt-sad as itis, has beea salutarylesson

IO the newly indcpcndent coiintriein their struggleforeflcctivc repit-
senration inal1 internationa1bodics."
(GA, OR, Twenty-firsr Scss.,1417th Plenary Meeting, 26 Sep. 1966,
p. 19.)
fii)Mr. Mgutija: "1 have aIreadystated in my earlier interventionthat my
delegaiio ng,ether with other Afriwn Sratcs and a great niinibcr of
orhci'mernber Sfaicsof this t.>rganization,hasken profoundIy shockeci
by the recent decisionof the IntcrnarionalCourt of Justice coilcerning
South West Afrim. Thar decision. becauscof the unexpectedly narrow
groundson which itwa.bas& and the unsatisfactoryprvccdurcs under
which the casewüs coiiducted, kasseverely shaken the confidence and

respect which hadhithertu ken frlt fur the Court. Infact, the decision
was asgreat itblow to internationallaw and the principIeof tIicpacific
scttiement of disputes betwecn States as it was to liberty and human
diyiity. TRcharmdone will be alrnostirrepüriiblcunIcssekctiiteaction
is iakcn to ensurc a more equitabIegeographical distributionof the
Court's nizmbershipand niorc rational judicialprwediires."
(CA, OR, liilenty-first Sess1437tli Plenary Mccting, 11 Oct. 1966,
p. 5.)

Mr. Itf~iiiji:It hasbwn saidlhat ihc Cornmitteeshouldtakeanorer-aII
vicw of the activitiof bodies such as the International Cour1and not be

swayeri by particuiaraspects.In repIy,he would ,saythiit Africans had a472 Nnir?rnrns~uni WEST AFRICA)

:Wr..Krrkbiakin:"The increasedappropriationsought undcr thar section
nias due nlainly toadditional expenditurein connexion nritli.the South
West Airia case,in which, after Iengthdèliherari ion nternational
Court of Justice had tokeiia decision that could only k dewribed as
shameful, sinceitwas contrary to the interestof the people of South
West Africa andto thc principleof humanityandjusrice.In obedience to
itsSiatute, theCourt should have rendcrcda decision consistent with
CieneralAsenibIy resolurion 1514 GV), condemningracisin and coiunial-
ism.Instcad ithad given ihem itssupport. Ta smk additional appro-
priationsfor an organ whose actions wcrc thus at variance with the
fundamental principlesofthe United Nations was ilIopical."
(C.4,OR, Ttventy-firsSess., Fihh Comm., 1124th lMeeting, IO Oct.
1966,p. 23.)

PL~NARY

illr, .llborufa:"We arc surprised thar the Court, whose prestige hun-
doubtedlydecliiiedsinceits [alestJudpcnt should havemntented itself
with a purely prmdural decision....
The International Court of Justice has Iosta unique opportunity to
aflimi itauthoriry asan interpreteof thelaw.Estiiblishcdat atiiiiwhen
the world was altogether difluent from the worid of today, the Inter-
national Court of Justice, sofar as itscomposition is concemcd, isno

longer consistentwith currentrality.To rcvise its comprisitioncaufdnat
but henefir theentireUnited Nations."
(GA, OR, Twenty-first Sess., I4251hPlenary Meeting, 30 Sep. 1966,
P.6.1

M. Rojas: "Althouyh theCourt did nat go intnthesuhstane of the issue
and ~rinsidered only the appIicants'legal standingmy dcl~gation fccls
Ihai the Court's decision haç given rise to well-foundeddistrust and

suspicia onto futurcdccisions of that high trihunal.
Mydelqation believesthat theInternationalCourt ofJusticc hasmadc
valuablc contributionsto the aux of right and justice;but it isalso
conccrned over the fact that strictand scrupulous adherenceto legal rules,
to the exclusioofpoliticaand humariiiarianconsidecatiunssuchasthose
involvfd intttimatter,could rcnder sterilthe decisionswhichthat high
courtrnayhnd down in the future."
(GA, OR, Twcnty-first Sess., 1431st Plenary Meeting, S Oct. 1966,
p.13.)

blr. Beiovski"Irisinconceivable,in thelighrof thetragic positionof the
non-whitepopulationin Souih West Africa,and inview of the obnoxious
polip ofapartheid,thatsix rnernberof theIntcmütionaI Court of Juslict, WRITTIINSTATE%lEb" IF SOUTH AFRICA 473
by availing themxlws or Iegal fictions and procedural technicalities,

avoidc dronouncing tliemseIvon themeritsofthe submissions prcscnted
by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia. Inout opinion, the six
Judga therebyacknov~lcdgd thelactthat an imparti81appraisalof the
present positioofthepopulation of Soiith WesAfrica and of the policy
of South Africawithregar o that Territory wouldleadto awncIusion
tkür South Africahiid violaicd tterms oftheMandate."
(GA, OR, 'I'wenty-firstSess1439th PIenaryMeeting, 12 Oct.I9S6,
P.8.1

Zambia

PLEN ARY

Mr. Kapwepwe: "Lndad, the Interiiational Couof .lustia?l'he Hague
look six longyearsof costIy Iitigation, involving xoofsessionsand
thousands of pages nf wordq, onlytofrustratc firiallytwishcsof the
indigenop uesoplof South West Africa,only to disgrace thiOur own
Organization, bycowardlyshirkiin tsgresponsibiliiyto thc peoofthe
world,byshainelesslyludging natIOjudgc ..."
(GA, OR, Twenty-firjSess.1415t hleriaryMeeting, 30Sep. 196p.1.)1.GA Ke.iolufior1565 (XY), 18 Dccemhr i%0
(GA, OR. FifreenthSess.,Sup.No. 16(Aj4684). pp.31-32.)
Operative pangraph 4 oftfieresoiutioncornrnendf rheGovernntents
of Hihiopiaand Liberiaon laking the initiativinsubrnittingthedispute
conerniny South West Africa io theCourt.
In FoirrrCommirree:

!Wexict, voted in favoiu: 1076th Meeting of Fourrh Cornrriitiw on
6 D~rnibcr 1960. (GA, OR, Fifteenth s&., Pourth Comrn. (Part 0,
p.457.)

Nu roli-rollvoletakn~: Itesrilutioadopted 86-0, with Ci abstentions;
954th L'IenarMeeting an 18Dece~nbcr 1940 .GR. OR, FifteenthSess.
(Part I), Vol. p. 1387.)
?. GA Rcsoiririori1568 (VI, dord 18 Becrinbrv !%O .
(GA, OR, FifteenthSess..Sup. No. 16 (A/4684), pp.33-34)
AIiegatiunihatthc administration ofSauth West Africa-
"particularlyin rewnt 'ars, has been conducted in a manner in-

crcasinglycontraiyto the hlandate..."
The raoIurion "depiorcs" thcadministration of South Wesl Africaas
being-
"contrary to its obligaiionunder thc internationalMandate of 17
Ilmniber 1920 . . ."

InFowrh Comniirlrr:
hle.~icvoted in favour:1076th Meetingon 6 Dccernher 1960. jGA,OR,
FifteenthSess., Foiirth Comm. (Part 11p.460,)

:Mexico voted infavour: 954th Plenary Mtxling on 18Uecember 19GO.
(GA, UR, Fifteenth Sess.(PartI) ,oI. 2, p. 1388.)
3. GA Rr,mluriun1593 (XV; ,daied clMurch IP61
(GA, OR, FifteenthSess.,Sup. No. 16 (Af46861Add.I), p. 7)
Mer dia, aIleged attemprs by South Africa to assimilateSauth West
Afrir:are mentiontui.
TIiisrcsolutionwas prriposedhy klexico andVenezuela: reestatement
to tl-iieKect by Mr. CasiaÏïediiof Mcxico; 963rd I'lenary Meeting

on 16 March 1961. (CA, OH,FifteentliSess. (PartII),p.19.)
(Cf speech byMr. C:ueva Csancinnor Mexico duringtheI076th Meeiing
of the Fourth Coitiniitone6 Doccrnbcr 19ti0inGA, OR, FifteenthSess.,
Wurth Comm. (Part 1), p.456-1
4. GA Resoiiirioti1702 (XVIJ,d(i~~rt9D~crmber 1961
(GA, OR, SixteenifiSes.,Sup. No. 17 (Aj51ûO p),.39-44].)
'I'Iieallegaiiis madc of cxpa?idili~nriiirarizn~for thepurpow of
oppressing rhc indigenous people, creatingan "jncrcasingel xpIo~i\~e \RITTEK VAT EMENT OF SOUTH AFItICA 475

situation whichifallo.hUto continue, wiIendange rnternatioiralpcace
and security";and of,:.xrsistMure by SouthAfrica tofulfiitsintcr-
national obligationin theadministratioof South West Africa.
The resolutionprovides forthe appointnieniof a Cornmittee"whose
taskwillbe io achieve, iconsultationwith rhcMandatory Pouner",...
itzi~rnlio,
"The repeal of al1 ... ltiws and regulaiionswhich eaahli~h and
maintain theintoler;thlesysteofap~rlheid".

and-
"Preparatioriforgtneral eleçrionIo the LegislativcAsscrnblybased
on univena[ adult suffrageto bc hcldas soon as possibIe undcr the
supervision and conrra1 of the United Nations."

IIFourth Commitr~e:
Mexicu voted in favoiir: 1247th Moctingof the Fourth Cornmirteeon
13Dccember 1961.{:GA,OR, SixteenthSes., Vol. 1, p588.)
Puki.smnvotcd in favoa~(ibid..)-
inGe~ierolA.ssenth/y:

No rolI-cal1 vote taki:rasolutia onopted 9&1, with 4 abstentions;
I083rd Plcnary Mo:ting on 19 Deceniber 1961. (GA, OR, Sixteenth
Sess.!Vol. IIp. 1IC6.j
Thisresolrrriurrwr rrferre10 wirkopprova/ b.vhfr,PrzdiilaA'crr01'
,Wexiro:

See Report of the :jpcciaI Committcefor South West Africa in GA,
OR, Seventeenth Se.;sSup. No. 12(A{5212),Annex 5, pp- 18-19.
5. GA ResoI~~fior1z8(X P'II),tioie14Derember 1962
{GA, OR,Seventeen Siss.,Sup.Nn. I7 (A/5217), pp. 38-39.)
Confirrnaion of,inrcrah, resoluti o702 (XVI) rnentioned aboile.
In fourrh Comiriittee:

Mexico votcd infavour: 1389thMeeting of the Fourth Committee on
19 Novemkr 1962. (GA, OR, Seventccnth Sess.. Fourth Comm.,
Vol. Tip. 406.)
IrGenerni Assembb:
No roll-calvote taken: resoluti adoptcd 98-0,with 1 absrention;

1194th Plenary Mertinç on 14December 1962.(GA, OR, Seventccnth
Sess.,Vol.m, p. 1146.)
6. GA Resolutivn IY79(X t'£il], dui~7fDcccrnber1963
(GA, OR, Eightetnth Secs.Sup.No. 5 (Aj5515).p.5L.)
'I'he resolutioinnpr aficr"wndetnns" South Africa "for its non-
cornpIiancewith theCicncralAssembly resoIutions with rcgiirdtSouth
West AfriciL".
The Pakis~rineicgationsuppvrfedthis resalutionSe lhe roll-cavote
atthe 15115t Mheetin€:f the Fourrh Committee on 13 Doccrnber 1963.
GA, OR, Eighteenth Sess.FourthCornin.. Vol. II,p. 586. NAiMtnIA (SOUTHWEST A~KICA)

(i) Mr, fiaiirrfun"... hc had vety carefulIystudied rhe reports of the
Cornmittee on SouthWestAfrica(Ai4926, A/4957) T.he Cornmitteewaç
iokccongratular ondhaving submittedsuchdetailedreports in theface
of tlie non-CO-operation, nd even thehostiIity, uf the Government of
Soitth Afnca. The reports ctinfirmcd the exxplosivesiruationin the
Territory, and warwntcd the cr>ncIusionthatSoulh Africawas unfitto
adiiiinisterit. Thc conclusions and recomrnendationinparagraphs 152
ta 164 of the report of the Cornmittee {A1492h) desewed the fullest
crinsideration.
Since 1954,thc Cornmittee onSouth WestAfricühad repeatedly corne
tutheconclusioii thatthe Mandatory I'ower hadcontiniiedto adminisler

the 'I'erritoon the bosisof an aparlheidpolicy, which wcis contmry
to the Mandatc,tothecharterof rhe UnitedNations,and totheUniverd
DecIrirationof Iluman Rights. South Afrim waq the only Statein the
ivorldthatoiiiciaIIypractisedthedoctrineoiaparihcid, racialscgrcgation
. and discrimination, which the United Nations and worId opinion
unceasingcl ondemnrd. Thc Cornmittee'sreport described the eftécts
af tliadoctrinein thepolitial,economic, social, andcdu~ationalficlds.
Itwas by reason of lhat poIig that the MandatoryPower, in the Com-
mittee'sopinion, was no Ionger qualifiedtocontinue its administration
of theTerritory.
Thc fact thatrhe South African Government wzi planning to annex
the MandniedTcrritary, and to integra trpro&reQSivclyin10 South
Africa itseIf, hadled tCommittec to the concIusion that no solütirin of
the situationwauId be acceprable to that Government unlm itwere
bascd on the virtua1annexaiion oftheTerritory.By its refus1tosubmit
reportsto theUnited Nations and to recognizethe supervisoryaufhority

of the UnitedNations overthe adniinistratioofthe Mandated Terrilory,
SouthAliica hiid violated its obIigationçunderthe temof the Mandate
andof theCharter.Itwas pcruistingin disregardlngthe resolurionsof the
Gcneral AssembIy, and had rejectedthee advisory opinions of the
InternalionalCourt nfJustice.This attitudecompelled theCornmittee 10
finda speedy solution.
inacceptingthe Mandate over South WestMrica, which was inhabited
by gieoplcs not then considered abk to assume a fulm leasureof self-
govcmment,SoutiiAlrjcahadagreed roassume a number of obligations
itnder thesupervision of the League of Nations. Thai Mandate had
inentioned neithercessio ollemitory nor tmnsferof sovereignty.The
gencraloliligatioIo promotcto the utmostthe materialand moral welf-
beingof the inhabitanis,wliichwnstitutcd thc vcry csscncc of the ucred
trusiof dvilization referredto in Article 22 of the Covcnant of the
kal:ue of Nations, could not haveceasedto existbeaux the League of

Nations itself hadceasedto exisi.South Africa stilcontinucd to be
bouiid by the internationd obligations setforth in Article 22 of the Mr. C:IIPVI;S~r~cino;"\+'ithrcsp~t to theactions of the representativof
hlcxic:~,1should Iike to dispeal1 dotibisonce and for aI1. Men, asaich,

areal falliblebut inany casc itciinnot bcsaidthurtheir mistiikesrefleca
country'sforcign policy, which is liiiked witits om real philosophyof
IifeNothing they could do woiilddiange a policy like Mexico'swIiidior1
ihe sitbjectof ihe equalityofpcoplcsand thcir right tosclf-dctcrmination
has ncver'aried.
In uheabove-mentionedcommitniqu~ rhrreis no rrf'erencto thepolicy
of apartheid.NevcrthcIcss the statcmentsof the Primc Ministcrof South
Arricdoblige me to referto it. Wiihoutdenying itsown inmnst beliefs,
h?exico'sonly position could bc a çomplcte rejcctionof this policy.. ..
Ncithcr ciin Mcxico condane the sacrificeof one pmple by another on
the sitarof suppositious and obsoleiç inierests; even lescan ilrespect
such subjugation whcn itis based on completcly inadmissibleracist

thcorics. . ..
?'hi:only new position which WC could acccpt as of vitaI in~por~nce
woiiltl beIhcabandonment of tlie apartheipolicy.If theGovemmentof
South Africacan assure us thatthis wiIIk its KururpeoIicy, my Govern-
ment wilI be tliefirsitotry to obtain thc most flcxiblçIems which wiIl
enabL the people of South West Africa to exei'cisethe right of self-
determination iinderthe watchfu1s- a -vi- -nuf the Uniled Natiotis."
(GA, OR, Scvcntccnth Sexq..1128th I'lenary Meeting, 24 Scp. 1962,
pp- 77,73.)

(i)!Mr. Cii~rm Cuilcitio:"... his dclcyation cndors~dthe action taken by
Liberia and Ethiopia inhaving iiitiated resort thc internationalCouri
of Jirsticc,. . .
For the Mexican delcgatiun,thcqucstion of rcupvnsibilitwas thecrux
of thematter. It fearcdthat thecountries witha Westerncivilizationdid
not rcalIy wish rn put an end to the intorerable situation in South West
Africa, wherethe inhabitanislivcd in condition tsat wereworse than
slavery.That situation was more dangrnus to WesternciviIizationihan
Niiz~sm because South Africa was appIying its inhuman policy undcr
cover of Christianideals. Somcthing must 6 donc before Africa forgot
tht good that ChristianityIiad broiight itaiid remembcred only the
tortiircs carrieout in the nnam ofChristianilyby the Union ofSouth
Africa."

(GA, OR, FifteeiithSes., Fourih Comm., IOh3rd Meeting, 24 Kov.
19G0, p.374.)
Ciil4fr. Cuevus Cunciito: "... thc Charter of thc Unitcd Nations, aird
parlicularly Articles 73 and 75, provided a cIear formulation of its
approach roNon-Self-Gover niITg~~oT~aCnd the Trus~eeshipSystem.
The Union ofSouthAfrica had persistentIyinfringed thc Charter.Three WRIl.'I'lSTATEMEST (ISOUTH AFKICA 479

course of action were opcn to [lie worId cornrnunity:judjcial action,
siich as had bccntaken by the Govemrncnts of Elhiopia and Liberia,
which deserveci the Cornittee's congratulations on thcir initiative;
direcaction underraken hy thc GcnerülAssernblythrough the adoption
of resoluiians such:isthose now berore the Cornmitte: and indirect
actioninvolving iiior.ilinflueand diplornaiicpressure....
The conccrn exprrssed in the secondpreambirlarparagraph showed

that thewhoie conccyitof thesacrecltrushad hccn violatedby theUnion
ofSouth Africa."
[GA, OR,FifteenthSes., Fourth Comm., 1076rhMeeting, h Ikc. 1960,
p. 456.)
(iii)Mr. Casraficda:". .,hisdelcgation considcred the report ofthe Com-
rnitt oneSouth Wect Africa (AJ4926)to be of exceptionalimprirtancc,
kcaust: [lie rewnt action underiakenbythatCommittce representedthe
gceatmt effort the UniteNations could mke iosolve the problcm or
South West Africa withthe voluntaryco-opecatiun of rlieSouth African
Government. TIiat lasattempt was thestipremetest,and thc dwision on
what shauld ixthç riirectioof thc futtrrcücrioof the United Vations

dcpcnded upon itolitcome. Unfortunatelythe resulrshad ken enrire1y
negative. After so niany jicarof fruit1essefforts, thc Comittec on
South West Africa lionsideredthat rhe path prcviousIyfoI1owed was
mmplctclq. closedantlitwas remmn~cridinga radicallydifferent approach.
The realism,sincerityandcouragc withwhich eachrnernber wss prcparcd
tofacethe new situationwould Iiavean inlportaninfluenceon thefuture
of the Unitcd Satioris.
In geriera1his delcgatieo ndors& the conclusioris and recommen-
dations in the Comrnittcc's rcport. TheComrnittcc's basicrecoininen-
dation was that thc Mandateentrusteclby theI~ague ofNations to the

Union of SoutliAfri,'should beterininated,su ttüithe administration
of the Territorycoiild he assunicddirectlby the Unitcd Nalions for a
period of timc withriview io eventual indcpentlenceAs the Committee
had notexamined indctail tlprnblem of theIemImunds for revokiny
the Mandate, and as that wüs no duubt a question whichwould give
risetosnme dcbatc,lirwished togivt his country'vienrson that subject.
PrcvioiiUnited Kations emorts on tliequestionof SoiithWes? Africa
had lieen confined10 seeking thc fulfilrn ennthe part of the Soutli
Africlin C;overnmentof its obligations iindcr the I~agueof Nations
Mandatc. Thc purpose of seeking an advisory opinion frornthe Inter-
iiational Court of Juslice in 1950 hbccn 10dziermincwhcthcr South

ACricawas stillbourid by lhe Mandateand whctherChapter XII of the
Chartcr was appIicabIetoSouth West Africa.That hadalso beenhasicü1Iy
the purpose of Gcni:ralAsenibly resolution 749 (VIII) sctting up tlie
Committee on Snuth Wcst Africa.Eversinc thcn.theresoIutionsadoptcd
annuallyby the AssemIilyhad beenbascd on the :issunipliothatSouth
West Africa was a Ièrritory with an internationastatusand had been
ùesigned to secureth:cornpliance oftheSouth African Ciovenimentwith
its obligationunder lhe Mandate.Yct not one of those resolutionhad
been heeded by the South Afric,m Governmcnt; in particutar ilhad
ignored resoiiirions1568 (XV)and 1596 (XV). Hence there no longer
secmcd to bc any ri:alposqjbilitthat ttie SouthAfrican Gouemment

wouldcornplywiththeterms ofthe Mandate.nur was thereiinyindicalion
that it woiilsubriiit reports an the situation in Territoryor permit
petitionersto Icsvc if freeIy.Iwasquitc clear thattherc would be nopolit.ca1.econoinior smial aducuiwrncntfor the peopleof the Territory
w long as the prwnt régimc eontiiiued;thai \vastheCornmittee'sview,

expri:sxd inparagraph 160 of its report(Aj4926...
in order to prove lhul thc Mandate #ver South West AfricashouId
beterminateci,it was first necessario show that Soulh Africa had nui
fuliiIledits obIigations.There wano dificultyin ihatrcspcci;the case
subrriitteby Liberiaand Ethiapiata the InternationalCourt of Justi~t
gave a ruIIaccorintofthe ntany instanca of South Africa'sviolationof
the fiilandate,and thdebates in theGeneral Asccmbly, year afteryear,
had con6rmed thc numeroils cases in which South Africa had not
cornplid wwiththeterms of the Mandate and of thecorresponding article
of thc League avenant. Not onIy had South Africirfsiileto fulfiits
obligationsto pronioie the weILbcingof the people, but, tiuough racial
segegation and thesupprcssionoffundamentalrightsandfreedoms,it had
hmgered the marcrial and moral welfrircof the people andprevented
theirnorniaIdcvclopmeritrowardvindcpendence.Contrary Io the obli-
gation imposed by ihc Mandate, it onlyaIlowedpersons of European
origk to vole orto be a candidateforeloction irthe Territory;itmain-
taineda systcrnofracialsegregationineduntion; il estabIishcdzones of
segregated reiidcncc;it refusedto alIomemkrs of theaboriginalraces
ortribes orAfriça tojoin iradeunions; and itdenied Africans the enrry
to niirnerousprofessionsand activities.Thelaw qualifieidomc workers

in thc Territoryas 'servants' and their- employers as'rnasters';the
'serviintwerc subjectto corporalpunishrnent incaseof abreach of their
laborirconiracl. Iti the towtheNative populationhad toIivein certain
areasandthere wtisa cornplicatedsystemofpcrrnitsandpasses governing
theirmovements inthe Territury.The indigenousinhabitantscouId not
rentccrtainlands intheTerritoryand itwasforbidden for WhitepeopIe ro
transfersuch Iands to 'h'atives, Aaians or Coloured persom'. The
Govcmor-Geaeral had the right to remove any tribe or individual
African toanotherpart of theTcrritory. The indigenousinhabitants wtre
forbidden io belong to poIiticalorganizaiitionunder pain of crimina1
çançiions.
The South African Governmcnt had aIso systematimIIy violattd
article5of the Mandatein refusing tosubniit tothe GenrralAsscrnbly
ara1 reports on conditions in the Territuryan obiigation which had
been confirmedby the 1950advisoryopinion of theInrernationaCourtof
Justice.Again, many laws of the Territory constitutedü violationof
article7 ofthe Mandate,whichprohibitcd any modificationofthe terms
of the Mandate without thc consent of the1,eague of Nations. As wüs
indicated in paramph 156 of thereport of thc Cornmittee on South

West Africa (A/4926) the South African Government fiad faiIedtu
respect the Territory'sinternationalstatus in that ir had given the Eu-
ropeanpopulationreprescntation inthe South Alrican Parliamcnt, had
intcgratedtheadministrationol theentirc Native population withthator
South Africa and had incorporated South West AfricanNative rMcrvc
iand intothe South African Native Trust. LastIy, South Africa had
uiohted ariicl4 of theMandate by ençouragiw theEurowanpopulation
of the Tmritory to am and by establishing rnililary fortificatands
largcdefenceforce sntheTerritory."
(G.4, OR, Sixteenth Sess.,Fourth Comm., 1226th Meeting, 28 Nov.
1961,PP. 436, 437.) WRITTESSTATEMEYT OFSOU1ï-i AFRICA 48f

(jv)IW~.C14eva.rCoficinu:"The probIemwas certainry one of specialcom-
plexity.Inrhe frrstpiace, South Africa had obiaincditsindcpcndcnce
from the Lnited Kinghm ata time whcn theonly acceptedstandards of
civiiizatiohad bwn Europw and it had mnsrqiiently continuedthe
doctrine ofwhitesüpn:macy.The United Nations was now faced with the
dificulttkqkof induci%South Africaro canforrnto theprinciplesofthe
ncwera whichhadbccn ushered in by the United Nations Charter.. . .
The Govcmments ofLiberiaand Ethiupia deservetdhe Assembly's
tlianksforhaving çari'ieoiitsome of itsrccommendations."

(GA, OR, SeventccrithScss., FourihComm., 1376th Meeting,8 Nov.
1962, pp.301-302, 3O:i.l "1 hav~:thehonuur tu addressjeu with rererence1Othecommiiniquk issued
on 26 May by the Prime Ministcr and Ministcr of Exiernal Affairs of the
Kepuhlic of South Africa.on the one hand, and the Chaiairan and Vice-
Chairmatt ofthc Unitcd Nations SprciaI Cornmitteefor South West Africa,
on the oi:hcr hand. In tiiis conntxion 1 wish10 make plain, on the express
instructionsof the Ministryof ForeignAffairs of Mexico, Ihepsirion of my
Govermient with rcspcct IO the aforementioncd communiqué, his being
neccssary both oiaccount of thepart playedin thedraftingof thecrirnmuniyué
byArnb=dor SalvadorMartirie~ de Alvainhis capaciiyas Vicc-Chairman OC
the Corninitrcc and on account of the subscqucnti.cpercussions of tlie said
documeni.
In the Arstptrice,the Government ofMexico had no prior knowledge that

the cornrriuniqukwax trbeissucd,or, much less,ofitscontents.Indeed, it was
only througli theintcrmtknal pressservicesrht my Govtrnmmt firstlearned
of the cornrnuniquéinquestion. It should bc pointcdout in thsonncsion that
thc custoinaryprocedure in suchcaseswould have heen for theCliairman and
Vice-Chairnianof theCornmitteeto have reported to the Iatter More taking
iipon thernseltv hesrcsponsibiliiofmaking ajoint dcclarationwiththcSouth
AfricanGnvernmenr.
On theoiher hand, 1 would point ou1 thatin my opinion due consideration
shoiild bc giventhe expianation oKcred by Arnbawdor lvlartinez de Alva in
thisconnexion. namely,that rvliena representaiveina UnitedNaiions organ or
conirnittee,acting in ancIccti vapxity, assumes the rule of an uificiaI or
represcnt;itivof that organ or cornmirtee,he nred no!, generally speaking,

receive instrticlionsithat capaciiy rrum his Government, since he niust bc
guid~ulin his conduct enclusiv e lthe mandate conferreci on him for ihai
purpose Iiyihe bodywhicheIecred him or authori~edhirn to actas itsreprc-
sentative.This staterncntisihe muretippIicabIeto thep~srnt çox swing that
under ihe icms of therepiygiven by theChairnian of tlie SpocialCummittwfor
Sour h Wcst Africa to theletier dated11 April 1962 of theI'ermanentliepre-
sentaiiveof the Republic of South Africa, ihc Chairmiin and Vice-CIiairnm
were to wtcr informally infoarevicw of themarter aiissueLict\vccnihc United
Nations and tliSoiitli African Gavernment.
Ir is clearrrom the foregoing that Ambsisudor Mutinez de Alva nevcr
thought that thecommuniqué shouldexpressthe viewsof the Government of
Mexico, iiinderdit ducs not.

Turningnow to the actualcontcnt ofthc docunicntundcrdiscussio Iw,ish
io statc hat neither niyGoveriiment'straditionally rrnit-colonialiposition
norits p<isitionon thc spccificase of South WcsrAfrica, have varied by une
iota.Thb. bcing so,itisobvious ihatif it had ben consulrcdon thc cuntcnts of
ihc comrnuniqtie the Mexican Government\+*ouldhave iiadto reservc its
position wiih rcgard io certain judgemenrs and opinions expressed in it,
especiall> hose hai niight he interpreted as ignoring or contradicting the WR~TTI-vSTATEHENT OF SOUTII AFRICA
483
various resolutionsadopte.3on thc subjcct by LIieGenerd Assembly and
supporteù by rnycountry's vole. Especiallyas thispointwasnot dealt with in
thecommuniquk, 1 fcelthaiI.shouidtake rl~iopportunityto reafirtri [hewell-

known position of theGovernment and pcoplcof hlexico,a pusilionabsoIutely
opposcd to any form of racialdiscriiniiiation.
In view of thc particii laportanceof tlie question, I shouldlike,as Per-
manrnt Representa~ive of hrlexicoio the Unitcd Nations, to rcafirrn my
tiovernn~cnt'sdt~p hith in thc ultirriatenbjectives of General Assernhly
resolution 1514 {XV) and its sincere desirc that the new Sratcs attaining
independcncc in exerciseof theright ofpeoplcs to xIf-detcmination should
du so inconditionscnsurinpthc poIiticoI,ccooornic andsocialadvanuiceme oft
their inhabitantsItmay be pertinenttorecaIlthat inpurçuiiof thispolicythc
Mexicandelegation in ihe Fourth Commiitee went stifaras tosuggest,during

thesixlcenth reylar sessi onthe Gcncrsl Asscmbly, tliattheUnited Nations,
in itscapaçityassuccessor toIheIxayue of Nations,rnighlif necessaryrcvokc
themandateconfcrrcd by Ih-Latteon the Union of South Africaon theground
that thc Governinent of Soiith Africa had nocumplied witk the obligatiunsit
had freely assumed in accoting the mandate, and that the administrationof
Suuth West Africa niight in tliat evenbe assumed directlyhy the United
Nations for thc pcriod requiredtopreparethe lérritoryfor independence,the
objectivecontemplatedin f;encra1As~crnblyresoIuiion1702(XVJ).
Having made Ihatclear T,shouldnow Iiketo inform you thatmy Guvernment
in resprinsto thc requestmade to it btheSpeciaICornmittocfor South West
Afrim, has instiuctedAmb:isçador Martinczde Alva iocorneto New Yorkin

order to reportIO the Cornmittee,in hiscapacity as its envoyon whathc saw
and heard duriy thc visil Ilemade in accordancewith the mission the Com-
mittee Iiadentiustedtohim. 1klicvc itfittiny tu poiout thatrnyGovernment
maintainsifs confidencein iheintegrity,gocd fiiithandserioiisncsof purpose
which Amhassador Sa1vaJc.rMartinczde Alva hasconsistently denionstrated
rhroughout lie longycairitif his service.
With referenceto thelerl:rsentlo );ouon IGJune by AmbassadorVictorio
Carpio, Iam cncicrsingherewithacommunicationfrum Ambassador Martincz
de Alvawhichhe has asked to havecirculatcdin the sanieway &qAnibassadnr
Carpio'slettcr.In rhiscornniunicationAmbasmior Mariinczde AIva explains
the circumstances inwhich the communiquereferredt» in thefirsparagraph

of thisIcttewns drafiedand issued.
I would requmr yolrto have this lettercirculatcdto al1 Menibcrs of the
United Nations.
(Sipiled)Luis PADII.I.XNe~vo".

(GA, OR, Seventeenth S-ss.,Sup. No. 12 (A!5212}. Annex V, pp. 18-19.] SAMIRIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

Ilnfonaï Soviet Swiaiist Republics

PLENAKY
fi)Mr. Mororov: "The discussion on the qucsrion of South West Africa
tesifiestugrriwingraistance tothe force of imperialism.coloniaIism

and wcism bytlieoverwhelmingmajority of StatesMembersof the United
Nations. The independence ofthe people ofSouthWestAfrica is king
ï~si!itsdbythesame forcesof reaction andimperialismthatareupholding
coIoniitlisminother parts ofthcworld-the fores casrying out amed
aglprssionin South-East Asiaand supportingaggressionintheNear East.
It is known that in the plansof international irnperialisa particuIar
role is assigneto thc southernpartof Africaepecially to South West
Affca. As has bcenpointedout heremore tban onccaIrcady, thatmay
beexplained bythe rich naturd1resources ofthatcountry and a150 byits
strate ocction.
Smth WestAfricalias beco~ne an important[ink in the chain of the
Iast bastionsof coloniaIism. Having prmlaimçd thcir dcfianccof the
dccisionsof the United Nations, the South African racistshaveextendecl

to !;outh West Africa the rkgimc of rcprcssion and terror against the
indigenouspopiihtion that prevaiiçin Pretoria.Thc SouthWcst Africsin
paiiiiots whostand irfor Ihe Ijkrationofrheir fatherlandaresubjecrto
savnge persecucuticir,rcstandtorture.
IIIthe decisiansof the Cornittee of 24 and in alprogrcssivcworld
opiriion, there is condemnationof the iIltgal arrestsby the authorities
of South West Africaof dozens of fightersbelongingtothe South West
Afriçan peoples' organizationwho are stiIiinthc handsofthc policc
aiitliorities inSoiith West Africa.
IIIthisconnccfion,thesoviet deIcgationvigorouslysupportsthedemand
put fornard by Africaiidelegationsfor the urgeni consideratioof ihe
question of condming the iIlegaIamest,deportarioand imminentre-
prisaisagainst37 frecdornfightersand fightcfor independence ofSouth
West Africa. It isessentiaithat the GeneralAsscrnbIy shoüId immc-
djatelydemandtheirrclcase.
We considcr further thar, on the basis of paragraph2 of the draft

res~lutionwhichis kfore us indocumetitAIL.536,thc Govcmmcnts of
theUnitedStarcsandtheUnitedKingdommustirnrnediately takeallneces-
sary steps trforcetheracistrégimeinI'retoriato discontintu he i1IegaI
trialIO freeand rcpatriatcthc 37 pütriotasdfreednmfighter tse,fight-
ers for rationaindependence,to theirhomeland in SouthWest Africa.
Thc actsof Mirth African racistare a threatnot only to the people
ofSouth Wa;t Africa; they arc a thrclrtto otherAfrican ~op1e.salsa.
For examplc,it isknownthat the police and troopsof ihSouth African
racisrtégimeparrolthc frontiers of South West Africawith Angola and
Zambia. In thc policy OFrepressing thenational liberation movement,
the racists basedtheniseiveson a cIosely knit systtmof rnililarbases
that aresituatedboth in the RepubIicof SouthAfricaitselfand in South
West Africa.The higgestport of Swth West Africa,WalfischRay, has WRi'ïi ESTATEMEYT OF SO11TII AFRlCA
485
ken ~raiisformed intc a naval base, biiilt with the assistancof the
Federal Republic ofCiermany. Incessant rnilitary construction isalso
coing on attheair basesituatedinairimportantstrdtegri egionof Sauth
West Af'rica,KapriviStrip[sic]which isadjamnt tnZarnbia aridAriguIa.

Ttshould be emphasizcd that this poIicy is king pursued in close
contact with ihe Partliguese colonies and theracistsof Salisbury. As
has alrwdy been noted inthe courseof the presentdiscussion on South
West Africa, a policy aimed ai disrnernbcrinpthc Tcrritory of South
West Africa is being i:arrieon. In tliiconnection, as is known, the
Sob?ctdclegalion suppl?rtedthe resolirtionadopteby the Commiitee of
24 oii19Sniie towhicfiiireference hasken made, rcaffirminythe terri-
toriaI inkegriof Souih Wrjt Alrica and condemiiing measureçaimed
atchanging thestatusof Ovarnboland.
We put thequestion: Whrit are the realreasunsfor the lactthat the
SouthAfrican racistsarb:ble faignorc thcdccisiooftheUnitcdNations?
Quite a bitha? already been said here about this.Wc emphasize fhis
pointthat ithas ken clearfor a longtirn eow that the RepubIicof
South Africa could no!Iong resia ihe IawfuI demands of the Membcr
Statesofthe United h';.tionrcfyingun itsownforces ahne. If, however,

rmistanccto thc dccisicnsoftheUnitedNations continues, tfiihas tobe
explained priinürilyby the activeparticipationin thc racist policiby
the sa-callemain piirtncrs of the RepubIiof Soutli Africaand thtxe
main partnersarc primarily the GiiitStatesof Americaandthc United
Kingdom. The ruIingcircIesofthesecouniriescontinute a be guided by
these1hI-iinleretora political,ocontimic,miIitaryand strategicnature.
For this rcasonthcy cijntinuto give al1kindsofassistancetu thcracist
régime Pretoria.That i:.whywe wish toraiseourvaice hcx most energet-
icalIyto protest again5.tattcmpts to pass overinsiIencethese obvious
facts. \Veraiseour voize and we swk againçtattcmptsto confine our-
sclvctso hints withoutdeciçivelydemandingof thnse Members thatare'
principallyresponsible;or the tragcdy ufthc pcoplofSouthWestAfrim
that they change theircriminal policyof directand indirect supportto
the sharnefu légimeof ~hcracists.
UnfortunüteIy, it must he noted that thc represeniatives of some
States thatare the sincx friendsof the peopleof South West Africa do

passoixr thescfactswhichestablishthe direcresponsibliityofthe United
Statesof Americaand the United Kingdom and othcr Western Powers.
Yet itis ciear that th: UnitaiStatesand a numberof other Wcstcm
countrics, whilc proclairninin words theirsympathy for the peopIeof
South West Afrin ancl voting for a nurnber af dccisionstakcn by the
United Nations, in reality and in Tactcontinue to sribordinateiheir
poiiciesinregard to the racistsfrom Pretoria to considerationsofan
economic, niilitaranil strategicharacter and, on ihc &sis of these
IKdrrOW, selfish andintjxrialisconsidcrations continuein practic ie
afl'ord broadassistana:and support to the racistof South Africa. In
raci,the unpr~edentetistatements and acts of the Pretorialeadersin
their refusato carry out the decisionof thc United Nations are based
an thisverysupport olihispolicy.
A number or Westei-nPowers arecIosely bound up with the foreign
monopoliesand thcir interestin maintaining South West Africa asa

colony. The international monopolies are exposing the population of
thiscounlry to themost savagecolonial expioitationthrougfipIundering
its natuml rcsourcesaiid it ia factwhich no one on deny. Ttie very and other modern wixpons. In accord an^ with thcse plans for joint
research, in the same-montli therc was a return visit by the Federal
Hepublic orGermari>t-o thc Zumeb Tsic] Rocket Base iiSouth West
Arrica. Itwas a visit Ii1he West Cicrmn spc~ialiston the rnaniiFacture
of missiIcsand rimc:nribcrofihe Neo-Nazi I>ai.ty, ü certain Hermann
Obert, who went tu f.liniiiarizehirnsewith the work on ihe rwo-stage
rockct, Harp-3 . ..
M'lienwc were coniidcring the quesiion of South Wesr Africa at'thc
fifth special sessio01'ihe Cieneral Assembiy,the Soviet dclcgativn had
an opportunity 10 esplain the position of the Sovict L'nion as regards

ways of solving the problem of South Wcsi Africa. The Soviet Iln~on's
position isbased on a.nunchangingtraditional policy which isairned at
giving cornprchensive support ropeopIes fightingfor their freedorn and
independence. II is a a pnlicy aimcd at uvercoiniiig theresistanceof
tl~ciimperialisi and co1onial Powersto the prmss of liquidatinpthc
remnantsof co[onialism.
In accordance with thi solicy, we support-and havc supported-
the Afr@Asian Sratez in thcir cn'orfsaimed at Iiberatingthe p~oplc of
Sotith West Africa from tlic coloniai and racist ynke and of giving the
pcopki of'South tir'e~Africa the newssary assistance in creatinga fi-ee

andindependeritSI atc.
We considcr, asiw ~Iii~ayhsave,that rorthe atrainmcntof thispurpose
the Gcneral AssembI:,rnust, firsof al!, ovçrcomethe resisrance being
sl-iown by the ruliiicirclusirttlie UnitedStatesof Amrricd, thc United
Kingdnm and thcFcderal Repubtiçof Germany,and a number of other
LVcstcrnPowrs. We asserlthar the güarüntw or unintpededand inde-
oendent devclo~ment for the ~codc or South West Afriw-and the only
guarantee of sich dtve~o~m~nt~wouldbe Ihe imrnediate granting of
indcucndenct.and th(: handina over of ~~vcr io rcpresentativesofthe
indjgenouspopulatioii. T'hccxpcricncc ÔI the liberah stniggle of thc
younp States of Asia. Africa and latin Amcricriconvinws us lhat ii is

only rhehanding ovcï of administration io representativesof thepeople
that can ensure the rising and the construction of a new Siate. We
considcr, and we would likc tu stress, thano palliatives can lad tuihe
necessary results.Events which haveoccurred in the period which has
clnpscd since rhe adopriun or the mast rewnt Unitcd Nations dwisions
on West Africa have shown. as thc rcpresentativcs *ho have spokcn
before me, particularlytfiose fronl Asiri and Africa, haire pointed
oui, whai liiilgrourrds there are forplacing any hopc or trust in the
forces of racismin l'retoria. ln thc penod wliich baspaqsed sincc the
adoprion of those mat recent United Nations decisionsthe vieivpoint of
thc Sovict Uriion and a number oi'other socialist countries has ken

vindicated.Thai vievrpointis that it is essentiato dernand dccisivcly
of the Kepublicof Swilh Africa thatit shoiilù immediatclyand uncoiidi-
tionülly cliniinatethe wholcor its niilitary apolicc apparatus illegally
inaintained on ihc Territory of South West Africii, to demand the
liberaiion ofpoliricat prisoiiers ato dcnlandthe creatiun ofconditions
for rcpatriation ofth: fighrcrsfor freedam and independence of South
West Africa."
(EN doc. AjI'V.IS;:? (I?Dec. 19671,pp. 82-87 91-92, 93-96.}
(ii) Afr. Morozoy: "ln Our staternentin the general dcbate on the qiiestion
under coiisidcrationwe already indicate (hat we fully supportcd the
draft resolution in dxunient AjL.536, and in this sltttenient for thepurjim of cxpbining our vote ri=shvuld Iiketo makccertain remarks
and tu bring out certainconsiderations coi-~cerningLhedraft resolution
iiow berore us, subniitteby a largenuniber of countriesfrom Asia and
Ariica IAiL.540).
Ir.Our ripinioniiwould bcappropriate tomake ihc folIowingremarks
inciirinexionwith ourvoteand Our positionon thisdraftresolution.
Ic the courseof the gcncraldebate on thÏsquestion theSvvict Union
had the opportunity ofçtatinçits pvintvfvicw as tothcrasons why lht:
peopIc of South West Africa arc still sufferiiig undertyoke of colo-
nialism.We ~aid that itwas our deep conviction that ihconly effective
solutionof the question of South West Africa wx irnnlediateaccession
to irtdependencrf:or thpcople of rhatcountry, ratherthan the cieation

of any kind of administrationfor ~heTcrritoryby the Unired Nations.
WC wish to cotifirm ourposition on this matter, whicb position was
statcdin thecoursc ofthe fiftspeciaIswion of theGeneralAssembly.
Oxr opinion inconnexionwirh theestablishiirentof ihe United Nations
Cwncil forSouthWcst Africa has not chnged. and inthisconncxian \ile
woufd rsaI1 the reservationswhich fiow from that position coiicerning
opcrlrtivepwagraphs 1,I and 3 in diafi resolutionAjL.540. WC have,in
addition,furthcrrcservationson otherpartsof thedraftrcsolutionregard-
ing rhc United Nations Council for South WesrAfrica.
We note with plwui-e that the draft rcsulutioncanrains provisioiis
which couId contributeto bringingan cnd tothe colonial domination by
the i-a~istrégimeof Pretoria,which has ken extended by tliat Govcrn-
mnt to a Territorywhich does nor beluny to it,the Territoryof South
West Africa.Itiswith rhisinmindthat we havetakennote ofparagraplis 3

and4 of draft riisolutioAIL.540. 'I'heseparagraphs condenin the racist
Governmentof SouthAfricaforitsrcfusal tocomply with theresolutions
of the Gcncrsl Assembly, sincc that refusalinfringon iheinternational
sratrrof the Tcrritoryof South West Arrica.
I'ziragraph5isusefutin thtiit =Ilsupn rhe Ciovernment of Pretoria
io withdraw unconditionaltyand without drlay frvm the Territoryof
Sou1 h WestAfricaal!its miIitnryand police force aswcIt as its adminis-
traiix,and caIlsupun itto releaseal1polilieal prisonersanto allowaIl
political refugecs whare nativcu ofthe Territory to return toit.This
prot'isjonmnis to us tobcfundamental sinceirnend to the persectrtion
of Suuth West Afrimn natirinalistswould make itpossibte for thernlo
crcate those conditions which wouldprcparc the TerriioryOFSurithWest

Africaforaccession to independenceand woiild etiabIeit tofree itselr
from the coloiiial yokc.
LVebelievethatparagrriph6 ~vntains provisions which are timeIy and
welIwarrantcdsince ttieyrwognizcthat the rraciréginicin SouthAfrica
continuesto benefit from the resoluteresisranceon the partof several
countries-espccially the United Statcs.the United Kingdorn and the
Fedcral Rcpublic of Gerrnarry,whicltsupport the rkgirnbcy rnaintaining
commercial, economic and poliiical relation$with tharcountryand have
no wish to lose their strategicposition in South Africa. thus causing rhc
failurof aIlattempts to bringSouth West Africa toindepcndcncc.
TlteSoviet Union bclievesthat the United Nations should take such
steps, which arc aimed particularly at thc Unitcd States, the Unileci
Kingdom and the FederaI Republic of Oemany, whichin fact arc thc

main trading partners of Snuth Afriw. We hope that rhose coiintries
will thus put anend to their policy of siipport for the racist regilne ofPretoria,and that,as providedin opcrativc partigrapit6ofdraft resolu-
tion A/1,.540,thes wiIl 'iakc effecti loiornic and othcr measiires
designcd tucnsurt:theirmi~cdaie~vithàritwaofthe Souih Africa adminis-
trationfrom the Territory of South Wesi Africa', whjch is vitaas we
have alreaùy had occiisiontostatc,ifwe reallywant the people ofthat
Territnryto acwde to indcpcndence."
(UN doc.AJPV.1635 (16Uec. 19671,pp. 92-96.) CHAPTER V

TIII: \'AI.IDI'rY AND LECAL EFFECT OF SECURITY CUL-NCII.
RESOLCTIO'I 276 (1970)

1. Itw.1~ iriaintainedinChapier III above thatSecurityCouncil resuIution
275 (1970) 'ivas inllzIjand without Icga lKcct by reüson of certain formal
defects. Tiithepiewnt Chapter it wiIl besubmitted that even ifit heafsumed

thattheresolution irquesiion isfuriiru Iatid,iiisneverthelessnoi in~ritisirt~C[v
vnlid and is rhusof no IcgüIconsequence and, aIternativcIy,thatcven ifitbt.
bth formaIIy and intrinsically valid, it has na hinding consequenccs for
States. In this coiinectiori thrniairisubrriissions\x~illbemade, the nature of
each nf which will now bebriefiy ser out.
2.In thc firstplace.itwilIhe suhmitted that rwoIution 276 (1970)is invalid
and void of any legl conswuences Tor States becarise itis bsed upanand,
indeed, has as iis very roison d'ë~rthe decision uf the General AssembIyin
lhc fourfh opcriitivc paragraphof itsresolution2145 (XXT)-and thatd~~ision.

as will be sliown in Chapters VI to XI.iirfuz,isilseifinvaIidand void of any
legai conîeqiience. For this rcaso nlone, rcsolution 275 (1970) and orher
cognütc rcsolutions of the Security Council are intrinsically invalid and can
liaireno legaletrect.
3. Inthe second place,even assuming resolution2145 (XXI) to IsevaIid,il
will bc siibmitted that resolulion 276 (1970) was not adopted in conformity
with the provisions of thc Chartcrand that itwas lhcrcfvre rtlrru virvsthe
Sccurity C:ounciI.
In thiwnnection it has aIreadybeen shown that thepowers of theSecurity

Council. Iikc ihosc of other organs of thc Unitcd Narions, are derived ex-
çlusivclyfrrom tlieprovisionsof the Cliarteiand are lirnitedbythem ?.Accord-
ingly, in order ro csiablish whethcr thc Council in adopting resolution 276
(1970) and rclaiedresalutÏons acted in canformity with thc provisiuns of the
Charter, itwill have io be ascertained under which of those provisions it
purporred to ad. Since ihc tcrms of rhc resoli~tions themselves provide no
CIMT unswcr, itwiIlhe necessary to determine the müttcr in ihc lighor al1the
availablceuidence.
Various chapttrs of rhe Charterhave a bearing on the powersand funclions

of the Council. They are Chapters 1,II, V, VI, VLI,VILI' .II, XIV aiid XV.
It is submittcd, however,tlint in tliecoi~text ofthe question upon which the
Court isIIOW asked to advise, ihtonly chapterswhich can mnccivably bc of
any relevance arc Chaptcr V (in soFaras it dciiwi!h thefuiictions and powcfi
of Ihe Council), Chapter Vl (rieslingwitlithe pacifiç wrtIement of disputes)
and Chapter VIT(dea1ingwith action rvithrespect tothrlats tothc pcacc. ctc.)
- as readwiih Chaplcr I[scttingout thcPurposes and Piinciples of the Unircd
Nat ions}.
-

For the sakeof cunveiiienceihisresoluiionis reprodu~d as an annex to this
Ch?piçr.
I'ide(:hap.III.paras. 4-5..supi-(7. ItwiIl be shown. howcver, that in aduptiiigthe relevant resolutinnsthe
S~urit): Councildid no! 3ci in terinof Chapter VII, that Chaptcr V provides
no scparate tiasis foihc ar:tionof the CounciI and that the C'ouncildid not
cornply with the requiremeritsofChapicr VI. Tlie conctusion wilI accordingly

bc Jraivn that the action oithe Couiicil in adopring thereleuiintrescilutions
cürinot hejiisrifiby rcfereri toceny pi.ovisionof theCharterand istherefore
rrhravires and ofno legal ctfect.
4. In the third and last17liic?itwill be demonstraredthat cven assurning
the validityof rmluiion 276 (1970). itsterinsbave nu legatlybinding cowc-
quences for StatesIiutare ü~ittemusi recotniiieiidatoryin theireffect.
5. The.revario~isconteniions wilI be treatedof IIIseparatcseciions of this
Chaprer. The section irrinitdiatzlfollnwing (section A; will bc devored tu
demonstrating ihat resolution 276 (1970) is hsed squarely upon Gcneral
AsscmIily1-esoIuriort2145 IXXI). 'I'herreer Chapters VII, V and VI or the

Charter wilt hedcalt wiih separately and .&riarit(iii~xcriolcC, D ufzd E
respe~ti~c i ny)derto detcrmine whcihcr and in IiowParthey may 'ne rclcvant
to thequestion &fore the Court.Finally, irpon ttieassurnption ~hatresoluiinn
176 (1970) waq validlyadopted.considerationwilI bc given (insectionF) io its
legalcansequcnccs.if aiiy,lor States.

H. '1- Busis forthe AdoptlariofSemrity CouiiciI
Resolution 276 (1970)

5. The adoption by the Security Council of resnlutivn275 (1970 w)washut
one step in achain of cvcriiswhich comrnenccü on 27 October 1966 with thc
adciplionby ihe General A!.wrnbly uf its resolution2145&XI) '.In opcrative
paragraph4 OFlhat resoiution theAssmbly piirporicd tu decide-

". . . thaiihe Mandate çonfcr~d upon His Britamic Majesty lo be
exercisedon his behaIf-hythe Government of theLnion of SoutliAfrica
is therefnrererrninaird.thatSciiithAfrica has no otheright toadniinister
thc Tcrritory aiid thai henccforth South West AMca cornes undcr the
direct rcsponsibilitof thc UiiitedNations".

It isclearthat itwas this "decision" of thc .4ssentblywhich gave risetoand
constiiutcd ihe basisof atI the various sribwquentresoliitjnns,both of the
Assenibly and of the C:ouncil,which arc rclevanrto thc prrsentquestion and
which on 30 January 1970 criliniriatedinSccurity Counciresolution 776(1970).
As will now be shown, this appearsnot only from theterrnsof thc resolutions
theinselvesbut frotn thc dcebiitesand correspondcnce which prcwdcd thcir
adoption.
7. In its resolutio2145 (XXO the Assembly,having dccided tu terminate
tlieMandate and pIaccSoii~h%'estAfrim "undcrthe direcrt esponsibilityur
the llnitcd Nations". resolvedthat "in ihcseciicu~nstance the llnitcd Nations
must dischargc those resporisibil wihiresptct roSouth West Afi-ira and

called "the attention of tlic SectiritCouncil to the present resolution$".
Diiring the periud 27 Dctoxr 1966 (whcn iladoptedresdulion 2145 (XXU)
, to30 knunry 1970(when tlieSeciirily Counciladopted resoliition176 (1970)),
the Assembly express1y rc~~yirtiior rerrtllrresoli~itrn145 {XXI) in al but

- -

? Operativepara.S.Chup. 'JIpara. 1,irrfia.
Operativcpara. 8.492 NAMIBIA (SCIIITH WESTAFRICA)

onc of its rrsolutions dealing wilh the questioof South West Afnu '.In
resolutioii 2248(S-V) il decidcd to estahIisha United Nations Council foi
South We:;l Afriçü ivith widpowers of administrationand legidation over ihe
Tcrritory::andrequested theSecurily Council" totnkeal1approprialemcasures
to enabIe the UnitedNations CnunciI for South West Africd to dischargethe

funçtions and responsibilities entruslcto it hy the CeneraI AçsembIy 3".
Thereaftet, in resolutions2325 (XXII ')2372 (XXII) 3, 2403 (XXitU 6,2498
(XXXV) -2nd2517 (XXIV) B,the Assernblydreir the artenrioof the Security
CounciI tcthe situation in South West Africü andlar recn~nmrnd~ip tdat the
CounciI take effectivemasures to implerntntthe variousresolutiunsconaerned
and to secure the withdrawal ofSouth Africa [rom the Territory. 'ïwtypical
exampIesof thesccalls upoii the Counci lrc the following:

"The General Assenzb!y,
.........................
3.DecidPs ta drawrheattention of the-BecurityCounciI to thc sscrious
situationwhich has arisen as a result of Ihe illegal preseande actions
of thc GovenunentofSouth Africa inNamibia;

4.Rerom#iends the Sccurity Corincil urgently to takt tilIcffcctive
ineasrires,in accordance with the relevanr provisions of the Charterof
the UnitedNations,to ensure ihc irnmcdiatewithdrawal of South African
authoriti~ from Namibia so as toenable Naniibia to attain indcpendence
ituccurduttce wi!lithe provisions of resofutioris 1514(X V) and 2145
(XXO 9."(ltalicsadded to lastphrase.)
"The Genrrai Assembly,
.........................

4. 13raw.rthe utteiitiuof thc StxurityCouncil to the ned Fortaking
appropriate measures in accordance with thc relevant provisions ofthe
Charter tosoIve the gave situation that has ariseus u resdt ofSoufli
Afrira's refirsufo wifhdraw itsadministrationfrom Namibia 'O.'(Italics
addedto Iastphrase.)

The icrrnsofa11rhe AssembIy resoIutionsconcerned thus lave no rooiii for
doubt that the GeneralAsscmbly, havingdecided to terminale the Mandate
and ta placeSouth WestAfricaunderUnitedNations raponsibility,thereafter

VÎdc GA raoluiions 2248(S-Y),19 May 1967, inGA, OR, Fifih Special Sess.,
Sup. No. 1 (A/6657 )p. 1-2; 2324 (XXII), 16 Dec. 1967; 2325 (XXlI), 1nec.
1967,in GA, OR, Twenly-srmnd Scss..Sup. Ko. 16(Ai67 161,pp. 3-4; 2372 (XXII),
12 June 19I;Rin GA. OR, Twenty-xcond Sc5s..Sup. No. 16(A!67 I!Add. 1).pp.
1-2;2403 (XXIII),16Dec. 1968,iGA, OR,?Wcniy-rhird Scss.Sup. No. 18(Ai7218).
p.3 and 2517 (XXLV), 1 Dec. 1969,in GA, OR, Twenty-fourth Sess.,Sup.No. 30
(A!763V} p. 68.
Soc.11.para. 1.
Sec.lV, para. 5.
' Operativc para. 7.
' Operativepara. 13.
Operative paras3 and 4.
Operative para.3, iGA. OR, Twenty-friurthSess.,Sup. No. 30 (Ai76301,pp.
65-66.
A Operativepara. 4.
GA rcsolution 2403 (XXIII), 16 Dec. 1968, in GA,OR, Twenty-third Sess.,
Sup. No. 18 (Aj7218).p.3.
'O GA rcsolution 257 (XXTV), 1 Ucc. 1969.in GA, OR, Twcnty-fourthScss.,
Sup. No. 30 (Aj7630), p58, WRITTW SI-EiTkMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA 493-

continued to act throughouton the bais tifihaidecision,and rhat,not irself
having any perversof enfnrcment under the Charter,it tiirnctu thc kurity
CounciI totakc stcpsto irnplementrho:decision.
8.It isquaIl y cIear thait was infact upon the basisofthal decision, and

not independenily of it, rhathc matter=nie before the SecurityCouncil.
Thus,for examplc, in UnitedNations document Si8307 dated20 Decem ber
1967',thcsecretary-fieneraiiransmittedto thcPrcsjdentoftheSeçurityCoiincil
thetex: of General AssernbIyrcwlution 2325 (XXW and dretvattention to
operative piiragraphs 7 and8, in which the AssenibIy requestedthe Council
to takc cffcciivstepsto enahle the United Nations tolulfithe responsibiiities
ithad assuma! with respci:tlo South West Africa. The "responsibilitirs"
referredto are clcarly those envisagedinoperative paragraph 4 or Asçernbly
resolution 2145 (XXI) 2,
Siniilarly, ia [elter datd 14 March 1969 " addressedtu thc Prcsideni
of the Security Council,46 rnernberStatesrequested an urgent meeting of the
C:ouncil to exariiine "the rieterioi'aringsituatioin Kam~bia". The lerter

con tiiiued:
"Your Exccllcncy ancithe hlembers of the SccurityCounci wIiIl recaIl
thatthe GeneraI Asscnibly, hjj ilresoI11tiu2145 {XXZ) of27 Oczoher
1966,icrnritiaretheMniickzlevf theSorifAfricorGoveriinic~~ruariininisrer

!\ruinib(South Wcst Iifric ünd,decided that 'hcnccfnr Sthuth West
Africa wtnes under the direct responsibility of the United Nations'."
fftaiicadiled.)
The letter added that thc South African Gouernmeni, in spiteofthe Gcneral
Asse~ibl~vaiirl Security Cuuncildecisioiis, çontinued to maint an its occu-
pation of Sourh West Africa. thus constitutin"ü grave threattuinternariona[

peace and security".
Thcsc exurnpIesare typitz.of many 0th communications 10 the kurity
Council conccrnin tge qut:stionof South West Africa which ilrvouldbe
tediousand unncccssary to detail. Thayservethe purposc,hoivever,of showing
thai the bais of the apprciacheto the Council was in fartthe decision ofthe
General Assembly in resoIuiion2I45 (XXI) to terminate the Mandate and
to substitutethe rcsponsibilityothe UnitedNations for thatof South Africa.
9. That decisionalso conctituted the basikir the%tual measurestakcn by
the Security Coiincil. Refercnceto its relevant resoliitions md thedehates
preredjng ther nhows thisdearIy.
Resolution 2M (1969) wes the fint in which the Council addrcvsed itseIf

pcrtinentlyto thequestion c.fSouth Africa's"çontintiedoccupation ofNami-
bia'"' as such. Thc firs(vit)prcambuIarparagraphs of that resolution iook
tiote ofGeneralAsseinbIy n:solurions2248 (S-V), 2324 (XX II),2325 (XXII),
2312 (XXLf) md 2403 (XXIII), and look ifriooccuu~t Assembly resoIution
2145 {XXI) "by whichtheCr5ncraA l ssembly orthc Uniied Nations terminated
the Mandate of South Wesi Africa and assurned direct rcsponsibilitforthe
territoryunfilits independericc".

-- .-
' SC, OR. Tweniy-second Year, Sup. for Oçt~iber-Deccmber, 1967, p. 325.
: Vide preatnlrutar par3 {iGA resolution2325 (XXII).
' UN doc. S/909û (14 Mar. 1969).in SC, OR, Tiuenty-fourrh Ycar.Sup. cor
Jatiuary-Mnrch,1969, pp.126-i27.
' SC resoliitio264 (1969). preainbular para. 5in UN doç. S!RES!769. 20
Mar. 1969.494 NAMIBIA (SOUTHWEST A~ICA)

The operative paragraphsof ihr rcsoIuiion. bcsidcscundemning the refusa1
of South Africa tocornplywith the General Assernblycesuluiions jus1 rncn-
tioned, dh2monsrrate the uncritid acceptanceby the SecurityCouncil of tlie
validity of AssenibIyrcsolution 2145 (XXI) andthc füct that that resolution
was the foundation upon which the subsequent action of the Council rcstcd.
The firstr:hreoperativeparagraphs of resofuti 25on(1969) i-eadas follows:

"1YieSccurity Crmricif,
.........................
1. Rrcognizes thal ihc Unitcd Nations General Assembl y terminated
the Mandate of SouthAfricaover Narnibiaand assurncddiroctrcsponsi-
bilirfor the territoryiintiifsindepcndencc;

2. Considersthat thc continued presence of South Africa in Narnihia
isiIlr:gaand contrary to the principles of theCharter and thc previous
decisionsof the United Nations and is detrimental ta theinterestsof tlie
popdation ufthc tcrrituryand thoseof theinternationalcornrnunjty;
3. Cal1.iiipothe Governnient ofSouth Africato irnmcdiatelywithdraw
itr,administration from the terriiory."

The CouiiciI cuntinutd by.inter dia,inijiring aStates tocxért theirinfluence
in ordcr to obtain cornplirinceby South Africa "witli the provisions tif thc
presentrcsoliition"' and ~lccidiw thatin the event ofSoulh Africa'sfciil ore
cornply tl~crcwithitwould meet again "to determine upon nccessary stcps or
measures"in accordance withthcChartcr 2.
10.Th,: CounçiI's invirationto other Statesto use their ir~fluenceto seciire
South Africa's cornpliance with the resolution, likeits recommendations to
"ail States" in itssubsequenr rcsoIutions 269 (1959) and 776 (1970) 4,was
obviuusl y designcd primarily to secure Soutli Africa'simmediate withdrawal
frrirnSouth West Africriin lerms of crperalive paragraph 3 of remlution 764

(1969). Thal wit~idrawal,howcvcr, could only h ùcrnandcd if South Africa's
presrnce intheTerritory was in factiIIegalapostuIated inoperaiiveparagapli
2 of the resoIutinn.And, in tum, that presencecould not heillcyal unless rhe
Mandate had in fact kn tcrrmilintedas postulatcdin opcrative paragraph 1
uf thercsuIution. Irv.41beseen thecefore that theactinii taken by ~heSecuri~y
CaunciI was based entirely iipon the decision of lhe Gencral Assen~bly in
resolutioi~2145 (XXC) to ierniinatc thc Mandatc and tu place South West
Africa ünder the responsibilityof the United Yations. Fhe fuither considera-
lion thütthc action of theC'ounciI could not have legaleffect unlessthe Man-
date wa:: i.u/idy terminatedby thcAsscrnbIy isdcalt wiih dsewhere the point
made hereis sirnplythattheactionoftheCouncildid in factresiuponAssenibl y

rcsoIutioii2145 (XXT).)
II. In itsresolution 269 (1959)ihc Scçurity CounciI rrcr~IIeand r~afiri?lrd
ils resolution 264 (1954)', condcinncdSouth Africa Torjts refusa[ to comply
with iandfor its"persistentdefiance of the aiithorityof the Unite~ations '",
recnfini:ed the illegalitor ihc prcscncc of South Airican authoritics in thc

Opcrattvcpara. 7.
Operative para. S.
Videupcrative para. 7 SC rcscilutio269 (1969'))inUN doç. S/RESj269.
12 Aug. 1969.
Vide opcrativc paras, 5 and 7.
'Prcanibular para. 1 and operativepara. 1.
Opetüliue nard.1. ~~.'I STATEMEYT OF SOUTtl AFRICA 495

Territory ' and cali~cltrpvt;muthAfrica to withdraw its administrationof the
'lèrrilory'.
In iesolution 276(1970) the CoiincilrecifrirmrdGeneral AssembIy rcwlution
2145(XX 1) and itsown resotiition264 (1969) "whichrecognizcdthctermination
of the mandate and called ripon the Ciovcrnmcni of Soirth Africa immediately

to withdrawfrom the territory".and recalIed itsresolutiori269 (1969) '.It
ayain cnndetun~(fSouih Africa's rcfiisal tnmrnply with "Gcncrül Assembly
and Sccurity CounciI resoi?itip acnrstüinin10 Kai~iihia 4" and dedurerf the
continwd prmence of South Afriwn authoritics in South \lest Africii illegal
"and that conscqucntIyoll acrs rakcnby theC'lo\rcrnnicno t fSouth Africa on
bchülfofor concerning Namihia clfierthe leri7iinrr/iofrke Alaiidair areillegaI
and invalid 5".(rtalicsadd.i.d).
II is apparent f~#~i ilii:thai,Iikt resolurion 2CA(1969), both resoIutions
269 (1969) and 276 (I9?01 were ultiniaicly baxd entiiely upon GeneraI
AssembIyresolution 2145 (:<XI).

12. The debatcs prectdintg he adoption of these varioirsr~-jolritionsf ihe
Sccurity CounciI reveal that in the rninds ofihe tnenikrs of the Çouncil the
resolutions wcreindissolubl~iIinkedwi th resotution2145(XXI).Soniccxan~ples
wiIl be adducedin iIlustrsiii~n.

(a) Thcdehur~ sitrruirniiinx rarloprioiof SrcztrifyCülr~cirrsulitrioii264 (1969)

Thc rcpresentativeof Alperiastarcd thüt ~he:

"... UnitedNations hs put an end ro the Mandate of South Africaover
Namibia. We [i.e.the,kiemhers of thc Sccurity Council]aretoday in duty
houndto accept thecotisçquencesof fhnriiccisiorrandconsiderthcpraciical
iiiezquresthat mus! be takcn to shoirlderaur responsibil~iy . ,.wc mus1
rcücibydernanding thi:withdrarvükof iht: South Africanauthorities From
Namibia ?''(r~talicadded).

So far as thc dclegation of Nepal was concerned,

".. .rths always reniained our contentio fnat the possibilitresof rhe
Security CuunciI ... slinuld be utili7edwith a rient:o givitzg eflccru ~ht:
GrtirrrilAsscrnhty'Iiisoric r~soCir!iui2z/45 (XXIJ ..
Kcarty as important as this fuiidainentalresolution ifresofution 2248
(S-Y) . .
Cnder tlie presenr draft rcsuluticin, the Security Council would sjgni-
ficanlly, for thc first tirnein its hislowr .rinforr ree hisroric Getzeral
Assenihl rjcdulion 2 145 (XXI) hy recofnizi~g the !errt~incrriof the

~Mriiiritand the asslvnprion by rlieQrguiiization ofdimi rt+spot~st+bi!it~v
forthe Territoryuntil its independence"'"Olics added.)
According to the representativeofFinland, thestarting point ofthc Council-

"..+ rnusl, of course, be recogtiitionof rC~efoc: tlwr rhe U~iredNatioris

Operative para.5..
Preambiilar riarap2, 3 and 5.
Wperativz para. 1.
Operative para. 2.
tJN dw. SPV. 1454 (20 Mar. 1969). p. 6.
Ibid. p.41.
Ibicl.p. 46. GcncrolA ssei>ihlyhaferminuied theMundareof SourltAJricu oserrVut~iibiu
anri assumeidirect resgonsibiliîy frireTerritou rytil stindependence.
Ado,~tionby the SecurityCouncilof a remlution expressingsuch recogni-
tion ...will mean that for the first tirne the authoritand iht:powcr
of the kurity Council will tsefully engaged in the task of ~rc~t~slnriftg
rha~decisiorintoreality'."(Italicsadded.)

In the view of the repcesentativeof Paraguay, a protiouncernenlby thc
Councif t-ecognizirrhc actiotiof the Ceneral AssembIy (in termina ing the
Mandate and assumingdirectrespoiisibilityfor South M'est Africa)was-

"... busicczndesse~i#iarithe casehefore USfor ~heuüititmreconridera~îon
of jirrih~stepii ormensures whichrhtr Couricilmifhi inke in theexercise
of itcpowers and functions... in ordcr taenablethe Namibian pcoplc
to kcotrie masters of thcir own natinnaIdestiny 2".(Italicadded.)

fb) I3e dhaie surroundiny irendopiionofS~~urilyCorincilresulrrtio269(i%9)

The reliresenta ofivaraguay saw the recognition by the Securiry Critincil
of Asserribly cesaluticin2145 (XXI) as the juiidical basis of rhc Councii's
action in regard to South West Afrim. He said:

"7-herecan be no doubt that themajor importanec of rcsoItition754
c96!i) ofthe Council lies in the expresrccognitioaof the {.cl ihut
Gcncral Assenlli/y hw ferniinntedIIZCAfurndute... and th1 the Uniteci
Nations has assitrned direct responsibility for the Territory until irs
indejicndcncc. The ofhtr prot'isiof rhni rcsol~<irhrivcn juridicui busis

inthzfrecngnifioi"." (Italics iiddcd.)
The representarive of France statedthat his dclcgatiun-

"... has had to expressccrtainrcscrvations with respect,particuIar tuy,
r~sniiliimi 2/45(l'Xi), whichin our vie-whas a very weakjtrridicni basi.7,
andwkch itwas very cIear cciulnot be implementedin practice. ...
In ihosccondifioirthe Ercnçh delegaiion hud tloubsrain.from rkcvote
on re.qnfutiw264 (1969) on 20 Match 1969f. Ittilicsaddcd.)

The repsesentaiiueofSpain stated that-
". . .resolution264 (1969 )eclarestliatthe 'presenceof Svuth Africa in
Namibia is iIIcgaI and mntrary to the principlesof the Charter'.Airy
~iripthat Sol~fhAfiric*mkht have heid ovet ihe Terrirne rpired UI fht!
?nomentwhenihu GrneraI dsseinbfy byrcsoiutian2145!XXf) of27 Ocfober

1966:rfecfuredrlie ~Wandare rmninuf~d and dccided that the Territory
wouIdbecornea directrtxponsibility of thLJnitedNations.
In resolution 269 (I969) ,dopted on 11 August 1969, tfic kcurity
Couriciltook a further step forward. . .S"(ItaIicsadded.)

--

UN do~. SIPV. 1465(20Mar. I96Y)p ,.27.
UNiddw. SjPY. 1495 <8 Aug. 19691,p.7.
Jbid., p. 17.
UN doc. S;TV. 1528(29 Jan.19701,pp. 63-65. Acwrdiiig tu the represerrta~iuef Poland, the-

". .. political and l~gal îramework for the United Nations action an
Namibia has been pri:ciseIydrawn. Its comerstone is rewIution 1514
... Itsfoundaiioi~.rconiained [rreso!utiorr2/45(XX!) terminaring
rhr Munduie of the Re,~Ub/iof Suu1.hAfrica overSouth WE.\.dfric~, now
Aruinibin'."(Italicsadikd.)
For the reprcsentativeofthe United Kingdom, thebr~sisofthe draft resolu-
tionIay in the earlierreIevz.ntresotuiionincfi~dia2145 (XXO. He said:

".. . we have abstainr:don a numbcr ofresoIuiio notabIy GeneraI
Assembly resalution 2145(XXI) of 27 October 1966, Security Council
rcsolution 26.4j41t')6iind Socurit~Council t*esolution269 (1969).
It willtticreforeconte as na surprise to therncrnbers of this Council
that ivecannot on thi~occasion give our support to the ùraft rresoiution

befure us,sitlccthe h~sisofthut re~ofutionlies of rorirseinfhusemr&r
rtisofzrrio. . malia added.)
13. Of spial significanccis ihc fact that at notime during the coune of
thcsc dcbstcs ofthc S~urit y'CounciI did any representatiivden):the proposi-
tion that the relevant resc~lutionof the Council, including resolution 276
(1970). wereFoiindedupon thc dccision of theGeneral Assernbly inresolurion

2145 (XXTj to terminarc the Mandate and place South West Africirunder
UnitedNationsresponsibili:y. Nor was rhisdenied inthc dcbüiewhichprccocIed
the adoption of Council ri:solutions 283 (1970) and 284 (1970). Fven those
States which there statcd, in effect, tliain giving its advisor? opinion the
Court should refrainFronipronoiincing üpon the vatidityuî rcsn,oluti2145
(XXT) ',did oot deny that propcrsition.And indeed, thereN7erccertain ather
Staiçs which clearly rt.coi:nizedthat that rtsolution waq of fundamental
importance to theissuesking mnsidered hy thc CuunciI 4.
14.The inevitabie conclusion to be drawti fronral[ thisis that Security
CounciI raolution 276 (1970),Iike lieotherrelevantresolutionsof ihe Council,
isbased entirely upon the "decision"of theGcncral AssembIy in paragraph4
of resalurion 2145 (XXI) trcerininatethe Mandateovcr Soiith Wcst Africa,
Io denySoutii Africa any otherright tu adrninistei.the 'lerritoryaiito placc
itunder thedirect responsi:>o ifltheyUnited Nstions. .4nd al[the masures

adopred bythe Council and sct furih in ifsresolutions wercclearIy takcn in
pursuance ofihat decisionand inorder to implement it.
15. It foIIowsas a matfer of course that if thc decisionof the General
As-semblywasinvalidand rjfno IegaleR&, asiscontcnded below 5, thenthe
resolutions of ihe Sccurjty Council, incIuding resolution 275 (1970) ,hich
arc based upon that decisim are equally invslid and lemlly inetfecijveand
that resoIution276 (1971))cn thcreforchaveno legalconsequtncesfor State-
includingSoriih Afriça.

C:. 'IhcNon-Applicabilityof Chapter VI1of theCharter

16. Itis clear that in adoNingthe remlutionconmrned, theCoiincildid not

: Ibld..1529(30 Jan.1970! ,p. 7-1O.
lbid.p. 18.
UN duc.SPV. 1550(29 July 1970).pp. 37(Nepal). 47 (Syria)a53 (Zambia}.
+ Ibid.pp. 87 {FriinceanJ 88, 89-909,1(L'nitedKingdom).
TriChaps. VI-Xi.intendor purportto act inierrnsof Chiiptcr V1Lof CheCharter. Ltmust hrstbe
noted th&: the Couilcildid not interms ofArticle 39 ofthc Chartcr makc üny
deterniination,eitherexpressIy or tacitly1ha1 ihereexisted"aiiy tlireatto the
peacc, bwuch of the ppeaw or iict of ayyrcssion", asucfia determination isa
condition procedentto further action under Cl-rapterVa. But intinyevent ilis
manifesrSrom the debatessiirr'ounding the adoptioriof rcsolutions264 (I3fi9),

269 (1365) and 276 (1970) that thc Coiincil dclibcmtely decIined to impose
meüsures under Chapter VI1 dapite the pressure brought tu kar on it by
certain mi:riihemnf tIiCouncilwho were çtrvnglyinfavour of tlieirheing im-
pu&. So,rieilluslretionsfrom ihcrccords of thcx dcbates willsufEc to show
thisbcyotiddoubt.
17. Thlisin thedebatespreçedirigthe adopfion of resoliuont264 ((969) ,he
repracntativt:of arnbia, who introduccd thc draft resolutioriconcerned, is
rcported :.ssaving:

"The second paragraph[of thc drüft rcsolution] isa logicalsequel. We
shouldhavelikedç;itegoriwlly to statethe truih that South Africa's con-
tinuej stay in Namibia is an acrof aggresion and, therefore,a tlireatto
inrcniationalpcacc and sccurity.While we have had to accornmodatethe
feetingsof certain iiieniberwho areaverse to the idea of an inevitable

confrontation wiih SouthAfrica, we found itncccssary toti'yto advariceuri
such IittIprogrex? as we had ben able roachievcprcvioiisly....
1 wish to eniphasi~erhat. in our vicw, Piiragraph 8 'dm? nnt entjrely
excludt the applicütionof ChapterVII.. . .
The draftberoreus carries 11only a IiltIfurther;and afterwhat 1ha~e
said,and givenSouih Africa's aIrnosttraditiona1defiance, \vshoutdhave
Ijkedthe provisions of ChüpterVI [ to corneinto inimediatt:play. But we
are realistienclugh to recognizethe social, politicaandeconomic struc-
ture(iftfieinterndtiona1wnirniinity '."

The reprmentativeof Nepal wts to much the saineelTeci.Of ihe draftresolu-
tion hc said:

"... my deIegalion isnot entirelyslitisftedwith itprovisions,in so faras
ihc drüftresolution faitsrodeteriiiinethe realityofthe siration, na~iiely
the continued ilIegaI occupation vf the Tcrrilory, which constitutcs a
threat tointernationalWace and sccurity,and wards off anyhint 01.sug-
gestiorof enforanicnt actions under Chapter YI1 intheeveni of failureon
the partof South Africa toconiply wiih the reçolution ...niydclcgatim
[hopes] diat11saduption üs a starting-pointwillmake it possiblefor the

SecurityCouncil totake furthererective and logical measures,if nect.ssary
under Chapter VIL of the Charter. .. 3".
Thereprewntativeor th<:Cnited Stateswas abletosupporttliedraftresoIution
" becauseit wiselydocsnot conimit the Council tothenarrow path of mandatory
sanctions undcrChapter VI1 of 11icChartcr" 4.and the represcntütivcufthc

United Kingdom siated:

Opcrntivc para.8 aîilie drarresoltitioo rras foIlows"8.Decides that in the
eveni offailiiornthc part oftltGrivtrnment of Souih rifricto coniplyivith the
provisionsorihc prcscntresolutionthe Scuri tyCouncil rvillmcerimrnediatrly10
delerinine upon nwssary steps or measurs inaccordancw eiih therelevant prû-
visionsof !lie Charterof thc UnitYaiiuris."
UN doc. SIPV. 1464(20 Mar. 19691,pp. 21, 22 and 32.
+IUNd.dric. SjPV1465(20 Mar. 1069), p. 7. iYR[X'FN STA'I'IIYENOFSOUTIi AIiRICA 499

".. . it is wihat an originalintentionto include IanguageFroniChaptcr
VI1 of the Charterkas hcen abandoned.1 havcaIready made iclear that
my Govcrnnicntisnot and will not be prepared toagrce to commitnlents
underChaptcr VI1 of the Charter inthisregard '."

18. Itisdeai-then, thalidahpline. resalution 264(I969)theCouncildid not
intendor piirporl to aciiilerms of Chaptcr VIIof the Chi.ter. And thc samç
içtruciriregardto the adopi~on ofresolution259 (1969). Speakingearly iiithe
debate cuncerned,the rcpreientativeof Zainbia again çalledfothe application
of Chapter VII. After statir~that the invucationof Chaprer VLIwas thc only
ivzy iuconipel South Ahim to curnplywithrcsuliltionsoftheGenernlAsseinbly
aiid of the Coiincil. he exprzssedthhope thar "rhosc whciopposc oiir cl fnr

the application ofChaptei VI1. ..will,in thc courseof thisdehate,ofcr usa
tiiorcalirxtive alternativ:!".
Nor was hisplea unsupporrcd.Tite representativeof Pakisrandeclaredthat
the rimehad corne "for pacsiiifrom warnirigs to deeds,froni words foaction
-and action under ChaptcrVI1 of theChartcr ... "".-1'b.representativeof
India(a non-tneniherof th? Courtcil, speakinagihis own reqiiest)WC= of the
view that "only rcsoluteaclionby the SccuriiyCouncil undcrthe provisions of
ChüpterVII" would securc "jrnrnediatewiihdrawal of Souih Africa from tk
Territory +."The reprcscntative of SenegaI was convinced that "rhere is no
other way af dcaling with this matterthün10 apply the provisions ofChaptei

VU orthe United Nation:. Chaner Algeria too, calIedfor action tindcr
ChaptcrVI1 b.
However,rhesc calIswerenot heeded by theCouncil. As rhe represcntativof
Finland pointed oui, it ws:nbvious that "agreement cannot bc reacliedon a
proposal to rescirto cnrclrwtnentaction under C'haptcrVJi of the Charter.
SiyniBcantIy, proposais 10 thal etFeci would no1 be IikeIy tu comniünd ihe
support of thegreat I>aivcrcerniüncnt members of theSecurity Council ...7"
Thwe views werc echoed by the represeitative of China" alid that they were
well founded isapparentfrtm the inrervenrionsof iwo of thepernlanent mcm-

bers.Thus the represeiit attheiUenited Kingdom dectarcd:
"Lord Caradonrcpeated again inthis Councilihat th United Kingdotn

would not be preparedIo agree tu committnents undcrChaprcr VT1nf the
C'harterinthis regard.ive know thatthc sanie itruc ofotherPcrrriai~ent
rncrnbersofthisCounril. . .WC al1know thatthereis nochance ofagree-
ment on effecrivemea:;ui'aa~ainstSouth Africa such as arcenvisaged in
Chapter VIK of theChartcr Y."

And thc rcpreswitative of the tnitcd Stales reaffimed the siünd previously
iaken by hisGovernrrient. He said:

"Our view as to the \visdoinandcIIicacyof action uiider ChapteVH of

' lhfd., p. 41.
UN doc. S!PY. 1492(30 July19691,pp. 21 and 22.
UN doç. S!PV. 1493(4 .hg,IYbY) p. 26.
' Ibid.p. 31.
UK cloc. SYPV.1494(6 hg. 19891,p. 13.
UX dnc. 1493 (4 Aiig. 13SY),pp.8-10.
UN doc. SIPY. 1494{ri.4ug.1469), p7.
UN duc. SjPV. 1495{S .4ug.1469).p.12.
Y UN doc. S/PV. 1496(I1 Aug. LY69),p.Ci. rhe Cliairer rernainsunchanged .. .speakem maintain that thc ttiniehas
corne for the Coiincilto con~pelcompIiance wirh previous resolutions by

adoptingnieasurcsunder Chapier MI. such as mandatory sanctions.
In al1sincerity, nlyGuvcrnnient stil cannot support that vicw ...rny
Govcrnment stiII \wuId not comider rhat inpresent circumstanccsthe
application of internationalçanctions inthis case wouId be wise or effec-
tivel."
Thc fini[ posirion ofthe&unci[ in regard to the applicationofCtiaptcr VI1

isunequirwiallyshnwn by Ihestatements of the representativcsOFZambia and
Nepal üt rl-icloseof Ihc dcbate.
'Ibe fornierdwIared:
". ,. xve hwe, as always, heard a million reasons why the perrnancnt
rneniixrsof the SecurityCouncil:andespt~iallythe WesternrnajorPowers,
aren-riprepared 10 applyChapterVI1ortheCharteragainstSouth Aliica,

withrrutany attractivealternativesbeingolkred us
The re~resentat ofvNepal stated:

"Althoügh. we know that the prescritdrafiresotution falls far shorof
the rcquirementsof the situation in rhat ifaiisto coinmit thc Security
Cour ciltn a specificcourse ofaction under Chapter VII of the Charlcr,
whicIiis whst isvitally needed,we have not cmscd to view the dcvclop-
ment:;inthiscase witl~our usualsenw of optimisrn j."

19. Tht.dcbste which prewdcd tlieadopIinn of resolurion276 (1970) con-
tiniitdto reflectthediscord prevailingin theCounciIrc~rding theapplicaIion
of measuresundcr Chapter VII ofthe Chartcr. The calls for suchaction were
fewerand ICSEcategorical and there çan bIittIedoubt tht thereasonfor this
was thegeneralrcalizationrhaisiiçha murse ofaction wouldbeqiiiieunaccept-
able to certain of the prrrnanentmenibers of the Council.This attitude was
reflscicd iathe siatement ofthe reprcscntativcof Finland who iniroduccd the
draftresolution.
Ile said:

"Tlriecrucial quesrionconcerns,of course, rheuse of coerciverneasures
undci ChapterVI1of theCharter.Thedivisionof opinion on thar qiieion
in the Coiinciscerns to lxirrcctincilabIc,ileast for the presenl...
In ihc absenceOF thepossihilitor action underChaptcrVI1 ofthe Char-
ter. theSecurity CounciI has a duty ta exttrnincwry other means by
which itcan advance the causc ofthe people of Namibia ... rhercare,in
ouri-iew, possibilititsof 'piacticalaction wkich so far hare not heen
explored.

The purpose of the draft rcsolution which Iam introducingon bchalf
of its sponsors is tomake itpossibie for rhe SeciirityCounciItoexplore
those possibilitiS."
For prcsent purposes it issigiiificiintthat in tdiscussionwhich followed
ihe introductionofthe drafiresolution, therwas acceptane by niembersof thc
Council ii+,the draftresolutionconcerned did no1represcntaction takenunder
-

UN <Ir%SIPV. 149G(1l Aug. 1969) .p. b and 9IO.
WC-: duç. SIPV. 1497 II2 Aug. t969). p6.
Ibid.p. 11.
Viz. Burundi, Finland. Nepal, SicrLeone, Sy~iaand Zarnbiii.
' UN doc.S/PV. 1527 (28Jan. 19701,p.26.Chapter VTI of thc Charter--indced, therwas sanie strong criticismof those
Statcs opposed to such acti.3nAs the representativcof Nepal stated:

"The draft rcsolulion. ..does not initiatethoseapprnpriiiienieasures
cüILcd for in the Asst:inbly resolutio[2517 (XXIV)]. The reasons are:
obvious.Thox meawi'ej amut ix appliedwjthout thesupport d a1lthc
permanentmembers of theSecurityCouncil most of which,asWC al1know,
areunforlunarely opposed . .. My delegationisconvinccd thatno rneasure
bythe UnitedNations ,#hichfcIlshortof thoseprovided foiinChapter VI1
ofthe Charrer ivould b,suficientto persuadeorcoerce theGovcrnrnentof
South Africa to withdraw ilsillegal presencefrorn Narnibia. We realize
ihedificul n the way of wcuring the application ofthose nieasures by
the Seciirjty Cnuncil."

The reprcscntativeof Inrlia(a non-rnernberof thc Council, sp~akingat h~s
own request), aftersuggesiin tgat thc kurily Councilshould imrnediately
apply certain interinimcasures, continucd by saying that his delegation was
"fully conscious, hofiVevert,hamore energeticaction ilndcr ChapterVIi will
be riecessay to bring aboi11the full impletnentrrtioof the United Nations
to securethe frmGom and independenccof thepeopleof Nainibia '".
According ruthe rrpi'esent~tiveofPakistan(alsrispeakjng alhis ownrequesr):

"It iscIear that thr:Asian-African Menitsersare unanimous intheir
sincere klicf thainothing shorl of measurfi under Chaptcr VI1 of the
Chiirierwillbeadequareandthat such nicasurcsare eininenttypracticablc.
Butthe secondpart of thispropositionis not acccptcdby somc ofthe per-
manent rnemkrs of 11-SeecurityCounciI :$."

And, inthe opinionof th: represeniativeof thc USSR:

"The Security Council in different condirionsand with a diffcrent
approach on the part of some delegatirinscould adopt an effective reso-
lutionin kceping with thc provisionsof Article41 ofChaptcr VU of the
United Nations Chari-r, whichwouIdreaIIycontribute ta iichieving the
ahjectivcfurwhich :hvarc met here today ?.."

20. It isthus abunùantIycIcar that in adoptingthe resoltiti ionquestion
the Security Council ncithcrjntended nor purprted to aci(and accordingly
didnot inF~ctact)underCliapter VIT ofrheC.harter :.Fndxd, havingregard to
the attitudeofcertainof itspcrmirncntrnemliers,icinl<idnoihaveactcdinterms
of thatchapiplerI.tfr>lIowtshatwhateverelsthenature ofthe masures adopfed
in resolution 27(1970) ma:i be;they were not preventivcurenforcefilent mea-
suresiriithinthe meaning of Chaptes VII,

D. TheRdcvance ofChapfer V ofthe Charter asa Separatemis

forthc Actionof the SrcurifyCwnciI

21. Thc nenr question isxhelher, inadopring thercsolutionsconcerned, and
especiatlyresol~it 27o6<lnJ70)t,hcSecuri~yCouncilcan besaid tohave acted

l UN doc.S/PV. 1528 (29Jan. 19?0), p57.
UN dot. S/PV. 1529 (30Jan.1970), p. 41.
' Ibid., p87.And see alsoat p. 56.
Vurtrtlr proofof thisis to bcCoiindin thedtbate preccdingthc adoption of
Security Coiincil resolurionsand 284 (1970). Seeespcciallhe srattrnetofsthe502 XAMIHIA (SOUT~I WFST AFRICA)

uiiderCliirpler V of the Charter. It isobviouj ihar thc only pi-ovisionsof ihüt
chaptcr wiaich could pvssibly bç lakcn to serve as a hasisfor ihe action of the
Councitare paragraphs1and 2of Article24.Those parilgraphs read as follows:

1. Inorder to ensuri: prorripand~cfiçtive action hy the United Nations,
its Menibers çonTcr on the Security Churicil primary rcsponsibility ror
the rriaintcnanceof internatiorr;i leüw and sccurity, and agrec ~hst in
carryingout itsdulies undcr this rcsponçihilirythe Security Council acts
on th.5~ behalf.

2. Ln discharging tiise cfutieIlleSeciirilyCoiincil shaflactiriaccordancc
with the I'urposes aiid Principlcs of the United Nations. The specific
pnwei'sgranteci to the SocurityCounciL forthe discharycof theseduties are
laiddown in Chüptcrs VI, VU, VIII,and XII."

How arc tlicse provisions to be inlerprctcd?Thc question khic~i tlrixs here
iswhether,as has wrnctinics bccn rnaintiiinedA, rticle74constitiitc"a iesiduary
source of authoriry which caii lx drawn on io m~:t situationswhich arcnot
covcrtvi by thc more detailed provisions inthe sucŒediiigAi'ticla '". To put
the question another woy, docs Article 24contèrupon theSçurity Council tiut
onIy Ihe powers laiddowirin ChaptersVI, VII. VILI, and XI 1, butaIso such
Jtirtficpuwcrs, consistent with the Purposcs and I'rinciplesof' ihc United

Nations.as are necessarytucnabIc ittnmainrain internationalpcaceand s~u-
rity'!
It is sirbinittedthatheanswermiistlx in the negaiive. To inierprct the Ar-
ticlas coiiferrinpuponihc Cauncil powers for theniai rit cil ofinterna~iona!
Face andsecurityin excessof thosespecilicallygranicd in thechapters in qucs-
rivn andliniitcdnnly hy rhePurposes andPrinciliIes of the Lhartcr,is toinvest
the Coüiicil withimplicd pnwers which would be virtiialIyunlirnitedin thcir
scope. Such an ii~terpretaticiisno1onIy ncgatcd by the clear languagc of the

Articlc itselfbutcôn hardly correspondwith the ii~teniions of ihosc who framed
the Charter.
22. Parügraph 1 of Article 24 is durly gc~cral in its nature and effwt. It
provides iiessence thal the Members of the United Narions confer upon the
Secüiity C:auncil primary responsit>if loityt: n~aintenanccof internationai
Face and sc-eçurity.[tindicatesthut ihis rcsponsibilitis cankrred in order tu
cnsitrc prompt and etfectiveaction bythe United Nations, aiid that in carrying
out its dutiesunderthis respnnsi hl ilthe Coiincil actson behalf of the Mern-
bersof rhc Unitcd Nations. Ii saysno morc thanthat. As lvillbe pointed out ',

itisIiighly probable that the object of insertinthis paragraph in theCharter
kvasnie& to elrlphasizctlie paramaun tÏniportance of rhe Council's "peace-
keeping" function and its pritnarresponsibilityin thisrcgarÿrdA.sone erninent
wmmcntator has suggssted, the paragraph "means nothing else but thüt the
Charterconfei-supon the SecuriryCouncil primary responsibilityfortheacl~ieve-
nient of tIigenenl purpose of ihc Unitcd Nations j" whichis, of course, the
.---
- - --
tepre\cntaiives ofNepal and Xambia{LN do~. S;PY. 1550 (29 Julv 1950).~p. 36
and 51 rçsl>ectively).
Rro~rtovvof UnittadNtrriuns Prarricr. Vo11.D. 19.
~idr &a. i7, infra.
Kclsen.The i.nw oJrhr UfiitrriVïilior(19511,p. 283, WRITTI ':STATEMEYT OF SOUTH AFRICA 503

maintenaiiccof pcliccand smurity. Buttherc isnorhing ata Iin thc langüugc :cf
pariigraph1ii-hichwarriinl:;the construction that rhepriniary responsihilityof
the Council irnpliesa hiddcnrcxrvc of powcrs. Tlie conferiiicntor"priniary"
responsj bilityupon thcCouncil---obvioustv yis-&visano therorgan, thc Gcncrai
.4ssernbly-iiiiplies nothing riiorthan that the otherorgan ha5only a"secon-

diiry" rcsponsibiliiy for flic rnaintcnance of pexe and security. Moreover.,
paragraph I dms not cvcii deal with "powers", mriçh les confcr thcm. It
nicrclyprescribesin generalrerrns what tliemost iniportant.jiwctian(or respon-
sibiljty)of the Cuuncil is1-2be. 'lhepowcrs ncccssüry to theexcrciu. of that
funcr on areadverted to ocly in.para-.aph2.
Pariigraph 2 or the ~rricic provides iiiplain Ianguaçe that in discharging
"thcsedut icx". Le.ils dtiliei undeitvrimary.t.soonsilri lv for theiiiaintenan-
ceof' peace and secbriry.th*:Couticil hall actinaccordan&with thc Purposes

and Principlcs ol ihe Unitcd Nations"-an obvious ceferen coethe Purposes
aiid l'rnciplessetouiinArticles 1and2 of thc Charter-and Furlherniore that
"the specifc poi1:egi r.antc.1to theSectlrity Council forthe discharge of ~hesc
d~t!i.esshall bcihose "laid down in Chapters VT, VIT, V [IIand XII". 7'heje
words, in their ordinary rneaning, far froni e.~renditzgthe "peaw-kcepirig"
powers of ihe Council, in fitct firtheriiAnd they limit thcnl intwo diffcrcni
ways.
23. 111the frrstplace, th? Council 1shaund to act in acmrdançc wiih the
Purposesand Principles wliichare sri out in Articles 1 and 2. I'hc Ptirpuses

dcscribcin very generiilterrns~hc "cornmon ends" of theineinber States; they
are ille ''causeand objcct ttfthe Charter '". Thc Principles presçribeChefun-
ctamcntal lenets in accordancc with =,hich ihe <)rganization and its .Mernbcrs
undertakc to act "in pursl~itof*' the Piirpvws. The Principlrs rnajr iinpose
obligations;the I'urposcsareessentiallya guideto conduct. Howe\*er,neither
the Piirposes nor the Principlcs add lu powera conferred elsewhere in ihe
Charier. Nor do thcy indicate,except in the most general way, the nreari13~
which the.stated Purpow are to be inlplemented and understandab so,y

becauserhatis soriieihing vihichisIcfttoand governed hy other provisions of
the Chartcr.Rclcvantcxaniples are üffordedin rhe case of thc basic Principle
set oui ia Article1. parrigr:iph 1:

"?h maintain intcrn-llionalpeaceand security.andto thatcnd : totske
ctlicclive colleciivemwsures for theprevention and rcniaval of threais to
theprice and for the siippressionof actsof üggressioi~or otherhreachcsof
the peace",

". . . to bringabout by peacefuliiieans, andin conrormitywilh the princi-
plesof justice andinternatiomI la&, adjustment or xtttenient of interna-
tionaldispiitcsor siru:itions wliichrnjghfIrad !O a Lireachof the pcsicc".

The dctüiIed implcmcnt;-.tii of the first of thesePurpa~s, wliich isoften
describedas "collcctive seciirityisprovided for inChaptcr VlTof the Charter,
whilç ihe way in abhichthe second, thc pcücelùl settleinenof dispurcs,is tok
irnpiementcd,isprcscribcdin detailin Chapters VI and VTI1.

These exainples are illuslraiveof the principle,wh~chhas found expression
in the jiirisprudenceof thi:;Court, ihat !lie Purposes of the Unitcd Nations,
broadthough thcy may bc,caniiot be irnplemented by any meanswhateverbut

lReport of the Rapporrcur of Cornmirtoc1 tu C<immission1,UNCLOdoçs.,
Val. VI, p.447.onIy in amordance with themeans specificallyprovided for inthe Charter.

Thus, as Judpe Win iarsistated in ihcCerfaitzExpct~scscase ':
"l'he Charter has set forththe purposes of rhe Cnited Naiions in vcry
wjde, andfor ihat ruson tov ~ndcfinitcterrns.But -+part from tlie 1-e-

source sn,cludi he financialresoiirces,of the Organization-ildrirsnul
f»io IVfur freinif,~lirifrhOrganiïatior~isctltiiletuseek ro nchiew rliose
pirupuses b-vno warrer wliar nieans. Thefacr rhnr on orgnn of the United
;Vaticnsisseekingto achier,one ofih<)srpirrpuselduesIivrs11,$7cu rrirdttr
ilncrion laryfil. ThCharter, a miitiIalerallrcatywhichwas the resultof
proiongedand laborious ncgotiations,carefully crearedorgans and deter-
n~inedtheircoiiipetenceutrdnrrurlsof crrrion.
Th: intentionof tthoscwho drafted itwas cIearlyto abandonthc possi-
biIitof uxfui actionrather thanto sacrificethebalancc ofcarefullyestab
lishetffields ofcornpetence, as cati be seen, for example, in the case
ofth$: votingin theSecrirityCoiincil.11isoniy by s~ichprocedures, tuhich

Iverecfearly defined, rlior rheUnited Nalinltr con seelc zo achieve ils
purpcscs. Itmay k thatthe United Naiions is sorneiirnesno1 ina position
to undertakeacrion which would bc uscfuI forthe mainienanccof inter-
national mace and securiryor for one or another of thepurposesiiidicated
inArticle Iof the Charter,but that isthc way in whiçh rtieOrganiration
was conceivedand brought iitto king." (Tttificsadded.)

And in th; wards of Judge Koretsky inlhe same crise:
"1 am prepared to stress tire necessity of the strictobxwation and
propt:r interpretatioof the proxrisionsor tt~Charter, itsrules, withoiit

limitingitselby rcfmncc ttothc purposcs of thc Organizati oin;rwise
one woiiId have to conie tothe long ago wndemned formula: 'The ends
justif., thmeans' '."
74. It f3IIowsfrotn ~Îs, aswclI as from thc plain urorditig orArticle 24,
paragraph2, tkatthesecond way inwhichthe Securi tyCounciI is Iirnitedin the

exercisc of its responsibilityfor the maintenanceof internationalpeacy and
securityis thai it must act in accordance wiihthose spwific provisionsof rhc
Charter \ilhich prescribe the relevantineans of execrition-al1 of which are
containcdin Chapters VI,VII, VU1andXII. And thatisexacty whatparapraph
2 of Article 24, perhüpssameWhai tautalogically, ssyswhere it provides tht
the"speci icpowcrs granted .. for thedischarge ofthese dutiesare Iaiddown"
in those chapters. As Kelsenhas pointcd oi~t3,paragraph 1 ofArticle24:

". .{an hardly be interprctedtu cunfer on the Council the cornpetence
to maintain pcaceand sccurity---inthewidestpossiblcsenseby rinyineuns
thut rhs Councii rnay lihnoreSuch interpretation is incompatiblewith the
' starem.c nof Article14,paragraph 2, lhatthepowersgranted to theCnunciI
for thedischarge of the duties which il kas undcrthe responsibility for
themaintcranceof peaw are laid down inChapters Vt,Vil, VIlland XTT."
(Itali a dded.)

CertuiiExpenses of rbefiired Naaiionr,Arlt.isOplnion. 1C.J. Reports 1962,
p. 320 (dissenting opinion). Videal%) <iin<lschedl.. L.,''LaDélimitation des
Compétencesdw Nations Unies", Recireifdesroufs, L7oI108,No. 1(19631,pp. 320
and 388.
Ihid.p. 268(dissencing opinion).
-'Op. rii.p. 284. WKITTI~K STATEMIIS~T OF SOUTH AFRICA 505

The position can hardlyhc othcmise, furwere il so,tbre \*ouId hav: benno ,
point in cvcn çnacting ~he -:hapiersin question-they would have ken super-
Iluous.
25. Itis submitred, then, that ihc languagc ofArticle 24 providn es basis at
al1for the asxriion that thai. Article investsthe Council wiih certain implied
residuary powers. And in view of this itcan hrdly bemaintaincd that thc

States represented at the San Francisco Confcrcncccould tver have inteiided to .
conferupon thcCouncil. by nlereimplication, unspecifiedpo#eFswhich, lirnited
only by the very general provisionsof Articles 1 and 2, would in priicticc bc
virtually unlimircd.
As Judge Hackworth poiritedoutinhis dissenkingopiitionin the Rrpruiioii
for 1~:jiiricase :

"Therecan beno gaimoyiny thc:fnctthaiihe Organization isoneof the
dclcgated and eriume~- cd powers. Jiisru &epresiimed rhar sitcfpowers as
Afeml~cr Srnres dcsire~'In mi:frr tipon iiare siored either in the Charter
or in complernentary agrwnients concluded by them. Powersnaruxpressed
canrrotfreelwvk bPvrpfiipdii.~ipiicp#WErS JIow jiom u grntir ofexpresscd

poslers, ciftdarliznifcr/lo/hostlir~rrt?'n~res.~nryioike exerrisr u~puwrrs
exprrss/y grnnld ln'(itülicsaddcd.)
And dciiling spwificallv:ithArticle24 of theCharter, JudgeAzevedo statcd
iiihis dissenting opinion irithe fioizrpptenceof the Gcnfrnl As~cmlly for rhe

Adnrissiun nJ'o Siure iothe Ut~ifcJ:\!ntiuticase2:
".4rtic[e24, which isthekeystrineof the Charter, embodiesthe alirnutiotz
of rlt11i(:ftrrfiFerrioniucceprcdhy the rrariotconve.eriedrSanFrancisco

. . . Thc signütorics of the Pact have granted exceptional Faculties to the
Security Cooncil, which, on ihe other hand. has assurned duties,for the
performance of \iihichit has rcquircd that proper, spcrific orid clearly
defit~~dpowersbegrnn1r:dia ifThisis the basisofa sysrem u3hichattemptcd
in !dancc fwo forrf.7irthicenter intopfoy: sovrr~ign equa/ilyuirrlconcern
forsecuriryby nieuns oj' worlp~nce. The normalopcralion of theOrganiza-
tion rcstsuponthc cven baiance of these forces."fltalicsadded.)

26. Ii-uiewof theconctusions renched. the question might welibe posed: if
Arricle 24 were notintenderi to confcr upon the Sccurity Corincilfunctions and
po\.;c~sadditiond to those conferred elsewhere in the Charter, what thcn was
the purposeof inserting thai Ariiclein thefirstpiace? Inanswer to thisquestion
itis Io be noted at the outict that thc hcadiny to Ar~icle24 --~Functionsand
Powcrs"-is sorncwhiitmisleading in that the Article is notexhaustivc of the

powers and functinns of theCounçiI biitenurnerates onlyoncof ihem,aIbeitthe
principai one, nanrely the maintenance of intcrnütional peace and security.
Thcrc arc,howcvcr,othcr artidesof the Charter which confer uponthe Council
powers ~vhich do not relaie tu the maintenance of internationai peace and
seciirityassiich. ExampIes.ireArticles 4, 5 and 6in tcrms ofwhichthe Courtcil
isrequircd to niükerecornm:ndationsfor theadmission of States io membcrship
in theUnitedNations, thesaispensionof the rights and privilegcsof rnenibership
and ihe expulsion of Memirersfrom the Orgsnization, respectivA clrti.e 93

rcquircs a rocornrncndütion or the Councif beforea lion-Meriiber ofthc United
Nations inay beconie a par1.yIo the Statute of rhe InternationoI Court. Article

~c~urcitivrt li,r InjurSujy~r~diil,/lScrvice ofthe United ilrariottAdïisrir.v
Opfniun. ].CI. Repuris 1949,p. 198.
Adi.isor+Opiniun. 1.Cj. Kepons 1950, p. 27.96 providcs thi the Council may rcquest the Courtfoi-an advisory opinion un
any legal question. Interrns of Articie Y7 Ihe Council is rzquiredro make a
recomrrieridatio negardirig thc tippuintmcnt of thc Sccrctary-Trenera lf the
Organization. Article 4 of the Statute of the fnternatianalCourt, which forrns

an integral partof theCharter ',requiresthe participationof ihe Councilin the
eIcciion or themembersvf thcCourt.
27. Thrse c~arnplesshow that the functions and powers of the Counçil arc
nor confiried to ttimaintenance of intentationalFace and sccuiity. Why then
docs .4rrir;lc24 mükc spccitic rcfcrcnccto this function and to thisone atone':'
Thc records of the United Kations Confereiiceoti liiterriational Organization
held at San Francisco in 1943 provideno unequivucal ansuber to this question

but irom ihusc rccords it üppcürs Iiighlyprobahle that Article 24 ivasinserred
in the Ch:irterwith the ohject not on1 y of eitipbasizingrhçparaniount iinpor-
tance of tliisparticulariuncrionor rhe Council bur alsu ofstrcssing the!~rirttury
ofIhcCoiincil in rhc fieldofpeace and security ? These rvouldappearro be the
real ohjects of the insertionofAriicle 24, ut ai Ieast ofparag~aph 1 thereof.
Wor are the rrasons for thifar toscck.The maintenaliceof Face and securi-
(y is thc ovcrriding aim af the Charter of the United Nations: the firstof irs

stated Purposes is to ''maifitain interiizitionapwcc and sccurity" and it is
understandablethal lhe importanceof this rtinctionshouldbe empfiasized in
thc casc of thc organ charged with pritnary responsibili~~in exercising itBiiI
that respoiisihility,alttiuugh "priniary", is nut "cxclus~vc", rince under the
provisions of Chapter IV of the Charterthe General Asseiiibly too has res-
ponsibility inthe fieldof peace and securiry3, aiid in ihese çirciirnstançit is
not surprising that the Chartershould $1ressthc primücy of thc rcsponsibiliry
of the C:eiincil-an organ which bccause of its coinpai.ativelysniallsi~e.its

coniinuoiis functioningand iisahility in certaincircutnstan icetakc preven-
tive or enforcemetii rneasurL3 can opcralc to maintain or restore the peace
much niore speedily and cffectivclythan can the GeneralAssen~bly. as,indeed,
is rccognizcd in the opening words of Article 24 ilself-.
38. Despire the foregoing,argurnenishavcbccn advanccd in supportof the
thesis that Article 24ducs contüin a reserve of p0wei.s and thatcoiisequenily
ihe SecurityCouncil can act to maintain peaceand securiryoiherwise than in

accordalice with the chapiers ihc Chartcr spccificiiIlmcntioned in para-
gtaph 7ol'thnt Article.In rhisconnection thepractiΠof theCouncil itselrFalls
to be conridcrcd.Thus the repartof the majoriiyof the Council'sCornmittee

' Vide Arl. 92of thc Chartcr.
It was no1doubiçd atSanF-rancisco chatthc SccurityCcuncil would haveother
dutics besidcsthose slipulüirdin çcinncctiowit lthcmaintcnanccandcnforccincnt
or iniernaiionalWace andsecurity.(Set ihe sltiicmtnts othcUnited Kingdom and
Rtlgian rcpresentativesiCoriir~iitt1eof Comrn~ssionIII-UNCI0 ducs. Vol. XI.
at pp. 381 anri393. respectively.) Keveriheless, hrading to scc.H ofChau. VI OF
the Dumharton OaksProposals (wtiich \vastheprrçurscir<ifArt.24). viz. "Piit~cipai
Funcrions and Powers", was rctoined by that Corninittee despire a h-orwegian
proposal to deletihe wtird '-Principal"on tlie groiinds th"As a matter oflegal
principlcthc functionsand poners ofthe organs of the Orpanization should be
çxhaiisrivclystatedinilieCharter" (UNCI0 docs.,Vol. XI.p. 767) .n thetcntritir7e
drrif<iftkc Co-ordina fion Commit tee.the headin-:"PriinaryRcsponsibility" was
subsiituier(ihid., VolXV, p.70) hui in rhfinat drafof the Charter appriivcd bt.
theCu-oriiinati~inCornmittceand the Adr isory Ciirniiiillor Jurists on 22 June
1945. thepresentIieading-"Funciions and Powers"-was decided upon.
V'ideC'crtniExpen~@. ~fthe C'nired,Vuiions. AdvisoryOpiniun. I.C.J. ficpoi'fs
1962, p.163. WKI-I'T~N STATEME~T OF SOIJTH AFKICA 507

of Experts noted in conneci.ionwith one qiicstion before ittliüt"thc probleni
shoirldnul liroiisidcrerlfrurczleg(itiv!pcliiicifvicisinc eThe Charter hasin
factinvcsied the Security Council, cspccially under Article 24. wi th certain
pvlirirnifunctiot~sofprit~uty Nnporlartcc by conrerring on ~tthc priirlcirres-
ponsibilityfor thc rilainienanceof internationiipcace andsecurity' '".In con-

nection with another question, the viciv wüs put fniwardin the Coiincil rhat it
"was a basicconception of theCharter tliattheMcmbtrs of the Unircd Nations
had conrerred üpon thc St cirity Cou ncil powEersconirnensrtrrrfwirh ifs res-
pnfisihiCitfur the ma intcnancc of pciicc and slcurty.Thc onb limirritionwere
those irnpoxd by the stipulatioriscoiitainedin rhefiindamental Purposes and
tarincipleto be found in Chapter I?.'In ciinncr-tion witIa tliird question ir
was urgcdlhal-

". . . thponters of thc:kurity Council under Article24werenorrejtrictcd
to the spcciricgrantsot'authoritycontaincd inChapterçVI, VII, VIlI and
XIT.Gravereservations about ~hese'so-cüIl wcide rrserve powcrs' wcre
e~prcssed, biitit was ciiiphasizcdthut oncr lireSecirriryCouticilhaddcrcr-
mit& ffint rhcrr w(i.dt111gcrro itzter~~tiojmpmce uildscc~trity, ihad full

aurhorityto take thepropnsed action" {to set up a Commissionof guuJ
officesand in\~estigatioii3.
ln furnishiny an opinion in connection with yet another question, rheSec-
rciary-Geiieralconcluded ihat by itsdecisioninthe Trieste cax hcCouncil

"had 'reçogni7ed the principlc ihat itha$ suficienf power, i~iidethe tcrnx of
Art iclc24 ofihe Charter, 117assluneneir7respon.sii>iiifi,ticuiiditinnrhntrhe-v
rrluie directiy, or wii indirocrly, ru tkc innilirenonofiri?ertmfiujiplericr and
r~curify, and chat in dist-liargingthese duties, thc SecrrrityCouncil açis in
acmrdnncc with the Purposes and Principl ofsthe Charter' '".
29. These vkws d'id nor. howeuer,go unoppuscdin the Council. Particularly
in the Triestecase. althougfiit was no! dotibted that thcquestionrelntcdto the
rnaintcnlinw of paçe and:ccurily, it was cclntendedthat the responsibiIityof

the Council in thaiçrinnectioncould only bc exercisedthrough the specific
poivew yrantedfoi the purpost: in ChaplersVT,'C'if,VlII and XII j.
311.Tfis subrni~ledthat iitthe finalanalysis.thi:argunientswhjch have kn
advanced intheSocurityCc.iincil insupport of the proposition that the CounciI
can act to maifirain peaÿc and sccurity orherwise tthün in accordance with
Chapters VI, VII. VIII and XTToF the Charicr, are poIitica1rarher than Icgül.
They areteleological innatiia red seekto justify actioninsiruationsforwhicli
the Charterin fact dxs no;provide.Ttiey are, in short, exira-legalargunients
which scck tu circurrivei~otr supplementthc provisions of the Charter.As onr:

comrnentatorhasput i:
"Thcrc fias beeit a definitetendcncy on the partof theprincipalorgans
[ofthe UnireciNarions], especial ofythe SccurilyCbunciI, to iidopt and

jusrify rparticuIarcouac tacr ri on in termsof itscffwtive contribution to
advancing the purpose; andpr.inciplesof rhcOrganization ratherthan un
the gound that the acrion jsin uccordaiicewith rhedetailedprovisionsof
the Charter govcrning tht:powers and functionsofrhr:particularorgan.

-
' Keperfnrjmrif Unite:VuiisnsPruriicc, Vul. II. p. 20. {Itatics added.)
Ibirl.p.21. (IraIicaddc:l.)
Ihid.,p.22. (Italicadde3.)
' ?hi({.p.23, footnote 18.(Italics added.)
Iliid., p.21.508 NAMIBIA(SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

Thus, in dealing with disputes and situations,thc kcurity Council in
praci.icehasnot considered itseIfrigidlybound hy the detailed provisions
of CliaptersVI and VI1of thc Charterregardin2thecoursc of action tobi:
folinwed. Rather the Councillias adaptedi!s coursc to the cii.cumstançes
ofeach casc... "'

The argiiinenrsheürdin the Counçil in thisconnection and mentioncdabove '
amount il effect IO the contentions tliat in regardlo ilsrcsponsihilityfor the
niainteiianceof pwcc andwcuriry andwithinthesoIeliiliitsof the Purposcs and
Principlesof theCharter,theCouncilhüs been entrustedwilh politicalfunctioi~s
of the hiphestimportan~~ and thattherefore,whenevcrthePace is thraitmed

or disturtieditmust havepowers cornmensurarewithitsresponsibility,cvcn to
thecxten: OFassurning new powcrs not otherwiseconferred.
The fr:inkiypolitical nature of thisproposiiion wilI be at ance apparent.
And that itsbusisis infact political ralhethan tegal isconfirmedwhenrcfcr-
enor ishad to statemetrtrriadçin thcSecurity C:t~uiicil.he debareconcerniiig
thc TriestequestionwilI suficeas an exaniple.Duringthat dehate the repreçrn-
tativeof Poland stated:

"We donot have any legal quatrnsabout the Security Councit xcepting
Iht:rcsponsibilitieitis asked to accept. 1ktww rhaf it !?tabe sun~ewhn~
dificuff topoint TU n specijcphrrise inthe Clrarrerdriclr wosldjusrify the
?okiixowr ofthe futrrtio wesare asked tu assitirteHnrsswv, I lhink il
would bc cntirey wiihiithe gei~rrnispiritof fke Chrrer of ihc United
Raticins.ifitwrrr:decidcd to frirm a Free Territory undcr a quasi-inter-

national administration'." (Ttalicsaddcd.)
'l'lierepreseniativcof Colambia was evenmoreoutspokeii. He ssid:

"We are not conmrned with indicatingour dccision, particularlywith
regard io thc powers and Functiunsof the Security Corincil, but I must
saytliat weart.irrjb~~uuorJe12iarginthrpawers of~he Security Cortnriland
of the Assernbly as well. Ru( thc qucstion has arisen ... under the as-
surnption thatii ran beargriedund hn.reJ(m rkc spiritofthe Charterrnthcr
zhnnnn atiydefitiiteprovisioof rireCkt~rterrfkel it isa vegaodrking fhat
wosfrotrlrIs'srabltriiiprcceiienr.. '" {rtalics added.)

BasicaIly sirniIarviews were cxpressedhy the represcntarives of thc Unitcd
Kingdom and the UriiicdStates
PoIiricalargumentssuch as these and dccisions taken inpursuanceof theni
ciinnot ovcrridc the provisions of thc Charteror be usai to supplementa
supposedlacuriain the Charter. As theCourt hassaid "the political character

of an organ cannot rclease it from the obscfvancc of the treaty provisions
estahtishedby the Charter whrn they constitute limitations on its powers*'.
The Security Council isno cxoeptian ra this rule. lt hasonly the powerscon-
ferrcd upcin iby theCharterand itiriusact inaccordance with them. Article 24
prescribes that in exercising itsrespunsibilityfor the maintenanceof ititer-
nationalpcace aiid security, itshaI1 actwithin the lirnitsof the Purposes and

l Goodr-ich,L. M. and Simon~, A. P.,The UinircNotiorr~und the .Wuinienunce01
Interna?ioiiuPeuce atid Securiry 9551,p. 599.
Videpara. 28. supra.
'SC.OH, SccondYear, No. 1. 89th Meering7 Jan. 1947,pp. 14-15.
j IbM, pp. 1IOand 11 respeçiivel.
Vide Chap. IIIpara. 4,suprri. Principlesoï theCharter a~rrfinaccordanccwith the specificpowcrsgrantd iit
in Cliapters VI, Vïi, VI11and XII. It cannot, therefore,açtottierwiw in dis-
chargingthat respnnsibility.
31. The condusion isthiisince, inadnpting rcsvluiion 276 (1970)and the
olher relevant resoIutions,~heCouncil did not actiiitems of Chapter VI1 of
the Charter,and sincc Arric:lc2of Chapter V mnfeis upon itno scparate and
independcnt powers, the o.iIy rernaini Cnhaptcr under which it could have
acted,is ChapterYI. It therefore rcmains lo enquirewhcther the Councildid
act inleriiiof that Chapter.

E TheRelev:mceandReyuiremmtsof Chapter VI
oftheCharter

32. If,as has bccnsubrnitted.theSecurity Councii inadopting these various
rcsolutioiiscouIdnot havc açted under üny chapter of the Charter other than
Chapter VI, it isstila question whether itsaction w& aurharized by and in
conforrnitywith thc provisionsof that Chapter.
In thiscannection itwill be cuntendcd:

(i)Ihaî thepowers of the Counci1 underChaptcrVI can only beinvokcd for
the purposc ofmainlainirig internationalpeace and wurity and thatsince
the real purpose or puiposts of thc Cvuncil inadopting Ihe resdutions
concerneciwerealtogether diffrrentaiidquite unrelated tothe maintenance
of p=x and socurity, ilactionwas not authorized by that Chapter; and,
inany case.
(ii)thatthe CounciI didnat act in wnforinity with theprovisioon fsChaprerVI
kak-e atno timcdid ir coriductan impartialand objcctivcinvestigationin
order todeterminewhe:her the disputc or situationinq~iestionwas likely
to endangerinternational peace and security and that thiswas a sim qun
nm for its ~doption or ihe relevantresoIutinns.

II. TheScope of!lieliowersof lhe Coit~iciiunder C.'linpVIr

33. rtwoutd seem indispdltabietht thconIy powem ofthe Securitj.Cout?cii
iinder Chapter VI which are reIcvant heieiarc those which arc conîerred in
Articles34, 36 and 37. For in adopting the resolutionsçoncerned rhe Council
clearlydid not act in termsof Article 33psragraph 2; itcould nothave acted
in lerms of Article3X kcause the partiesdid not su request;and Article 35
dom not cunfcr any powersupon theCouncil.AndsinceArticle34confersonly
powers of investigation,iffi3llowtht fhc nieasüres adoptedby ihe Council in
the reIevantresolutjonsco?ild be justified, if at aI1, onbs rcfcrence to the
relevant paragraphs of Article36 or Article 37. Article 36, paragraph 1, 1sys
down that:

"TheSocurity Councif rnay, atany stage af a dispute of thenature re-
lerredtoinArticle33[i.t.,one'thecontion fivhiheisIikelytoenbnger
thc maint en an^o^f inttmiitionalperrceand security? or ofa situation of
likenature,rcconimcni+. ppropriateprocedures ormcthods of adjustmcnt."

ArticIe37, paragraph2, priwidcs chat :
"If the Security C~unciI deems iha~ the continuance of the dispute
[i.e.one'thecontinuarlce of whichis IikeIytocndangerthe maintenanceof510 'IhhfIUIA (SOI:TWITT AFRICA)

interi~ationaIWace and securiiy-vide paragraph 1 rerid with ArticIe331
is infacl likely iocndangcr the iiiaintenance of inrernatiomI peace rind

security,itshüll decide whettier io tnke action undcr ArticIe 36 or rore-
cotnrnendsuch terms oFsettlernenias itmay considel-appropriate."
It iiiusbi:obviuus tliatwhcn, pursuant to these Articles.theCounciIaticmpfs

ro sctdcri dispute by way of reconimending apprvpriatc proccdures ni- merhods
of adjustriientor teriiiof settlcmcnt. itdoes so with only oneend in vicw-to
rnaintain intcrnation pülcc and security. rndeed, il con only act for tliat
purpose. The sole purpose nf the ichuleof Chaptcr VI is thc maintenanceof
jnrernarional wce and securily. Aizd il isfor rharpurposr uirrl rhnprrrpose
rilurrrlrnrtiiepowvrs O/ the Colrncif uncirrC:hnprrr Vi ir:creconfirred. That is
cvidentfr.m theprovisioiis of Article 14 whcrc thc pmvers conferrd upon the

CotinciI irChapter VI arccxprcsslystatedto begranted "for thc dischargc of
rlir.idutiis". ihüt is tsay, its duriesirnderits "primary rcsponsibilityfor the
inaintenüi ofcieternational peuccand sccur~ty".It is also evideni froin the
language ofevery articlein Chapter VI saireperhaps Article 3%.Cunsequcnily,
sincc ihc CvunciI is bound by the rermsor the Charterand the Charter has
confei-redupon itthe powers inqucstion for one specific purpose, it cannot

invoke th-rtifor any olher purpose.
34,Nc~rcrthckss, even in the field of iniernaiional peacc and security, the
Council ciinnritintemenein rwry disputcor situation. k-ar although in terni$of
Article 3:. paragraph 1. a Membcr of the United Natiotiç moy bring tu thc
attention of the CoGncil any dispute. or an) situatio wnhich tirigirleud ro
ii!rtprncirio,7frir-iii'giverrle roa (I~SPII ~nP.althnugh in ternisof Article 34
the Cotincil rriayinvesligatcany dispute, or situation ofsuch ü nuiurc,thcrcis,

cxccpt in thccüx of ArticIe 38.a condition precedent to any frirtheraction
of the Coiinci[under Çliapter VI. narnclythütin thedetermination of theCotin-
cit, taciior exprcss, the dispute or situation niust be onc the continuanÿ of
which i~''iike{vior*n(Iungrr mriinr~natirofiritcrriclfionpcnre und serririty".
Ifthiskitterreqiiircmt-ntisnui sarisficdihe C:ouncjl basnobasisfor action '.
II wasin Iàçt forthis vcry reasonthai Article38 round ils way into thcChartcr.
Thc inxri.ion of that Ariicle,which did not appcar in the original Duinhartoit

OaksProposais.was proposcd by thc Sponsoring Governmentsand molivated
as follows :

--

Vide Ross.A., Cuns;iirrriofrke IrniredNnrions(IY50),p.160; Goodrich. L.M.,
and Hambro, E.. Cl~orferuJ the Unir~d.Yurions,2nd cd. (1949). pp.102 and 238:
Goodrich and Sirnuns, riycil.,p.233: Jiménç~. dc Arcchaga, E., Yoritig ~anrtthr
IIondlin~ ofDirpurcs inrlreSccrrrifyCuüncii (19501,pp. 102 and 103-104; Kclsen.
op. NI.,p.404.Statemenfs to thiscfhcchave frequenllykn made inthe procccdings
of- rhe Security Council itwlf. l'hus during consideration of ilieCurfu Charrriel
qircstion
".. .scvcral membersohserved tha1 rhe Charter had circuinscrbcd the f~inc-
lionsof thcC'ouncil by providins ibai itrnight make rccornnicndations under
Articlc36 on/-vwh~a the cuniinuunre r$ ljidirpürc wns likrlv Iorndaiigeu Ihc
iirûint~~iiaofeit~rert~oriope<iceand secirriiy. Thrnrisid~roriotroany Othrr

dispule orsirrtntiocnbvged rliecotiipefrncu oihe Cottnril heiond !Irelirnits
ji~-ed.'ithe Cl~arr~r"(K~prrory of'pracric~oj'Unirr.c.Vorinn.OÏ~UILF Vol. 11.
p.28 J,para. 32.) {lialiçs etlded.}
For cxam~>Icsof staternents tsitriil~Krct vide alspp. 703-204, para. 35;p.2 19,
vara. 9i; p.285. para.38; p. 286, para. 41; p299, para. 73. \RITTE <STATEMENTOF SOUTIf A ERICA 51i

"The purpn.~ of thi:;arncndrncnt was 10 give the Securjty Council, at
thc requestof the parties to a dispute,tliepower to makeremnimendations
concerning itsscitlemeiit,ewtz i/'rheliispl/iirosnor o- sficln chnrncrer fins
ro cunsritiirro ihv~of tofhe pcuce. Lnder the Duri~bartonOaks Proposais
flicSeciiriw Cuivicil dibIJU?ps.i-ess uufhorir-vIO LIPaJwiffiSIICI Iecunhry
tii.~i~ufc.~ainhad been :hoiightdesirable thirsrobroadcn its compctcncc '."

35. It will thus lx apparent, both front ihc clcx Iünguag of Chapter VI,
rcad with Article 24, and frorii the reIevant Irrrxroir.prripumtoirrs,that the
powefi coitferredupun theCouncil inArtides 36 and 37 can bc invokcd byit

urzfyfor rhrpiiu/losrIV '~ioiri:nilii!liitir~r~~nriotip~uce mirclsec~tritand then
only ina cüsc wherc, in theopinion of the Council, the ~uintiniiiinceof a parti-
cular dispute or situation i.rIikeIy TO enllnngc*rlhat pmce iind xcmily. Thdt
being so, il isaxiomatic that itcannor invoke thosc powersfor aityother pur-
pose rvhatsocvcr.

36. Yet. it is suhmitted, ?hat is precjsely what the Council purportcd ta do -
when it adopted resoIiition276 (1970) and itstwo precursors.raolutions 264
(1969)and 269 (1969). It is clcar frorn the irrnis of ~hwc resolutionsand [he
debates preceding iheiradostion tkat the real purpose of the Churicilin adapt-
ing them was nuurio maintain international peace andsecurity, but to secure

the rerno,vsIof thc South Afriçanauthoritiesfrorn Sou~hWesi Africa in order
to bring about the self-deteminationand independenceof the pcoplcs of thc
Terri toryinpiirsuanczof th,:UnitedNations campaign againsl "coloniaIiçm" 2.
That isequalIy tnre oftthrGcncral AsscmbIywhich, indrawing theatrcntion
of thc Security Couiicil ta its various resoIutions and urging it to "take all
effcctivc mcasiires... 10 crisure the imniediate withdrarval of South Afriwn

autharitiesfrorn Namibia so as to cnablc NAmibia io attain inciepenctenw '",
wu clearly îar lessconcerried with the possihilityof any threat to the peiim
than with enabling "rhc people of the Terrirory to cxc~cisc ihc righi or self-
determination and to achieve indepcndcncc <'',and, to that end,with disçhag-

lUNCIO docs., \'el. XII, p. 9. Thc proptnal *,asadopte4 in Cr~rntnittaIII/Z,
with virtually nodisc~-ciissty,31voie:, tcO(ihid.,rip.15-16).Se alho thesraternent

of thc Unitet1Siatcs rcpresentaiive in ttiis G)rnniiitee(ibip..32) who considered
that-
"... the Chuiicil shoula and inust intcrvcne in an).disputc which thrcaiçned
world peacc, but t11oitsitoirldnui possrrs stirhwu wifh utyard ronlitli.vpuics,
siirccitsconipererrcewoirid tlwn hrriridttIunditnnrcessari&expanded''.(Italics
addcd.)

Sec fur1ber lisurrimars repci1.<ithe second meetingof rfieColnrriiiieeCiCiid..284).
' Vide Chap. XI. Ma.
GArcsolution 2303 {XXIil)+opcriitivcpara. 4. fideal50 rcsolritions2145(XXI),
opcrativc para. 8: 2248(S-V), scction IV, pan, 5; 2375 (XXLI). operative para. 7;
2372 (XXII). opcrativc para. 13; 2403 {XXlII), oprative para. 3: 25t7 (XXIV}.
operaiive piira.4.
' titi resulutiot2t45 (XXI), uperniivc par-a.6. Vidralso rewlutions 2249 (S-V),
prcambtilar para. 5 and sccs. 1aiid VI; 2325 (XXII), ~rearnbularpiiras.2 and 3 and
operative para.6;2377 (XXII), prcainliiiilarpara3and upcrritivcpaws. 5, 10and 13:
2403 (XXIII), operative para:. 1and 4; 2517(XXIV). preambutar para.4 and opeia-
tive Tara. 1.ing its"sreciai and direct responsibilittoxvaidsthe people and the Terriiory
of South West Africa '".
37. 1t viasthcsc purposn: that the Security Council sriught toimplement

wheii itadopted resotution 264 (1969).At theoutset of the debaie rvhichledtu
the adoption of rharrmoIiilion rhe Prcsidentd theCounciI drcw theCouncil's
atrention toa [ettefrotn theSecretary-Cienera12inwhichthefritter transmit14
the tcxt uf General Assernblyresalulion 2403 (XXEII), "drawing particular
attention to operativc paragraphs3 and 4 whichare ofimnrediate coiiccrn to
the Securi:yCounciI 3".I'aragraph3 of the resalutiondreu,the attentionof the
Council io the "serious situaiionwhictihas arisenas u rcsull of ihr:illegal
prcsenceand sciionsof theSou Ih AfricanG~~crnrnent inNarnibia". Paragraph

4 reads as follows:
"Recommends ro the Security Council urgently to take al[ effective
rneawres, in accnrdancewith the relevant provisionsOSthe Charterof the

Uniied Kations, to ensure the immcdiatc withdrawai of South African
authoriticsfrom Narnibia su as criohleAfaniihialo ailriiindependetrce
inarcurdanre withrh~provisionsof'rrsaiutiuns15f4 (X Y)anci2145 (XXIj ."
(Itiilics added.)

During theensuing dcbatc, thepre-occupation of the menibersof the Couiicil
with this objective became obvious. The firstspeaker, the repreçentative of
Algeria, desçribed the "fundamental qucstion confronting us todiiy"as "the
acioptioiof prncficnnieansroaiihiereour of)jectiveswfrichure theut:cessionof
11irNumi!*iun propie ia sowreignry ad rlieiruieperideticeorknt couiitry4."m
Thc rcprcxntütivç uf Pakistan.pointing outthat the General Assembly had no
powers ofcnforccmcnt,stated that itmustturn to theSecurityCouircil totake
rneawres "irinrder rnenohir Numibiu ro atraiin nlippend~ncr'" and hat only

sanctions would "cunvincc South Africa thatthe United Nations hau the will
andthe ciipahility tineet the challetigeto ilscornpetence tu dt:<:ohrriz!Ihc
Territory
Thc rcprcscntativc of thc USSR dcclared that his country's ''oppouilion (O
coloriiafisrirand rncisin" andts "full solidaty with tlie peoplesfighfirig fur
rhririib~rr;rion",wouId"dezernritietheposiiioofrheSoi,ieit'nionin theprc~bfpin
of Namihiil'". Rcferring to a programme of rneasurespropos4 by the USSR
inthe Assembly, he considered tkat its irriplenientation-

". . . muidspced up ihe atiainmen tof iheniait?nilierii liee, in nbjec-
iivrthe /ibcruiion ofhhibia, and crcatcthc conditions in that country
which wouIdenabteits population to settle ifateas it secsfi8". (Ilalics

added.)
The reprexntative ofFinland statcd:

GA rrsolulion 2372 (XXiI), prcainbularpara. 7. Vide alsores<ilutiri2145
(XXI), preambularpura. 9 and opcrativc para. 5: 2248(S-V), prei~nbular paras.
4 and 5; 2325 (XXII),oprraiivcparas. 7and8; 2498(XXIV), prrambular para. 3;
2517 @XIV). preambularpara. 4. See nlsv Chap.XI, Nijrn.
UN doc. 518943 (23 arc. 1968). inSC, OR. Twenry-tliirdYear, Sup. forOc-
toher-Decemher 1368, p. 179.
' UN drrc.S/PV. t4G4 (20Mar. 1969), pp. 7-10.
' Ihid., fi11-12.
lirid., pp. 54-55.
Ibid.,fi56.
UN dm. SiPV. 1465(20 Mar. 19691p ,. 12.
!hiri p.22. -'No progrcss whatsuevcrhas heen made in United Nations efforts to
Iielpthepeupic ofhrnibin tarrcki~ves~lj~de~ermi~wriolnd itrdepenrience.
The resolufionspassed ty Ihe GeneraI Assernblyin thepast two and a hatf
years since thc tcrrniniitianthe mandate have hd no practicalefiec...
theSrcurify Cornci/shnu1d now rnke rrpthesrarchforprncrirrilnndcfcctirc
inconsby whiçh the Un ttù Nations cntlfddischargeils respnnsjiliiifors
Natnibin n~idifpeople '."(Itaiicadded.)
In rcsttifinthepositionof tiiGovernment, the United Kingdom rcpresenrative
reiteratedan carlierstatemrntmacle in the General Assembly where he had
said:

". . letmestate agaiiiplainlythatoitr inotirrouvnini,ourdeterminalion
niirsbe zoset thepruplt.ofSouth West Ajrica ficefrcc toadvancc to thc
dcstiny of thcir vwn C~LCH n fulf se&defern!ilrcili*". (Italicadded.)

Therepresentative of theUnited ArabRepublic (anon-meniberof the Coiincil,
participatingaihisown requist)assertcdthatSouth Africa'scontinucd prcscncc
in andadministrationof Soiith Wcst Africa wrrs-

". ..an encroachment on the jurisdiction of thc United Nations and
defiancc of itai~thority[and ] n impedimentin the way of fhejreeriornof
thepeople... .
Coneqtiently, Ihe inimediate withdraival of South Africa froni rhe
Territory komcs thcniost fundamenta1 demand. if wetr-anthepeople of
:%mibiu ta befiee and jndepeltden3." (ItaIiçs added.)

The representative of Piiraguay, a CO-sponsor of the draft resolution,
decIared:
"We must make iiw ;cfa11the legal instrumenrs avaihble ta us and
hring hem al1 O har in ordcr tuenszrrr.th# the ~Vcimibiunpeopre wilf
efictirely rrndsecure/? be ubie tocxercisc their irialicnnbk rigfa se&

dcterminatiori,fiiti indep?ndenund sorerei~fily...
Convinced that everysreptakenin thc righi directio... willserw cua.
posifi~ecanrriburiunruwmis hastcningrhchour ofi%rnihia'sindependence,.
my delegati hoasjoined ... iii submitting... the draft resolutionWe
wrlirru ctrnrru ~hruid ofrhe peopfeof lVamibia inrAeirjusr andiegilimate
aspirafifo onfui/fii&pcndet~c.eoriduniimitersov~reign~ '."
In the view of the representitiueofChina, with the adoption of GeneraIAs-

semblyresolution 2145 @XI) and Sccurity CounciI rcsoIution746(1968)-
". . . reafirmingthe inaficnablerightof the people and the Territory of
South West AMca tnfrvedom andindcpendencc ... ihe admiriistratioof
Narnibiii carni: under the dixct resp-jnsibilitof the United Nations
[and it]isincumbent, thzrefore,uponthe Utiited Nations tn dischor fie

respnnsihifi ~hussssi/inienrsuch amanncras turirnbierkepetipItrdike
Trrritury tuexercise the ridrof selfldcrerniirio~irnd toachieveindepw-
dence as suon m possibk 5".Thestaternents oftherepresentatives of rhe United States [Spain and Colom-
hia alsn indicatcthat the purposc of the drüft rcsolution was Ihc atlainmcni

of freedornaiidindependencc by the people of Nainibiaand theeradicat ioiiof
"coloniaiisrn" rathcr than themainrenance or in[trn aonalpeaceand seciirty.
'I'hesatne purpose is nlso apparentfrom thc debstcs prcccding [ticadoption
of Scç~~ritCy ouncil resolutions269(1969) ' and 276 (1970)
38. Moreovcr,ihc gcncraIconviction of the Council in [hisconnection is
reflectedin the ternisaf therelevantresolutions ivhich itfinaIlyadoptcd. Tt has
ülrcady bccn dcrnuns~riitcd hdt theseresoIiilionswerebasedsquarelyupon tlie

"decision" of theGencrat Assemblyin paragraph 4of its rcsoIution2145 (XX[)
to terniinatethe Mandatefor South West Africa and to plaw the Terriiory
undcr th(: dirccl rcsponsibilityof thc United Nalions, aridthai the meilsures
subsequeiitlyadoptedhythe Council were takenin pursuancc of that dcçision
andin or-Acr io jmpIementit ! As wiIlbeshown in Chapter X 1,irfia,the pur-
pow undcrly~ng thc dccision of thc Asscnibly was Io sccure al ail custs 1hc
spedy indeliendence and self-determinatirin of the poples of South West

Africa as 2 honiogeneous wholc. The ternis or the resolutions oF the Securiry
Council reveal a like purpose.
Thi~sresolution264(1969) imftirmed"the inalienable right of the pcople of
h-arnibia iofreedom and independence" in accordance with General Assentbly
rcsolution15 14 (XV) and alw rcaffirmcd"itsspccial rcsponsibility toivardthe
people and tlie territoryof Namibia "'. In resolution 269 (1969) thc Council
decidcd rhat rhe "continucd occupalion" of tfie Territory by South Africa

mnstituted "a denial of ihe poIitica1sovereigno tfythc pcoplc of Namibia Y",
rwogrii/ed "the Iegitimacy of ihe struggIeof the peopIe of Nrimibiaagainst
the illegalprese-encef thc South African aiirhorities in the territory'"",and
requested al1 States to "increase ieheirmoral andmatcrial assis~anw: to the
people of Narnibia in their struggleagainst foreign occupation "". And in
rcsolutioii376 (1970) theCouncil agüin rcafimed "the inaIienableright of the
people of Namibia to freedoni and independence recognizcd in Gcncral As-

semblyrcsoluticin 1514 mV) of 14Deçernber1960 "". Again tliemphasis ison

UN doc. SjPV. 1465 (20 Mar. 1969). p. 7.
ibid.p. 52.
Ibid.pp. 58-60,
* Vid~.e.g.,the siatementsor the reprcsrntaiivesorColornbia. UN doc. S!'PY.
1492(30July 19693,pp. 7, 8-10, 12: AIgcria.UN dac. SiTV. 1493(4 Aug. 1969,
pp, 7. 8-14]:Pakisian, ihirl..p;lndia. anon-meniber of theCouncil,ibid.,pp.33,
34-35 ;hc USSR. UN doc.S;PV. 1494(6 Aug. 1961)).pp. I3,21:Hungary, UN doc.
SIPV. 1495(8 Aug. 1969). pp. 4-5;Paraguay. ihld.. pp. 8-10; China, ibid., pp. 13-15.
F(I~cxamplcs ridethcstaternentsofthc reprcscntativcof Syria,UN duc. SiPV.
1528(29 Jan. 1970).pp. 22, 26:SicrraLconc. ibid.pp. 31 and 33; the CSSR, ibid..
pp.52, S?-55:P(ilrinclUN duc. SjPV. 1529 (30 Jan. 1970},pp.7-10. 12-13, 14-15;
Çolornbia, itid.p. 27: Zarribia,hid.,p.47: India,a lion-rnernber, ihidpp.33-35,
41 :Pakisian, also anon-meinber, ibid.,p.66.
ltmay bbnotcd thattIie sainistrue ofthe dcbatc which led ioiIieadoption of
rzsolutions 283 and 284 (1970). Vide UN doc. S/PV. 1550 {29 July 1970).pp. 41
tColonibia); 46, 47 (Syria); 51, 5(Zan~bia): 57,SI-62, 66 (USSR); 66 (Pololantl).
V'idt paras. 2-10,rlipuu.
Prearnbiilarpara.4.

' 0pcr:itivcpara. 3.
'OOperativc para. 4.

" Opei-elivcpara. 8.
" Prcirmbrilarpara. 1. WRITTEN STATEMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA 5I5

freedonr,independence andsclf-dctcrminiltion rather thsnonthemainrenançe
ofiiiternational pcücc and sxurity.
39, On the other l-iand,there were some membersof ihe Council who did
mainrainthal rhe situationinSoitth WCSIAfrica conslituied a threar tointer-
national pcücc and sccurity. Aiid in documcntS,'9Q90 dated 14 March 1969 l,
addressed to the PI-esideniot'lfSeçurity CoünciI, 46 membrrStales in rrquest-

ingan iirgmi tiieetingof th*Cuuncil, slutcd,inFeraliti:
"In spite of the dcçisions of ihe General Assenibly and ~he Securily

Council, ihcGovcrninent of South .I\fricücontinues to maintaini tsoccu-
pation of the territory uf Namibia, coiisrilurirrrRrnw lhrrrir ro iriter-
ticrioiicprucr criisec~~i.it..(taliçsaddcd.)

In thedcbatcslcading ro rh~adoption ofrcsolutions264i1969),269(1969)and
276 f1970) various reaqons wert adva~iced for the contention lhat the situation
in South Wcst Africa constituted a threa to internationalpcacc and sc~urity.
Theserasons Xere:

(i)South Africü's "iilcgalFxcupation" of an internationalterritoryundcrihc
diiect responsihilityof ~heUnited Nations ';
(iiS)outh Africa's "systeniatic destruction of the uni& of the Narnibian
people and of the iintegritof itstel-ritnr3";
(iii) South ASrica's raciaIpolicies and its "violation" of hhurriarnights4; and

(iv) So~tlhAfrica's"defiance"of rcsolutions or itiGerieral Assembly and the
SccitrityCoiincil5.
FIotever. despite these ex~iressions of opinion hy ccrtain niernhers of the

€ciuncil, theterrnsof iI-iresnlutionscvcntually adopted by the Councilcertain-
ly do not indicatc that the Couiicil. qtin Co~incil,considercd thc situulion in
South West Africa to be a rhreat to international pcacc and security orIikety
roendanger thar peace and jccurity. On the contwry. and sjgnifjcanilyinvicw
of the opinions of certain of itsmembers, it studiouslyrefraincdfrom saying

SC, OR, Tweniy-Tourrh Year, Sup. fvr January-Marcli 1969, pp. 126-127,
"ide sraternents made by thc rcprcsçotii~irer?TAlgeria,IJN OC. SjPV. 1464
(20Mar. 1969). p.12;Zambi;;, iIiid.p. 21 andUN duc.SjPV. 1497(12 Aug. 196Y),
p. 7: Nepal,LN dot. SjPV. 1454(20 Mar. 1969).pp. 43-45andUN doc. S!PV. 1493
f4 Aug. 19693,pp. 13-15and 17, andrhcUnited ArabRepublic. not a membcrof the
Council, UX doc. SlPV, 146: (20Mar. 1969),p. 47.Colornt>ia.whilc notgving ~u

faras to averthai South Africia'occupation of theTcrritoryçonstitutcda threut10
the pcacc, ncvcrthclcssconsidered thatit was an elernent wliich "disturbrù" the
peacr:and hciph tcncd"iniern:itioiial tension". UN drtç. S/PV. 1465(20 Mar. I969),
p. 61 and I;S tloç.S/PV. 1492(30 July 1969). p. 12.
Vide si ale nierhy iltc 1-cpresentativesnF AlgeriaUY doc. S/PV. 1464 <20
Mar. 1969). p. 12; atidIiidia.anon-mernhtr of the Council, UN doc. S/PV. 1493
(4 Aug. 19691,p. 33.
Vide staterncntsby the represeiitativcof Zambia. UW doç. S/PV.-146 (40
Mar. 1969),p. 27 and LIN doc. S/PV. 1497 {12Aug. 19691,p. 6; Senepl. LN doc.
S:'PV.14(~C2I) Mar. 1969)P ,IM.36tu 3R-40und Nepal. ibib.. p42. According tothe
reprewntativz of Pakistan,'tltcsitiiutionlield "rlie Iatcnt daiiger racialwar".
UN doç. S,!PV. 1464 (20 Mar. 1969), pp.54-55.
' Yidr siaien:ents by therepresentalivesof Jhe USSR. UN duc. S!PV. 1578
(29 Jan. 1970), p. 46and foui.non-meinbers of the Criuncil-~ht United Aral-iRe-
public. UN dos. S(PV. 1465 (20Mar. IYGQ) ,.42: India, UN doc. SIPV. 1529
(30 Jan. 1970). p.38; PirZiistaibid.,pp. 48-50and 51: and Turkcy. whose reprt-
sentaiive~pcikeasPresident oithc Lniird Nat ionsCouncil for"Nrrrnibia",UN doc.
S!PV. 1528(29 Jan. 19701,Pr-. 11and 12.this. IcoritineitseIfiosayingtht itwas rnindfulof "rke grove rntiscqirencof
South Africa's conrinued occupation of Narnibia'" ; thai that occiipation
constjtuted"ujiciggr~ssiveiicruachnietton thenülharifyof rlreGnited iV'nrioiq
n viuhriorrr$the rcrriroriuintegriralidn detria!ofthe poiiricusrivcrcip- if
the pcopk of :\'mnihi'"; thnt that occupation "iridcfiance ofthe relevant
United Nations resolutionsand of the Lnited Nations Charter hasgrave torr-
scqrrcncefur theriglits andIdizfereofthepeopie oj'fYumihit~s":and that "trie

defiant attitudeof the Government of South Africci lowards ihe Council's
d~isions itnderrninrthe uurhorifyofthe Ciniied iVotio"1s lneswncit:thcn,the
CounciI assertcd thatSouth Africs'r presenceinSouth West Africa had grave
ccrnsequencesfor thepeople ofSouthWestATricaandundcrrnind theauthorily
of the United Kations. These assertionsmay or may not be consistent tvitha
findingor ùctcrrninatiunthatthe situationin SouthWest Africais one which is
"likelyto endanger internationalpeaceand security"but thcy arenot of thern-
selvesindicative of rhe making of sucha determination. Clarly thc Council
made no Express determination. Whether itcan be said to have made a tncit
determination io thisefrect is a conclusionto lxdrawn frnrn the facts and

circumsta:~cesA. nd these,it issubmitted,frril negative any suchmnclusion.
40. IR i:hefint pIace. the facllhatthe CounciI refuscdIO apply mcasurcs
under ChirpterVn of thc Charter,despite the pressurebrought tokar on ithy
ccrtüinof itsmembers j,lads to theinferencethat itdidiwt considerthat there
existed any threatto the peam, b~ach of the pcaccor act ofaggrcssion.
Iniht:s-cond placc,had the Coiinci[consideredthatthesituation inquestion
was one sven iikeIy loeffda~igrrinlemalional pcacc and sccurity,itmay be
assumedfhat in thecircurnstanoesir would have given a clearer indicationof
this than11did inits rdcvant rcsolutionAs thedebales show, itwas ccrtainly
iirgedintlisdirectionbycertain ofitsmembers. But ideIibcratdyavoided and
siopped short ofanyassertionro this effecand, instead,employed watercd-

dom phrascs such as-'grave consquenees for the rights and interestsof the
people of Nanlibia" and"agressive ençroiichmentun thc authority of the
ünitcd Nations". Nor can itbe saidihat thesituation inquestio posed such
an obvioitsor noturious thrcit to international peace as, in the opinion of
thecou ni: no],even to requireany conscivus dctcmination. Indeed, itwilI
appear friim the fxtssei out in Chapter XI, infrn.tliasuch a thrcat is.asa
matter of observabk fact, non-exisrent. Mormver, as will now be shown,
opinions in the CounciI weredivided on thc rnattcr,
Inthetiird place a.nalys oisthe debatesin the Councilshows thaiof the 15
meinbers'' of thc Council ar consritiited when it discussed resolutions'64
(1969) and 269 (1469> on9)y5 (AIgcriitZmbia, Nepal, Scncgal and Pakistan'1

indicatedthat in their opiniotheinternationai peacewasendangercd or likely
tobe cnd-mgcrcd.And nf the membersuf the Councia ls conslituted \&en it
consideret1remlution 276 (1970) and resolutions 283 and 284 (19701, only 4
(Zambia, the USSR, Nepal and Burüiidi)gave any such indication" Most

ResoIiition254 (1969),prearnbulp arra. 5. (Italadded.)
a Resoliition 269 (196nperativepxra. 3. [lfaliadded.)
ResoIiliion276 (19701operative para.4.(Italics rtdded.)
'IbM, operaiive para3.{Itali added.)
Vide paras. 16-20,supra.
'Excludingnon-membcrs who participatcdin thc dcbatc at thsown rcqucst.
'Thouphpossibly 6 il Columbiabe includcd-vide lootnotc 6 onp. 514,supra.
A staicnient by tlie representaofSyria rnaypossiblybe s<iconstrucdhow-
ever,UN doc. SIPV.1528(29 Jan.19701,p. 21There isnlsoan oblique rcferenctu
thequestion by the rcprescntatirieSierraLeone,ibid.,p. 32. WRI~EN STATEMEKT OF SOUTH AFRICA 519

on any dispute wliich itllasconsidered unless both parties concerned in
thisdispute are hcard . .. the SrcityjCouncil cannot, withou t a breach of
the Charter, take a dct,ision.. .unless ithears both parties direcilycon-
ccrncd in thc disputc'."

The fundamentalnature of ihcsethrce rcqiiircmcnts ofnarirrajlusticeneed nnt
be ernphasired furtlier.
44. Ir is submiited thar in su Far as the qucsiion of South West Africa is
concerried,the Security Louncil hüs consistentlyviolatedal[ hese requirenicnrs.
As wilt appcar in Chaptcr XI, iifir, it made noartempt tn ascrrtüin thc truth of
rhe factswhich the Snuth Afrimn Govcrnmcni frum lime to tirnepiesentedto
the United Nations ingene~d and to theSecurity CounciI in particiilar.A Ietier

from the South AfricanMinisterfor Foreign Affairs '.in response to resolution
269 (IY6Y), waseithei' coniplctdy ignorcd or siniplyd~smisscd-in the wordsof
the rcprcscntativc of Zomliia-as "a vuIuine of distortions and fatlacics"
containi~ig"the wildest or .*iId distortions3".The representariveof Poland
saw itas an attempt "to rlilutcthcncmtivc answcr of South Africa ina tnaixof
Icgiiarguments +", whilc th: represeiitative of Syria saiof it:

"The aiihoritiesof South Africa delibcratcly exalated their defianceof
thc Unitcd Nations IO nerv lieighfsof'cynicisniby trying tuprove, in their
Ietter. .. that the NiirtiibiapcopIe wcre reaping the benefits of rheir
henevnlent presenm, rcïsons usually sustaincd onIy by the iiioially batik-
rupt,blindcd by thc arLnoganceof epherneral power "."

At no time was itevcii.sugi:eçted [haithe facts seoril in rhelettersho~tldbe
inipariiallyappraised in order to e~tablishwhetheror noi ihcy Neri: trtie.
Thai a large pari of thç relevantdiscumions in theCouneil was anything but
dispassionate is amply demrinstrated by the very language employed hymany
of its rnerribers.Gvena curscry readingof therecords of the debatfi reveals thai
thosc di5cussions tccmed with refrr'ence u South Afriça and her policies in

South West Afriw in term:: such as "inhuman racist régime","rape of Na-
mibia", "inhurnan atroçi til?s""intalerahle oppression", "deniented rascisi
réginie","coloniiilist and racistpolicy", "sharncfucrinie", "un bridledterror".
"inilitaristic vomciiy", "maliciousintentions", ''base of aggression","racial
ragc"-and so on nd nau*sr(mz.
Eventhe fundamentalriilc ofnirdin/!a.nt~i parfaiîi wignored tiy thCouncil.
Ii did nor ui any lime invite South Africa to participate in the disciissions
precedin tge adoption of itrelevaniresoliitions notwithstanding that in tcrms
nfArticle 32 of rhet'hartcr It wüs boirnd to do so " On the othei-hand, it

allowed the Presideni for the time being of the "lliiited Narions Coiincil for
Namibia" to participa aitengih in a11ifs discirssio'.
45. 'I'heconclusion, thcn. isthaf sincc an üfirrnütivc determination by thc
SecurityCoi~ncilin ternis ot'Article 34 of thc Charter isa condition precedent
lo anyfurlher action which it niastake tinder Article 36ur 37-the only two
Articlcs itndcr which it coiilhcrc havc actcd-and sincc tlie Council made no
-. -

lSC. OR, F-irstYcür. Firi! Seri~<,No. 2, 32nd Meeting, 15 Apr. 1946,P. 124.
: Vide Annex C ioChap. XI, iizfru.
UX doç.S/PV. 1527(18Izn. 1970). pp. 31and 12.
UN doc. S!PY. 1529(30 Jaii.1970). p. II.
U': doc. SjPV. I528(79 Jan.19701 p,. 21.
VideChap. 117. sec.F. supra.
VidrSlPV. 1465(20 Mar. 1B69), pp. 41-46:SlPV. 1492t3UJi11y 1969).pp.6-13;
and S:PV. 1528 (29Jan. I970) ,p.8110-th. WRITTES STATEMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA 52 1

whcrc ihc Council is, foreitamplc,authorizcd to make a definitive deternii-
nation, it inay presurnably (perhaps by way of warning) do someihing Iess,
such as express its opinion -3rdcclarc its attiiudc oamatter '. Inthe former
case itmay, itztcalfa,"dçcirie"or "determine"or "declare" something;in the
latteritiiia"consider" or "iesard" or "deem" something.Thc choicc ufwords

wiIlusuallyindicate the iritention of thc Cuuncil.
On the otherhand, the la~tguageniay indicatethat theCoiincil is purporting
iodo stirnethingmorethan it isauthorizcd by the Charterto do, Thc Council
rnay, forcxampk, "demand" or"cal1upon"a Statcto take certain ineasLIres
in a casewhere the relevan protisions ofthe Charterauihorie ifnierelyIO
'-rccommend" the masure:. Hcrc the lringuage,taken by itself, purports to
rnjoin something but bccauje of the provisions or the Charter tlie apparent
injunction cannot amnunr luinore thana recominendation '.As oneauthor has

obscrvcd, wherethe aurhorizcdpowcris one OF recommendation, that power
cannot "k transmutedinto a pwer of binding docision Iiya merechoice of
phraseology '-'.and the use ufperemptory langoage wu.ilIsually be found to
rcpresentan atternpt on the partof the Culincilto compensatcfor an absence
ofpowcr.Inthis cze the Iartguageoobscuresrathcrthan cIorifiesthe legaleffect
of the resnlurion.
In ihc Iighiof these conddcrations, the juridicatnatureand Icgd efl'wtsof
thevarious partsof Swurity cl:r>uncirlesotuticin 276(1970)rnnow beanaiyçed.
48. The preamble to rcwIution 276 (1970) consistsofa seriesofreaffirma-

tions.Th areonlystatemt-ntsc ,s~n;iaIlyexplanatory innaturc w,hich&fine
the attitude of theCoiincil and cnnstitute the ostensiblejustifimtion for the
operative partsaf the resvl~itionswhicIiToIIow.They inay serveto clarifythe
intcniions ofthe Council as cxpresseù in the operativepariigraphs andso be
employed as an aid in inter:nretatinn,but being mcrc statemens thcy neither
establishnor purport to eslblish any Iegalobligations.
49. Parügraph 1 of the orerativepartof thc resoIution, in whichthe Coun-
cil- -

"Srrong/y cottdeiiinthe 1-efusalof theGovcrnment of South Africa (O
cornply with CieneralAjsembly mr! Security <.'#unci1resolutionspenajn-
ing lo Namibia"

iclcarly nomvrc than, and does not purport tobe more than,a nlcrc coridem-
natory statement---a declarz:fionof attitude on the part of the Council. As
such, irimpo$esno legal obligations.
In opcrativcparligraphs 2. 3 and4, the Council:

"2. Decfar~sfhat thecontinucdprcscnçc of(lieSouth Africanauthari-
tics in Namibia isilkgal and that consequcntIy al1 actstakcn by tlie
Governrncntof Soutt~ tiTricon behalf ofor conccrnin Nganiibia after
iheterminatinnof rhc niandatç arc ilkgaland invalid;

3. Decinrc.s/urthethirtthedzfiant attitudeof the Govcrnmcnt ofSouth
--
As Hlainç Sluïn. F..in 'The Bindiirg Forcc of a 'Recomrncndaticln'of the
Gentml As.irmh yof the United Nltions", R.Y.H.I.L., Vol. XXV (1948}, p.3.
puts ir: "Eveii whera body niay becornFetentto rriîkeabinding dwision itrnay
voluntarily liniit action tromelhiop less."
It mighthowever. amouni tusornethini:tes.<chanrccommeiidation. 'I'hiisthe
purported cxerciseofa noncuistent power LO issuean injunctionrnight be corn-
pfctelyi~itrvir~xthe Colincil, and thetefinvalid -cvcn if tlie Council, itso
wished, might have made a validrecoinmendation on thesame subject.
IIalderman,J. W., The UnitedArstiuonsiid thRaie uuJLuwCI966)p,.87.572 NAMIK~A (wu-rn W~ST AFRICA)

Afric:atowards the Council's decisions undcrniinesthe authority of the
Cnited Nations;
4. Cu~isidcirtshaithecontinucd occupaiion or Ilarnibiahyrhe Ciovern-

nieni:of SoiithALrica in defiance of the relevant Unilcd Nations resolu-
tions and of the Unitcd Nations Charter tiasgraveconsequeiices for the
rightsand intcrestsof the people of Yümibia."
The expi-&on "declares" in operativeparagraphs2 and 3 appars luhave nu

other meaiiing [han "decidcs" 'and thc wholc (enor of tlie languageof thesc
two paragrüphs indicites ttiathey are intendedto be bindingdccisions.They
arc csxnt iallyin thc nature of definitive "findings'- o"dcterniinations" on
the part of ihe Council. Inthe firstof thcsc two paragraphs the Couiicil has
purported to make a legal ftnding to theeiYectthat Solith Africa's presence in
Sourh West Africa is illegal anddcwid of legal uinsequence: in the wcoiid it
has purpsrted 10 niake a findingor fact.
Operative parag~aph4 may tyuisoIrt:intendedasa binding decision-it repre-

scnis:eiihera legal or s factual fmding. On the other hand. hitving rcgard to
tlie cxprcssion "cnnsjders",this paragraph miiy pertiaps beintended only as a
non-definitivccxprcssiori ofopinion or dedaration of altirude.
Again, itnia? be that al1 three or itiese paragraphsiircintcndcd to lxnut
findingsor the Council itself, but nicrcly doclarafionsof attitudemade by the
Council in pursuanccuf purporteddefinitivefindingsof theGeneraI Assembly '.
Or lastly, tlieyinüy bc intended 10 rcpresentrecommendationsaddrcsscd to
South Africa-ihough the languiigc uxd rcnders thisalternativemost unlikcly.

II theparsgraphs were intended to be no more rhan dedarations of attitude
or non-definitiveexpressionsof opinion they can have no Icgal ctfectssince,
Icgally, ~uch declarations or expressions iircrnerc neuiral statements wliich
more prtiperlybclongin ihc preatsimbltehan in theaperarivc part of ihe resolu-
riw. Ceitainly, they wouId not impose legxl obiigations.
If, on rheolher hand. they were intcndcd by the Council to be definitiveand
hindingdetcrminations of law arid fact,as appears likely,they do not achieve
ihcirobjcct.Inthe firstplace.although afinding ordeterminationofihc Cuuncil

may produce legal etfects in Ihsensethat it rnizin u proper case createthe
conditinii precedciitfor furthcraction by the Council(tg., whtre the Cotincil
dctcrmineç theexistenceofa thrcatto the Face in ternis oTArticlc39). nwcr-
theless,alonc and of itself the findinigposes no IcgülobIigatioiis. Foi-obliga-
Lionsto Row same furthcr aüiof rhe Council isiiecessary(c.g.,an injiinction
to Statcs,based oirthefinding, to takcmcasuresin tetrnsof Articlc 41).In the
second place,sinw in the prtsrni casethe Councilcould only have acted uiider
Chapter VI of the Chartcr,and sincc Ai,ticle 34 isthe only Articleof tbat
Chaptcr which authori7esthe CounciI to make a findingor deterniination,it

coutd only have done this in conformity with thc pruvisiorisof tliar Article.
And that Article authorizcs only onc kind of deterniination-tha~ the con-
tinuance of a dispute or situation is likelyto endanger the niaintcnanccor

!1t isioteobserved (liai SecuriryCouncil rcsolution264 (1196 opcratirrcpara-
graph 2, ihCoünc~l ". .Cunsid~rs that thccontinucd presence ofSciiith Airicin
Namihia isillegaI. ."TIiis appearto bcan cxprcssionofcipinioii aopposed to rhe
definiiivt finding, introduceby the word rlpclur~.~inopcrritiveparagraph 2 of
resoluticin276 (1970).
VirfEc,g.. CicnçruAssembly res~ilutions145 (XXI),<ivrati\.e para.1; 2372
{XXII), operiirivparas. 7 and ;and 2403 (XXIII). opcraiibe para. 3. thcsepara-
graphs the Assernbly purports itrdeclnreSoiithAfriça's presence inSouth West
Afriçaillçgul.as a remnimendation and sinceit cannot and ùoes not purpart to be nrure
tlrara recc>mrnendaiiu t,will hcrcbc treatedas arecommendarion.
Assumirigthen that borh paragraphs5 and 7 of theresotiiticiin questiotl
crinstj~utere~-omniendationsw ,hat is theirjuridicanature and what arc thcir
legal cffcc:~?A recommendation is a forrn ofadviceor suggestion1 and its

cssentiaicnariicteristicaretliatit must bc addrcsxd to someperson or body
and that il Ieavetothat pcrson or body a choice of action.By itsvery nature
it cannot of itsclf imposeupon thoseto whom it is addressed an obligation Io
hhave incvnformity witIi il2.AsJudgc Winiarskihas stated inthe context of
the Charter:

"Kt.xommendations are never binding and thc United Nations must
in al1itsaçtiviriescver have in view that its means ofaction are thus
Iirnited....
It i3dificuit to see by what pruccss d reasoning recommendations
couId bt:held to bc binding on Stateswhich havenot acceptecithem. It
isdiffcült tosee how itcan be conceivedthal a reçorniirendationispar-
tially bindin...

A recommendationtan have binding force and rhus iinpasc Icgal obligations,
only fhrorgh the owration of sonie rule of Iaw, as,for example, whcre thc
addresse tiindshiinselfinadvance Io carry out the recornmenàations '.Under
the ChartCr, a recomnicndation of the Security CnunciIcan only assume a

bindingcharactcr if a provision of the Charter operates ta investitwith that
character.
53. The conchisions rcaçhcd thus farindicatetkat of aIIthe parts ofrmlu-
tion 276(1970)onIy owrazive paragraph 5sand7 may impose IeçaI vbiigations
upon States" and difollows thai only those two paragraphs may have tegal
consequen2mfor States. The nature and extent of those consequencm will
now be cnnsidered.

54. The IegaIconsequcnccs of opcrativc paragraph 5of resoIution276 (1970)

Acçording Io JvdgcBustamantein his dissentiopinion in Certain Expenserd
rheL;lriteNutions,Adi,isorOpinion,i.C'.J. Reports I%2. p. 306:

"Thc word reccirnrnçndati«nimplies suggestion,advice. advisatiüsefulncss,
but not an orderoran imperaiivemandatc. togically, suggetion or advice
cannoi normallybe transforinedinto anr~biigaticin.''
Ihid, p.250 (dissentingopinion of JudgeMoreno Quintana); Kclsen,op. tir..
pp. 195-196:Dahm, G.,Yfilkerrerh(I958) V,ol. 1p.26;Pushrnin,E. A., "On rhe
Powcrs Mcdiation Activiticsof theUnited Nations Security Counçil in Pcaceful
ScttlcmcntoflnrernarionaDisputes" (inKiirsianwith ~n~lisSurnrnary), Sovetskti
E~kenudnik Maihit~nurocinopo Ptdva (Soviet Year-Book of International Law)
(USSR) (1966-19671, p. 251; Coifu chonne!, Prefitninary Otrjrcfion~aid~inent,
1.C.J.Repurls 1947-1948.pp. 31-32{jointseparateopinion tifJridgesBnsdevaril,
Alvarez. Wii~iarskZoricic,dc Yisscher, Badawiand Krylov) and pp.33-34 (dis-
senting opiiiiol Judge Daxncr).
1lisseni:ingopinion, Cerrarn ExpensO! theUniredMations, Advisory Opinion.
I.C.J. K~pcrts 1962, pp. 233-234.
' Yi& Inierprc~faliufArtirk 3. Paragraph2,ofthe Treargufluusann~,Advisos
Opiiiioa192.5Y.C.'.I.JSerips8,No. i2,p.27.
Untessparas.2,a3nd 4 of theresoIutiun,orsunieofiherslarcto bcregarded as WITTE Y SATEMENT OF SOCTH AFItICA 525

ivildepcnd upon whetherfhat paragraph isin itscssentialnature an irnpcrative
injunction or nnty a rec~rr~mendatioi Ais alreadp stated, itmay have been
intcndcd by ihe Councjl to bc either. However, sinceit could only havc bcen

adoptedby theCoiincilundr:rChapter VIof thcCharter and, more specificaIIy,
undertheprovisionc ofAriiciie36 or 37' and sinm according to the wording of
thox Articles the C'ouncilisempowered ta "recornmcnd" and not to "cnjoin",
the question to bc dccided is whetherthere is any provision of the Charter
which m he said to invest suçh recotnniendations wilh bjnding force. The
only provisicirifihich might appear 10 do so is Articlc 25 rvhich provides as
follows:

"The .Mcmbcrsof tht: United Nations agree to accept and ciirryout thc
decisions of theSccurit:!Council in accordanccwitli the presentCharter."

The obligation itnposed itthis Article is"a specificationof the generalohli-
gation of thc hletribersstiptilatcdin Article2, paragraph5: togivc the United
Nations every assistance in .inyaction ittakcs in accordancewith the prcsent
Charter 2". 1tisgenerallyagreedthat tlie obligation extends only ta ciecisions
which arc taken inaccordancc with the Charter '.
55. l'he pertinent question iswhethcr the word "decisions"in ArticIe25
mcans u//decis~onsof thc (:ounciI in the wide sense or that term (and thus

including rccommcndiitions) or whcthcr itmeam only suchdccisivnvus the
provisions ofihe Charteruiider which they are takenniay be said tocharac-
terizcas obIigalory4. Itissuhrniticd ihaithe orilypossible inierpretation isthe
semnd one.
In [he first placetheword "recomrnend" which is the wordused in Articlc
36, paragraph 1, and in ArticIc 37, paragraph2, connotes in irs ordinas.
rneaninga form ofadvice oi suggestion,whjch, as already po~ntcdout 5,isnot
binding upontliose towhorrt iris addressed.

In thesecond place.itwa!. msdc clcarui rhe SailFrancisco Conferencethai
remmmendations undcr CfiiipterVI of the Charier were to havc no binding
force,as the following exiractfrom the records of rhat Conferenceindiates:

"The WIegate of Belçiurn requesteda more preciseanswcr to his pre-
viously pvsed question as to whether the terrn 'recoinniend'('recom-
mander')in Chapier Vill. soction A [corresponding to the presenrChapter
Vu, entniledoliiigaioti,forStates,parties tua dispute, or whetherirnrecint
orriy ~hdrthe Ckurrcif $:os aJkring c~dvirert.hkh niight or ?ni& not be
ncrcpr~d.
1-hc Dclcgatc of tlieIJnitedStates cxprcssed agrccmcnt wiih the views
of the Uelegate ofthe I.initedKingdom. and said Iiehad iniendedro ~iiakii
ilrieur zhoi in.rcrfiv~clno cunpit/.vionor ~aforcri~~niWQ.~envisngcd. ...

is hadetoarheessentialcharacicristicof ucreçciniineridation (vide para. 49, ~iipra).
Vide narx. 33. +unru.
' et se n,.ci;.,p.97.
Ihid. o. 95:Goodriçh anJ Harribro.m. rit..ri.208: Certain Expeiisesofthe
Utlif~d iün.~,'~dvi~oOpirikii, C.J.~riovrs iG61p ,.304 (disscntinopin iAn<if

1967 Its Lcgal 'laturc arid Iiriplrcations", Isi.irwRei'kw.iVol. 4,hl{>2.(Apr.
1969).pp. 229-24i at pp.232233.
Kejscn, Turexample. sratethat theword -'decisions"in Ariicle25is arnbigucitrs
und çcinsidzrsei~hrrinicrpretatiopossible (uprit., pp293 and 444 er scq.).
' Vide para. 52,slipru. l'he Dclcgate OFBeIgium stated thatsince t now was clearlyun&r.stood

thata reconimendatiorimadeby the Council under section A of Chaptcr
VI11did no1possessobligatory effecthe wished to withdnw tlie Helçian
ameridment '."(Italicsadded.)

The signifrcünm of thisexcerpt from the records of the Confei-ence inay be
deduced Srom rhe stalernent made by four Membersof his Coiirtin regard to
a conipürabIe encerptfrom thosc rccordq relatinç to Article 4of thc Charter.
They said, with refcrence to the pracii~u:cilraorting to trcrsuiix prépirt~tt>;res
in the inti:rpretat~oof treaties:

". . itmust be admittedthai if everthere isa case in which this practice
isjustifieitis wlien those rvhoncgotiated thc trcatyhavc cmbudicd in an

interpretativcrcsolutionor some siinilai provisiontheirpreciseintentions
regarding the rneaning attached by thern io a parriciia laticleor the
treaiy'".

55. Moreover,il appears both frorn the jjuisprudencc: of thc Court and
from the vicws of thepubliciststo begeneralIyaccepted tliatiecommendations
under<:h;ipter VIhave nahinding lega:fIrcc.As one cornrnen:nrat harçdeclared:

'-...itwould sccrn evident that decisions of Ihe Security Cnuncil under
this.4rticle (251do iiot includerccornnicndati roansc by the Security
Couricil iinder Chaptcr VI. as, forexample, iecommendations of appro-

priateproceduresor methods ofadjiistmentundcr Arlicle 36 (1) orrecom-
rnewfationçor terrriofscli~cmcnt under Arricle 37(2). . .Tt would xcni
rcasonable, then,to lirnit'decision'iinderArticle25 to those decisions hy
the LecurityCouncil which by the termsof the articlesunder which they
are 1:ikencreateobligaiions for Memhers?"

57. FkdIy, statcnimts made in the Security Councii iiself hear out this
interpreia.tioI.'I'liedebatein coiinection with the Grcck Frontier Incidents
providef perhaps lhe best illusrratinn. 'I'here the question arosc whether a

dccision by thc Councii to conduct an investigationin termsof Article 34 was

UNCI0 ducs., YriXII, p,66. l'idealso ibid., pp, 48. 162. and j07; [Clid..
Vol. XI, p. 84Goudriçh and Hrrmbro,op. cir., pp208-209; Kclscn,op. cir,. p. 441,
footnore -3.
* Condirions ofAdmissioir ofa Siarro MpnibarslripNIrile Utzit,Vutiuns(rluricfc
4 of Charter), Advisory UpiriionI.C.J. R~povts 1947-1348: p. 87 (joint dissenting
opinion OF JudgcsRasdevant, Winiarski,McKiiir and Rad).
Goodrich and Hambri,. op. cil.. pp.208-209 Vi& alsoJirncnc de.Artchaga.
Yorirrand fhe Handliizg oDisprriein ~hcS~ciirity Countripp.1t 0-11t; hi'icholas,
H. Ci.,fit:UniredciNniion(s19671pp. 86-37; Di Quai,Id..1,eEfds des Résohirions
des Nutrorrs unie*^(1967), pp. 7and 81; VaIIlitF.,'*The Peacefu Scrtlcmcntuf
Disputes", Canrhridge Essays itli Inrcrnurional Law9651, pp. 161-162; Certrrin
Expenses ofthe United h'oiioi~sAdt~isorvOpinion1,.C.J. Rtpovis IY62.p.295 (dilis-
seiitingopitiion iifJudge Hustamantc)andpp233-234(disentingop ifJuodgeWi-
ninrskt); Lorfu Clzunnel,Preliiiiinary Objt,çJudgnitnr.I.C.J.K~porls194 7-1948,
pp. 31-32; Bindschedler. Recueides cours, Vol. IO8No. 1(lii63), p.345: Shapira,
Isruei2,aivH~rirw, Vol.4, No.2 (Apr. 196Y), pp.231-232 and 235; Bentwich, Y..
and Marim. A., A C~ori~nciiruryn de Ciinrrerofthe Uitind Nutivrrs (1951), p. 63;
Kahng, Tae Jin. Lnw. Pofiricsrrnd rliJ'cctrrjrCounci!(19641,pp. 13-14 :Bowett,
D. W., nie ldw ofInzcrnlrrioirnfnrtifrtlio(I963), p.32; and Schwarzen berger,
CI. . Muititul oflil~~rnniinnLaw. 5th rùitici(1963), p. 297.
' Vide .limknede Arkchaga, op. ci?.p. 111. WRIT~LNSTATEMENT OF SOÜ'IH A~XICA 527

a decision in ihesenseof Article 25or merelya recnmmendation. Those mcm-
bers of the Council opposcr fo the cstabIishmeritor the commission argued
that al1resoltitionsunderChpter VI were mcrelyrecommendationsand that
States whichdid not cary them oui bore only a moral rcspunsibiIiiy; that ir

WBS unly measurcsundcrChapter VJI whichlook on a bindingquality; that
the singular natureof the Iittcr nieasure wscrc attesrcdin Article2 (7) which
affirriied thc prinçipleof rton-intervcnlion in matters csscntiaIlywithin the
doniesticjurisdictiunofaSiate sova in the applicationof enforccmcntrneasurm
under Chzipter VII ;and th:it if Chapter VXmeasiires were ohligatoy, iiState
which faifcdto cornplywith tliernwould autornaticallybc Iiableto other mta-
sures of a compulsory cha;rcter- in which cvent Chaliter VI wotild Iase its
signifieanceand meaning.

?-hase rncnibcrxwho jiiiruutrrthe eslablish~nentofa commissiondid not
dcny ttiesepropositionscxcept in regard to a dctcniiination under Article 34,
whichthey consideredin bt:a binding decision.It was slated rhatChapterVI
conkrred two distinct powcrs upon the Council-the powcr of conciliation
and thc powerof investiguian. Theconciliatorypowtrs"could not becnforwd
upoit the Statcs concern.:d". This purver,"by definition,couid not encrvach
upon what the various Statrsrniglitfinalldecidt to accept or rcjcct. Itimplicd
voluntary CO-operation ...'"
58. It issubmitted, then. that tirecornmendatioilunder Chapter VI is not

a "decision" within rhc nnii:aningofArticle 25 and rhat ihcrcforc it kas no
bindingfmc fur rheStatet: o which itisaddresxd. Thrit bzing so,whatever
tlieintention of the Cotincil niight have&en, paragraph5 of resolution276
{1970) cannot bechsractcrizcd as airinjuncrionbui canonly bc a rccommcn-
dation. II follorvsthat ihat paragraphas ifIlas paragraph7 of the resolution,
which can also be noinon: than a r~orniiiendation 2.dms not inipose upon
"al1States" the obiigativn tu comply with lheirternls.
59. Thai is not to say,howcver, that rhcsc twu pangraphs have no effcct

whatsocver. Fur Artide 2, paragrüph 2, ofthe Chartcr imposesupon ail hlern-
bers ofrhe Oganizntion thc duty to"fu1filingoodfairhthe obiigaiios assumed
by thcm in accordance wiih the presentChartcr". And the requirements af
gocd faithwoiilàseein to postulatc thatsrleinberStatesshouldconsiderrecom-
niendarionsseriouslyand i~ good faith3and decidefor themxlves whethcr ta
iiiiplcnicntthernor not.

GO.The conclusion is that onlyoperative pardgraphs 5 and 7 of Security
Couneil resolution 276 (1970) can have le& consequenccsfur States. Sine.
however,the paragraphsin questionembody mcrereco~nmendatiommade by
the CounciI iindcr the prot'isionstif ChapterVI of the Charterandsinci: such
recommendations do not involve a binding Iegt obligation to con~p[ywilh
ihcrn, Statesare not ohligt:dto give effectto theirprovisions. The only con-

' Rtprrfory ofUnirrd 12:a1fonPracrire, Vol. (19551,pp. 231-239.paras.46-47.
Vidccpara.49, sIrprn.
In Vofinf Proredurr on .zi;rstiorehting to Repuris ad Petirionsconccrni~ig
!lie Terri1orof South Wesr Afiiru, AdvisuryOpinion, I.C.J.Rtwrts 1955, p.88,
Judgc Klatstad in his separzteopinionstatcd tha: "a duiyofsuch a nature,how-
exderrealand scrious imay bç. çan hardty beconsidered as inculvingatrue lrgal
obligation". Viciehowcrer, the scparateopinion of Judgc1.aulçrpaclit(ibki.pp.
118-119).sequene!: which theresoIutionhasfor Statcsis, thcrcforet'risuch States as
are Mernkrs of the UnitedNations Organization should considerthe rwcim-
mcndafions wntained in paragraphs 5 and7in gooù faith anddecide for:hem-
selveswhether or notto carryihcm out.

41. For thereasons setout inthisChapter, itissuhinittedthatal1therelevant

rcsolutio~isofthe Security ClriunciIand in particiilarresdurion276 119701,
are invahi and oftiulegaleffeciinihat thcy arcbascd upon Cineral Assembly
resolutiort2145 {XXI) whichis itsciinvalid;that theCounciI resolutivns wcre
in my cvcnt invalid hecause ihey were not adopted in confomiity with the
provisionsofChapterVIof the Cnarier-which was thc onIychapter under
which the Council could have acted;and thatinso faras resolution276 (1970)
isconccnicd, even ifitcanbesaid toIicvalid,onIy ih upcrativcparagraphs5
and 7carihave Iegalconsequcnces for States andthen anly to the extentthat
States shiiuIdconsider the recornniendationswntaiited thtrcin in good faith
and decide forthernselveswhether toimplamentthern ornot. The SecurilyCuuncil,
Reafirmirigthe inalienatderightof the people of Narnibia tofreedon~and
independencerecognizd in Gcncral Assenibly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14
ikcember 19W,
Reufirniirzg Gei~eraAssl:mbylresoIiition2145 (XX 1) of 27 ûctober 1966,
by whiçhthe UniredNarions dccidcd thai the mantaie of South-West ATrim
was terminatcd and assumed direct responsibilityfor the territory until ifs
independence,
Renfirmilig Security Co;incil raolution 264 (1969) which rocognized rbe
terminationof thc mandat€. and called upon the Goverrimentof South Africa
iitimediateiyto withdrawits adminbrration frorn the tcrritov,
Reufirining that the extt:nsioand etiforement of South African Iaws in
thc tcrritory togcthew rith the continued detentions, trials and subsequent

sentencingof Namibians b!.the Governmen tnfSouth Afriw constitutc iIlegal
acts and flagrant violations of ihc rights ofthe Kamibians concerned, the
Universal Dcclarütionof Hunian Kights and of the internationastatusofthe
teriitory, noiv undedirect United Nations responsibility,
Rccailing SecurityCouncil rcsnlution 26(1969),
1.Siron~lj~condeninsthe refusal of the Governmentof SouthAfrica ta
camply with General Asçenrblyand Security CounciI resdutions perrainingto
h'amibia;
2. Drciares that thc conrinuedpresenc ofethe South Africanauthoritiesin
Namibia isillegaland that coriseguentlyail acts takcn by thGovernment of
Soiith Africa onbehalf ofcirconccrning Narnibia afterthe termination of thc
rnandaie are iIIegalandinvnlid;
3. Derrluresjurthetrhat the defian1attitude of the Government ofSouih

Africa towards theCouncil's decisions undcrmines theauthorityof the United
Nations;
4. Con~iderstliatthe coniiniiedoccupationofNamibia by the Governmmt
of South Africa in defmnceofthc rclcvant United Nations resoIutjonsandof
the UnitedNations Charter liasgraveconsequenccsfur the rightsand interests
ofthe people of Karnibia;
5. Calis upon al1States, pürticuIarlthose which have ecanarnic and othec
intcrcsts in Narnibia, ru rt.frainfronl any deaIings withe Governn-ient of
South Africa which are intonsistent witoperative pardgraph 2 of this reso-
lution;
5. Decides10 esiublishiiiaccordanccwith rule 28af[he provisionalrules
of procedureanadhoc sub-mmrnitteeof thc Ctiuncil to study, incomu1tation
with the Secrerary-General,waysand meansby which therelevant resolutions

of the Cwncil, includingth: prescnr resolutiocan he egectivelyin~plemented
in accordance with the apprripriaieprovisions ofthe Charter,inthe Iight of
the flagrantrefusalafSouth Africa to withdraw from Narnibia, and to subrnit
its rewmmendationsby30 ApriI 1970;
7. Rcqü~sts al1Slatesas welI as thcspeciiiiizeagencies and otherrclcrtintUnitcd Niitions organs to givcthc sub-cornmitteeal1the inforriiation andother
assistance tlrat imay require inpursuance of this rcsolution;
8- Furtlter requcsrs the Secretary-Gcneral to give every assistance to the

sub-mrnniittcc inthc pcrformüncc of its tas;
9. Deci,f~.~to reçume considerationof the question ofNarnibiii as soon as
the recommendalionsof the siib-comrnitteehavebeenmade avaiIabIe.
(UN duc. S/RES/276 (19701,30 Jan. 1970.) \VItIT'IE?4 STATEMkNOF SOUTH AFRICA

1. GcneraL AssembIy ies~ilulion2145 IXXI) readsas fobiows:

"The GeticrnlAsseri?ii[v,
Heaffirnting theinahenab liehi ofthe peopleof Çoi~ih West Africa to
freednrnand inrlependcnce in accordancc:with the Charter of rhe United
Nations, General Assernbly remlution 1514 (XVJ of 14 T>ecernkr19bû
and carlier Aswrnblyi.esolutions concernin ige Mandatcd Territory of
South Wcsl Arricü,
Rcc(rl/iirtheadvisory opinio nfthe InrernationiiCourt of Justice of

11JuIy 1950, acccpted :7ythe GcneraIAssernblyin its rcsolutio449 A (V)
of 13Dcccmbcr 1950,zn the advisory opinionso17 June 1955 and 1June
1956aswell asthejudg-rncni of 21Decernber 1962,whichhaveestablished
thefactthal Soüth Africacontinues to haveobIigtions under theMandale
which was cntrustcd io it on 17 Dcccniber 1920 and that the Iliiited
Nations as thesiiccesstitothe Leagueof Nations kassupervisory powen
in respccoif South Wtst Africa,
Ciravelycoticerncdat thestuarion in theMandaredTerritory, wtiich has
scriousIy deteriorafedfbilorving thejudgementaf thc InteriiationaCourt
ofJustice,of 15 July 1966,

Ifdriii,siudi~dthe rcports of the various cornmirtees which had ken
establiskd to exercise the supcrvisosy funcrions of the United Nations
over the adrriinistratiif tlieMandated Terrilory of Sot~th West Africit,
Conviticedthat the administration of thc hfandatedTerritory by South
Africa has ken cond?icted in a nlanner contrary to the Mandate, the
.Charterof the United Natioiis and the Univcrsal neclaration of Human
Rights,
Reaffirtnin~its resolirtion2074 (XXof 17 kemkr 1965i, n particular
paragraph 4 thercaf wtiichcondemncd the policiesofapartheidand racial
discriminationpractis<:dby the Ciovcrnrnentof Soiith Afriça in South

XYcstAfricaasconstitiiting a crirrieagainshumanity,
E?nphasiïing thatth.:problen~ of Soulh Wcsl Africa is anissue FalIing
within the tcrms ofGcneral Assenibly rcsolution 1514(XV),
Curi~iu'eritl~rqhalI the cfforts of tliUnited Narions to indiice the
Govcrnment of SouthAfrica to fulfiI its obligations in respect of the
administrationof the Mandaied 'lemitory and ro ensure the welI-king
and securityof the indigenous inhabitantshave kcn of tio avail,
1C3in1,fuoff thc obligatioofthe UnitedNationstoi~ardsthe pccipleof
South West Africa,
.NVfing n'itdwp coItcertthe explosive situation which cxisis inthc

southern region ofAfrica,
Afirniing itrightto takeappropriatc action intheniattcr,~~cluding.tk
rightto revert to ilselfthc administrationof the MandatedTerritory,
1. Renffiutnsthat the provisionsof GenerüIAssembly resolütion I5I4
(XV) arc fully applic;iblto the peopLc of the Mandatcd Territoryof532 NAMIBIA(SOUTH WFST AFRICA)

SoutliWest Africa and that, therefore, the peoplof Souilt West Africa
have theinaiienabIc righto self-dctcrminationfreedornand independencc
in act:ordancwith the Charim of the Uniid Nations;
2. Rcufirtiisfurfber that South West Africaisa territoryhavjng inter-
nariona[ status and that it shail maintaiti this starus until it achieves
independence;
3. Dedures that South Africa ias failed ta fuliiits obligations in
rcspwt oftheaddininisirationofthe Mandaled Tcrritoiyand to ensurc the

moral and niaterialwelI-king and socurityof the indigenous inhabitants
of South Wcst Africa and ha?, infacr,disavowedihc Mandate;
4. Decidesthai the Mandatcconferred uponHis BritannicMajssty tolx
exerciçedon his bchalfby the Govcrnnicntof the Union of South Africa
is ihcrcforcterminated.tht South Africa liasno otherright toadrninister
the Ierritory and thal hcnceforS tohiithWesr Africa cornes undcr thc
direcl responsibilirof the United Nat ions;
5. RcsoIves that in these circunrstances ihc Unitcd Nations mirst
dischiirgethose respunsibiliticswithrespectto South WestAfrica;
6.Esrubiichesan AdHoc r~mrnittccfor SourhWest Africa+on~posed
offorirtccnMember Sraresto be designatedby the Frcsidentof theCheral

Asscr-~bly-ta recommendpractical means bywhich South West Afriça
should be administered, so as io cnable the peapIe of the Territory to
exercist thcright of self-determination andto achicvc independence,and
toreport fo the General Aswrntiiy at a speçiasessioiassoon as possiblc
and i!an); event not Iaterthan April 1967;
7.Calls upotithe Ciovernment ofÇouth Aftica forthwith trirefrainand
desisfroinany action,constitutio aùrijni.trarive,politicorolkm~ix,
which wiII inmy manner whatsmver alter or tend to alter the present
in~crnatio snatus of Soulh West Africn;
8. CnfIsfht.nt#et~riorf thcSecurityCouncil to the present resolutiun;
9..Rrqüesrsal1Statesto extend theirwhotehearted CO-operation and to

rendcrassistance in the implementationof thc prcscnt resolrition;
10. Requests thc Sccrctary-Ciencra!toprovide al1 the assistancenoces.
sary taimplernenttliepiesent resolution and ro enable theAd Hoc Corn-
rnittccfor SnuthWest Africato perforrriits dutic'."
The cmx of this resolution Iies in operative paragia4. the IeigaIeffwt of
which (if any)willbe considerd in the presept and succwdingchapters of this

written stiitcrncnt.
7. Itis necessaryat ~heoutçet to haveclarityas to thecapaciiy in which thc
General AssernbIypurported to act in passing resnIution2145 (XXI), and iir
particular whcihcr the CieneralAsseinblyclainid the authority to take the
action in ~[üestionotherwiçethün as piirportedsucccssorto the Councilof ihe
Lcague of Nations as supcrvisoryauthority in respct of the Mandate for
South Wrri Africa.
The resolution itselcontains refcrencesto conduct allegedly contraryto the
Charter aiidthe Universal DccIaration of Human Kighrs and pkacescon-
siderableeitiphasisonGneral Assemblyresolution 1514(XV) of 14 Dewrnber
1950 {Declaration on the Graniiny of lndependence to CoIoniat Countriesand

-
' CA r~jolution 2145(XXI),21 Oct. 1966, inGA, OR. Twenty-First Sess.Sup.
NO. 16fA/5316 ),.2-3.
= Pream 5ularpars.5.Pcoplrs) '.1-iorvevcrifresc+lution7145 (XXO isrhid as awholc; itis apparcnt
that thc GcneraI Assernbly d~d no1reIyon thc Chartcrand the turi Uecla-
rations as by therriselvcsproviding authority for the measures set oti in
operative paragraph4 of the iesoIution.Thus the prearnbierccalb thc 1950,
1955and 1956Opinions aad 1952 Jtidginentof this Cotirtwhich are said to
hiive "estahlishedthe fact that South Afrjca continues to have obIigations
under rhe Mandate ... and thatthe United Nations as the succcssor to thc

LRague of Nations hassiipiruisorypowersin respecotf Soulii West Africa 3";
itexpresses concern at the '+situationin thMandated Territory4"; itrefer ts
tlrereportsof thevarious c,ommittees "whichhad ken established toexercisc
the supervisory furrctioiol'the United Nations" aver the administrationof the
Tcrritory \ itexpresxs acc.nviction thatrhe adrninistationof theTerritory has
beenconducted "in anianner coiltnry to theMandate .heCharter. ..andthc
Univeru1 Dcclariition of Elurnan Rigiits"" and itconsiders that theefforts of
thc United Nations to induce thc Govcrnment of South Africa to fulfit "its
obligationsin respect of thi:adiniiiistriitionof thc MandatedTerritory. .have

ken of no avai17".The mlin ernphasisin the preamble is on the existenceof
the Mandate; on supervisc~rypowcrs in respectthereof,said tobe exerciçable
by theGeneralAsfembIy;aiid on allegedviolationsof Ihe MandateribIigations
by South Africa. This apptars a150from the owrative part of the resolutian,
particularlyparagraphs 2 and 3, Icading up to4. ,
3. Itisapparent thecefore thattheGeneralAsscmbIy purpnried to exercisca
power of tcrminirtingfin the senw of revokingj8 the Marldatewhich itcon-
sideredappertained to it :isuccessor to the supervisorypowers previously
vested in the Council of thc Leagueof Nations. The referencesto thc two
DecIaratiansand thc Charterwcrcprubably intendedta bolsiertheconteiition

that South Africa had committed a brcach of ihe hlandatc, and to justify the
remcdialaction envisaged irthe resolution:thcy do not appear to have hy:n
offered asprovidinga IegaIbasi isdcpcndentof theMandate ror theAssernbly's
action in operative paragraph 4.
4. It is, indeed, clear that any rcliance on the said instrumentsas an in-
dependent hasis for thc action of the Ceneml AssembIy wouId have heen
rnisconceiv Rrda.chesof the Charter would nol by themsclv~ haveentitled
the GencraI Assembly to severthe bondsbetween aStateanda territorysubject
to ilscontrot, orto bring sgcha territoryunderthe directrcsponçibility of the

Unitcd Nations.The Charterctearly dnes not ktow suchpomrcr '.The same
applies tothe Universal Drxlarciiionof Iluinan Rights,which infact dacs not
purport trigrant any poi~ei'satal1iu the GeneralAsswnbiy orwen to impose

Yi& preambiilar paras. 1and 7 and operative para. 1. Thetexr ofthe lattcr
resoliitioisatiachçdasan aiincxto thiChapterand thc background toitsadoption
is skctchedinChap. Xi belcaw.
Granting ofeIndependencelri)Colonial Countries and Pet~plcs.claration <in the

' Second preambular paril.
Third preambufarpara.
VoFifth prcarnbularpara.,.
Eighth preambular pm.
a Firit: CIiap.VIT.par65, injirr.
As to tliepowers of[he GcncrcilAssernbly in respect omatterssuch as thcsc.
?ideChapter X. in&. Pa~ti:ularpuwers of the Sem~rizyCourtcilandttic Gcneral
Assenibly to suspend or tcrminate mernbersliiof the United Nationsincases or
breaches ofthe Charter(Arls. 5and 6) arcnot relevanttnthe prcscnttopiç.Iegalnblipatiorison Mcrnbersof the CriiiedNations. And whattvcr rccommeii-
daiory cifcct thc Declaraiion on rhe GrantinguTIndcpcndenceio CoIoniaI
Countries and PeopIcs rnay have as a ïesolution of the Gencrül Asscrnbly '.

it does ntit seck to imposeobligations or confer aitthority on the GeiieraI
AsscnibIy,
5. It jsiiccordinylyon acliiirn of sripervi.sor~pon~er~-esp~cotfihc Mandate
for South West Africa that resolution 2115(XXl) was sought to he based.
Thc Gene-a1 Asseniblydid nor purport toact by virtue ofany otherripht or in
any otfier capricity.Inparticular, it must be empliasircd that thc Generiil
Aswmbly didnot purport to aci usü conirnc!tui(p torütmandatetreatyand

to termin:ite siich treaty by reason of an allcgcd material brsach ihcrcor by
SouthAfr m. Tndeed,this Cotir[ itself hrisneverround ihatthe United Nations
was a püi-tyto any rnitndotc "ircaty''.On thc contrary, the findings of rhc
Court (particularlywhcn ovcrruting tlieSouth African PreliniinaryObjcctions
in 1962) iriiplicitrcfuteany such notion.Thisaspectwill bL-furthcrconsidered
in the s~icrzediiigparagraphs.
6. Wheti the legal position relativetu the Mandate for South West Africa
firstcirrn~cfvrctheCourt in 1950,the Court wesconemed mcrcly to iiscertain

wherher the Mandate was siillin cxistence, and,if$0, wkit the international
ohligationi of South Africa were in respeclthereaf 2.'TheCourt disiingiiishcd
betweenIwo typcs nf obligations oriyinallyassuniedundcr ihc Mandate, as
follows:

''0.1~ kind was directly wlated to the adrriinistratioof thc Territory,
and owresponded to thcsacred trust ~Tciviliziitioreferredto inArticle 22
of thr:Covcnant. The other relaiedru the niachinery Torirnplen~entation
and iviis closelIinked to the supervision and canfrut of thc League. 1t
correspondedIo rhc'xcurities for the pcrforinanceof tliis triist. referred
tO in thesamc article "."

As regards the former clnss,he Coiirt said:

"Since theirfulfilmeiitdid not depcndonthe existenceof the Leagueof
Nations, they cotild-nut be brought to an end mcrclyhwause rhis suwr-
uiso1.j-orgiin ccascto exisr '."

In Ihe words of Sir Arnold McNair:
"Iiishort, the Mandate created a slata for South-West Africa. This

façt is important iii assessingthccffcct of the dissolution of[he Leagt~e.
This statiis-valiù iirrem -supplies the elenientof permanencekvhich
\vouldtnablc the Iegal condition of theTerritory to surr~iveihe diçappcar-
ance of the League, even iTthert:wcrc no siirviving persona1obligations
betireen the Union and othcr formerMcmbcrs of the League 5."

Tn itsreasoriingand finding on this aspect, the Court did not consider
wiieiher rIicobIigatioiis inquesiioJcrivcd theirlegaleffect from international

' Vide <:hap. X, irifruas to the recornmendator yIïect ofGçnçral Assrmbly
rcsolutions(savefor immatcrialexczprions).
Inr~rnurionaStorirof SorrrhIVt,srAfricu, Adi~jsv pinion.IC.J. R~porrs1950.
p. 129.
Ibid.p. 133. S~milardistinctions wcrdrawn inthc scpwratcopinions of Judge
McXair ai pp. 156-157and 158, and Judg Rend atpp. 164-165.
' [hirip. 133.
11id.fi,. 156-157.Videalso Judge Read atpp. 165-166. WI1I'I-I'STATCMEST OF SOUTII AiXICA 535

agreement ; who the partiesto uny suctugreeriientniighthavebeen ; or whether
any such agrccnicai (asdistinctrrom rightsandobligations whichhad already
iicçrued tliereunderjhüd siirvivtd the dissoliirionof theLeague aîNations.
These qucstions weie irrele3fanto thc CO~irt'stüskon ihut owdsiu~.
7. As regards thc xcond rlass ofobligations,the Court hcld thatsiiprvisory
firnctiorlswei'e to hexercised by the United Nations, to which thc unnual

reportswere iobe subniirted.This fnding wiHhr:deail witIiin detailbeluw '.
At prrsent iwiIlsufficclo riotethat atthoughtlieCourtapparenrlyreached its
çonclusiori by iiiiplyingailagreementaniong certainStares(including South
Africa)in 1945-1946to efkct a substituiion of supervisiiryorgaras,the Coiiri
did not specificallüdvcrt tu thequestion whathe partiestosuchanagreenient
wcrc. Agaiii tliis questioM,asno1 dir~tly relevant10 the Court'stask.
8. The qucstions whether the Mrindatc dcrivcdits IcgaI forw andeffect from
agreement, and,if so,who thepartiesto ail):suc11agreement wcre, both &fore
and aficr the dissulirtiotiuf the League, utre first pertinenilyraiscdinthe
Prelirriii Oibaey~ionsinihe Smirlt JYESIAf~icn CUSCS. Thcy bccüi-tieofim-

portance by reason of Artii:Le37 of the Court'sStatute which effeçred a sub-
stitutionof Courls where ":iireatyor convention in force" providedfor der-
eiice of a matter to the Pcrmanenr Court of Intcrnationsl Justice. Çuch a
reference was containe indArticlc 7 (2'1ofihc Mandate in respeclof "any
dispute whütcvcr. .. bciwçcn the .Mandatoryand anorher Mernber of thc
League of Nations".
The South Afric;incontentionsin !hePrelirninaiyObjectionbroceedingsuere
linso far as rclcvant}~hattIicMandate nevcr was a treaty or convention, but
uweditsIegaIforce to an administrativeor qcirisi-Iegislaicvctof the CounciI

or the kügue acting internisof ArticIc 22 (81 of ~heCovenant,Aiternatively,
itwas contended, il thc Maridatehad beena rrcaty or convcntion al its inccp-
tiun,it iiu longerwx3 in forcens a rrrrrifyor ronvetiiiafterdissolution of the
Lcague (whatever mighi h;.ve kn thc position of ils "real" or "objective"
aspects) since the only possible partiethereto (save South Africa itselfl wcrc
thc Lcagueas an insii(utiot,and its Membzrs in their capacitiesassuch,al1 of
whichworild have faIIenaway as partics on dissoIuiiciof theIxague. More-
over, ir wasmntended. ther?was, after such dissolution,noiongca rny "mcm-
ber ul the 1,eagueof Natioris" entirledlo invoke Article7 (2) of thc Mandate.

9. The Applicanrs (Ethiopia and Libcria)contcnded that the Mandatehad
from itsinception ken a treaty or conventionconferringrightsand intercstson
the Leilgue and its Men~bez. On ùissoluiion of the Leagueof 'Jatioiisthey
contendcd. it mmaincd a treatyor convcntion on ont:or iwo alternativebases,
viz.. on thebasi~eirlier th:isuccessionhadoccui-rcd of the UnitedNat ionsand
itsMernbcrs tothe rightsandintcresrspreviouslyenjoyed by thcLcague and its
Members, or, ait~rrinriveiihat theSiam Mcmbcrsorthe 1,eague alirsdisso-
lution remained vmted with rights intheirindividualcapaciti asrparticsIo a
mandateagreernetit =.
IO. The Coiirtheld in 1962rhatrhcMandatchadinitially ken anagreement

"betivcen the Mandatory iind the CounciI representingthe l~aguc and its
Meinbers "'aiid said:
"The MandatefnrSliuthN'est Al'rica. . . an international instrument

Virtr*Chap.LX, infia.
fide I.C.I. PCeoditqr.Sr,riiWcs-fAfricu, Vol. Ipp. 443-449 (Observations).
-'SoutjzM'es1Afiira. Yrefitiii:intrr~OhjtJud~i~nr, I.C.J. Rrpor~s1962p.33 1. WR1îTfi.rSI'ATEMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA 537

14.A rurtherFactorinsupportof thcconclusionstattd intheirnniediatclpre-
ceding paragraph, is ihatc\cn during tlwlifetimeofthckaguc of Nations,the
individualMetnbers ofthe Leaguehaù noleml right orinterestinensuringcorn-
plianceby the Manùatory with the obligations impoxd by the Mandatcin
favour of thc indigcnou isliiibitants ofthe'Territo'Clearly the! muld not
have had greate rghtsafter the dissolutionof the League '.
It folluiitbt ü vjula~ionof anyofthese obligations(as claimedinoperative
para.3 of ihe resrilutirin)iv.~not havewnstituteda breach of the Mandate

asagnir~sr rhe iilrliÿidut einl~ers,and woulù therefore not havcjustified a
cancelIationof the Mandatc by them.
15. Briefconsiderarionniust alsu be given ta the extentof thecontractual
righis vmtiny in ihe Leagür of Nations as an organizariondistincl from its
Members 2.According to the 1962 Judgnient, thc Lcaguc was a party to a
mandate agreement togeihi:~with itsindividual Members 3.As a contractua1
party, thcLctlgut:wouId 1ht:refoi-eave been uniy ont:orthe partiesicia mul-
tilateraltrcatyand would xcordingly not have been cntitlcd ioterminatethe
treaty uniIaterally-theconsentofthe ootherpartieswouId have been required'.
Hadthe United Nations replmd the Leagiie asa contractualparty io a inan-
date agreement, rhc same siiuation wtiuIdhavc cxistcd-t he United Nations

wouId have required thecoitscnt of iheother partiesto themultiIateraitreaty
(narnclyon thc Court'siindinç, theStates Mcmkrs of the hgue atitsdisso-
lution) foa cancellat ofotne trearyAnd, as show abovc, thc former Mem-
bersof rhe League did nat ;.ssuch playany role in tlie purportetermination.
But lx that as itmay: wha:everthe rightsof the LniredNations rnighthave
been hüd itreplace tde Leigiieas a contractu palty tothe Mandate, seems
dacadeniic interest oniy in vicwofthc fuçt thattheCourt didiiotfindin 1962
that any such substitulion had occurrcd, and, on ~hecontrary, sccmed to
rejectsuch anotionby decliningto acceptthe succession argumcntadvaned by
the Applicants. And, as nn;:ed, the 1350Opinion was not concernrdwith his
issue aial[.

16. The position ihenis that resrilution2145 {XXI)was bascd squarelyon
pnweis claimedto vest intheGeneralAssembly as sucw.ssorto thesupervisory
funciions previously çxcrcis~by theCouncil of rheLeagueof Nations. In the
chaptcr su~ceding the pre:;entone, the South African Govcmment wilI set
out itsreasrinsforcrintendinthat resoIuti 2o4n5(XXI) cannotbe justifteon
ariysuchbasis. Ckapier VI1 containsan examination of themandatcs in their
historicalcontextfrom whi<:hirwill apwar thai the supm-isory powerswliich
rtestedinthe C:ounciIof th1-eagucJidnul includeany powerof uiiilateralrevo-
cation intheevent of vioIatiom of themandate by a mandarory,nor did thcy
incIiidr any power io mume direct wntrol ovcr any rnandatcd territory.
Moreover, that Chapter will indicatethat the obligationsof a mandarory to
subtnitto supervisionwere notof the natureof internalionalaccountabiIityin

ü gencral scnçe but were s~iccificaland intentionalIr dcfrncdwith reference
trispecific orfians af particular orgtinizalioand thatby reasortneither of
theircotitent,nor of any ri~lcoflaw applicablerhereto, couid thcy thcrefort

' Vidp Sourli JYesrAfricn. .SectirrdPJ~idgiiit,i.C'.JKepart.1966.
We are not now concerntd u+h rhe sup~rvisor~function';irespcctof man-
dateswhicl~the Ltague exercisedthroiigh its appropriata cirThis will bdeall
with in Chp. VI1 klow.
Vidp Art.MlOof'the Vienna Convenrion on the Law of'1-rcatiein UN doc.
A/CONF. 39/27 (2.May I9M). pp.28-24.have survive Ide dissolutionof the Leaguein thestnse that theywoiild there-
after have beenowed tomme otherorgan of a differentorganizatiC oh.apter
VI11 wiIl be devotedto a denioiistsatioii thal the supervisorpowers of the
Council or the Lcaguc(whatcverambitsuçh powers may have had) did not pass
to theGerieraI Aswrnhly of the L'nitedNations hy virtueof any agreement con-
cIuJd during the period of the estabIishitienof ttieUnited Kationsor the
dissolutio~of the Leaguc,or thercafter.Thesetwo chapters wiIl thus bctween
them coverthe variriusrnethodsrvherehy a transferof supervisorypowers mjght
possibly hve been cllécied.The conclusionsreached in lhernare mntriiry to
thnt expri:ssedby the malority of this Court in 1950;and the Opinions aiid

Judgrnenls in 1955, 1956,1967and 1966 alsocontain niuch ivhichisof relevance
to thiv t03ic. It has accordingIybccn found convcnicnt tu dcvotc a scpiiratc
chapter (Chap. IX) to the previouspronouncenients of this Court on the ques-
tion ivhetl~ea siibstiriitiofsiipervisoryorgansoccurredon dissoIiition or the
Lcaguc. Ili ChüptcrX thc Guvcmrncnt ofSouth Africa wilI gÏvc its rcasons for
contending thatresoIution2145 (XXI)is in any eveiit ultra virethe Cleneral
kssenibly in ternisofthe Charler. Inthe lastchapier of this wriltenstaterneni
{Chap. Xi) thc Govcrnmcnt of South Africa wilI advcrt tothc factual situa-
tion in St>uth West Afrim. 'I'he purpose thereof wiIt be to dernonstrate that,
whateverthe legal positionrnight lx.there was no faciual justifirarion fothe

daim matle in thc rcs~l~lion thfhatSouth Africa had violiitcdthc substantive
obligationscontained intheMandate. Indeed,it\vilbe showii that theCieneral
Assembly, though iwifed to do soby theSoutIi African reprewntatives. did
notenquirc adcquatcly intothc factsin ordertocnmc fo aproper conclusion on
this score, nor did the SecurityCouncil iiithe proceedings Ieadinp up to its
resolutiorison South West Africa '.In this rewrd. ihe discussionof the facw
will show thatfor sonic ycan thc müjoriiyofMcmbcrsin the Un~tcd Nations
have not been interestedin the ineritof the South African administration in
Souih Wcst Africa, or in the siandard of materia1, mord or socialwcll-being
of its inhabitanis,but have cngagcd in acampaign ainied at securing indepen-
dence of theTerritory (on the basisof a singlepoiiticaunit) asan end isitself

irrespectiveof a11otIierconsiderations.
Morcorcr, if anyof thc rclcvant rcsolutionsof thc SccurityCouncil or thc
GeneralAsse~nbly were to heregarded, contrary to thesubmissioiisof theSouth
AfricanCiovernment, as ernbodying valid recommendations calling on SoutIi
Africa to abandon its administrationof South West Africa, the factuaIexposi-
tion in Chapter XI will demonstrate that cornpliance with aiiy such recoin-
mendationmould operateto the grave delritnenior lheinhabiiantsof theTe~ri-
tory.

These resolutionsarecorisiùeredinChrtp. V,supra. WRITTF'I STATEhlEN~IC)FSOUTiI hFHICA

DECLARATIO OX THE GRASTING OF INDEPENDFNCE TO COLONIAL
C:OCS.IKIE AND PEOI'L~S

Th Ge3iei.dAssernbiy,
~Mindfiilf the dcterrninai.ioproclsiimcd bythe peoples01.the world in the
Charter of the United Nati-311to reaffirifaitli inTundanicntahutnan iighrs,
inthe dignjtyand worth of the hiimanpefion, in the equal rightsofmcn and
women and of nations large andsrnütIand IO promore wçiaI progress and

berterSImdards of[ifein largerfreedom,
Conscious ofthe need foi -he creationof condilions ofstability and weil-
being and peacefiiland frieiidly relations baseon respect Torthe principles
ofequal rightsandsclf-determinationof alipoples, andof univcrsalrespectfor,
and obscrvanw of, huuun righls and rundamcnlal Iredoms for al1without
distinctioas to race,%ex,i:lnguagc orreligion,
ficogtrizingthe passiona1.eyeaining for frccdarnin al1 dcpendenp teoples
and thc dccisiverolcofsudl people inrheattainrr~etiff theirindependence,
Awrrreof theincreasingcrinflicts rcsultinpfrothedenial of orimpcdiments
in theway of the fsmdorttoFsuchpeoples, whichconstitutca serious threatto
world pacc,
<~/i.~idf~ t'eiigportant role of thc United Kationsin assisling thc mm-

ment for independence in Tïustand Non-Self-GovwningTcrritories,
Kecogtzizingihai the peuplesotthe worldardcntlydesire thcendof colonial-
ism inal[its manifestations.
Convi~icedthat thc conlinuedexistence of colonialism prevcnls the de~elop-
ment ofintcrnativ nconomic co-operation, irnpcdcsthe social, cüIluraland
econoiiriçdevelopmenrof dependen teoplcsand militatesagainsi the United
Nations idealof univcrsp aelilce,
Afirrlninxthst pcoples rnafor theirown ends,frcclydispose oftheirnaturd
wcalih and resourccswilhout prejiidicetoanyobligationsarisinç outof inter-
nationaIoconorniew-opcration, based upon the principle of mulual benefit,
and internationallaw,

Belirviitthattheprocessof Iiheratbn isirresistibandirreversihleandthat,
in urder to avoid scrious crisesan end must be put rûcolonialism and al1
practiws of scgrcgtrtionand discriminationassociaicdtherewith,
Welcninintg he emetgenci: in recent yearsof a largenumber of dcpendcni
territories into freedornanaiindtwndeiice, and recognizi~ nhgeiiicreasingly
powerfuI trcndstowards fretdom insuchtcrriror wihish!lavenot yeratrained
independence,
Coni~itzwdrha rllpeuples havean inalienablerightto cornpletefreedom,thc
exerciscof thcirsuvereignty and the integritof thcirnatioiialterritory,
Sufernniyproclailns the nt:cesdty ofhringingtoa speedy and unconditional
cnd cvlonialisniin a11its furmsund manifaîtations;
And tu thisçnd

Deciares that:
1. Thc subjcction ofpeopIcs to alienstibjugaiiun.doinination and ex-
pioitationconstitutesa denialoffundamcnial humanrights, is wntrary to540 KAMIRIA(WU-KH WEST AA~;RICA)

the Charterof theUnitedNations and isan impediment totheproniotion
of worIdpeaçc and ceoperaiion.
2. AI1 peop1-s have die rightto self-deterniitiation;by virtuc ofthai
right they freelydclcrmine their politicstatusand froeIy pursue their
econrimic.srnialand culturaldevcloprncnt.
3. lnadequacyof political, emnomic, sociaoreducationalpreparedness
shouldnever scwc .aas pretesfor delaying independence.
4. AI1 armedaction or reprcssivcmasures of a11kindsdirecta edainst
dependenrpeopies shall aase in nrder to enable thcm to cxcrcise peace-
iutty and frwllythcirightta cornpleteindcpcndcnce,and the integriiof

theirnationalterritoryshall beraqpected.
S. lmmediate steps çhaI1 be taken,in Trusi and Non-Sclf-C;overning
Tcrritoricsoral1otherterritor wihicsh havenotyctatrainedindependence,
to transferal1 powers to the peoples of thase territorieswithout any
conditions orreservalions,inaccordance wiih ihcir frccly expreswd will
and desire, without anydistinctionas to racec,reedorcolour inordcr
to enahle tlieitoenjoycamplete independenceand Creedom.
6. Any alrzmpt aimcd atthe panial or total disruptionof the national
unit) and the territoriaIinlcgily oa country is inminpatiblewith the
purpsses and principiesofthe Charterof rhe United Nations.
7. Al1States shall observefaithrully and stricthye provisions of the
Chiirtcr of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Hunian
Rightsand the preset Declaration on the basisof equaIitynon-intcrfer-
encein theinterndaffairsofal1Stares,and rcspcct for the sovererights
ofal1pcopIcsandtheir territorialintegrity.
(GA resolution 1514(XV), 14 Kkc. 19SO.in GA, OR, FiftecnthSess.,

Sup. NO. 16(A/4684), pp.66-67.) WRITI EN STATEMENT OF SOI1-Tti AFKICA

CHAPTER Vil

HISTORY AKD CONTE'IT OF THE MANDATE

1.This Chapteris rlevotd to aconsiderationof the hisinry and contcnof
lheMandate in thecontcxt .>thedispositionsetfecteattheterininationofthe

First WvrldWar. 'Thepurpose of fhis expositioisto ascertainIhe ambit of
the reciprcicioters and o3li~dtioninrespectof themandate' ;f ihc Lcliguc,
on the one hand,and,onthe otlier,of the variousmandatoriw.Thesroundsof
rclcvancxocthistopic havealready kn considcrd nbovc ' and roquireonly
brief mentionhercin. Resolution2145(XXI)which underliesal1subs~qucnt
United Nations actionregrding SouthWestAfrica,wasbad upon powers
which ailcgcd tuhave vestcd in Ihe GeneralAswmbly as successorto super-
visory functionprevioiisli:xcrcisabIby theCounciiofthe League ofNations.
The natureof the suwrviscry functionsoFthe League(and thecorresponding
obiigations of themandatoiics)accordinglyha5a bcüringon thevalidityofthe
rm1ution 2145 (XXI) inwera1 vitarespects.
Itis relevantfirsttotheivholeissueof successi ond,inparticulartothe
question whctkr lhc obligationofaccountability undcrthe MandaLe was such

that. on dissolutioofthe Lzaaue.a subsii~utionof the General AsscmbIy as
supervisoryorgrincouldhavc;ccurred withoutfreshconscnl on the partof a
Mandatorv. ThcSuufh AfrjcanGovernment wjll demonstrathcreinthat such
a substitutionmuid not have hten effectcùas a resultof the application uf
expressor irnpliedternisothcMandate, or ofany objectivIcgaIrüleapplicable
to the Mandatc. Whcther :Lsuccessionof siipervisory organmcurred bythe
operation of consentgiwn siihequentlyto thc establishineof the mandates
system, wiI1br considered inChapter VI11 below,where it \vibe subrnitted
thatrhe answermust bc inthenegativc.
2. Bui even ifitwere to be held,ccintrarytothe contentionsadvancd by
the South African Governnient, that lhGeneral Assernblydid succee to the
supervisory functions of thCorinciof the League, the Court willsthaveto
considerwhetherthe Coiint:ilwasvested with thc:sp~ifipowerspurportcd to

have bcen cxerciisedin remlution 2145(XXI)In pmicular, thc questionarises
whether theCounciI itscIfaaslegallyentitleIO revokethe Mandate for South
Wesl Africa;aquestion which is dealt with bclow. For reasonstherestatcd,it
iscontenùe tdaltheCouncilofthe League possessednosuch power.
3.Fram the forcgoing it isapparentthat ananalysisof the respectivrights
and obIigations of the Le:,gueCouncil and thc various mandatoricshsts an
important karing on differentaspccisofihe argumentpresentcdby theSouth
African'Govcrnrncnt in ih; writtenstatement.Sinoe ,owever, the same in-
struments andevents wouldhavetobeconsidcrcd in regardtoboth thc rdevant
aspects(Le., those relatintosupervisionand revocttion)ilhas beenfound
convenienft odevotc this szparatechapterto the hisioryandcontents of the
Mandate.

VideChap.Y 1, ruprli. The ntvt three sectionshercvfwitl bcdevoted tothe history of themankates
syslern,11icframing of the Mandate for Soiith West Africa and the iiianiierin

whichthe League of Natiorisexerciçed its supcrvisoryfunciions in respec otf
mandates. Thew sections thus contain matter wliicl~ is niainIy histnrical.
lhcrcüfter folloivsan anaIysisof the Mandate for South West Africil.Thc final
two sectionsof this Chaptcr arc dirccicd to ihe content of the mündatory's
obligii;ilitoireport and accouiitto organs of the Lcaguea ,nd to the extentor
the Lcagttc's cornpetence. ifany, to recoke mandrires, substitulemandaroricu
orassiilncdirectadministrationof niandatedterrilories.

H. 1listory and Originof the MandatesSrsfem

4. Allhouyh the ierm "inandate" had becn used bcforc in regard ta certain
inicmatic.nal relationships',iifirstacqiiirca speciüImcaning iriitiiernatiorial
Iawahen the iiiandtitcs systcrnof the teague of Nations wüs instit~ited.This
systemoriginated, togcther with the I.eriguefrorniht:peacc sertlementseffected
aftcrthe 17irsWarld War.AsQuincyWright rcmarked:

"This system, Iike rnosl other puliticiilinnovationswas nnt a pmduct
of disinterestedjriristicrhoughnorof detached scientificinvesiigaib iotn
was itco~riprorniscinvented hy the Versaillesstarestncnto ineetan irnme-

diütepoliticaldileirlrn2."
5. The dilemmarvhichrequircdrsolution by coniproniiseinvolve d,icffy,
a clash of views and aspirationswithin the ranks of the Altiedü~idAssociated
Powersrelative to the future of territoricsand colonics conquered fromenerny

powersdtiring the war.
6. Amr~ny such tcrritorieswas Gerrnan South Wesi Africa,whicli had bwii
surrenderedto South Arrican rniIitaryfora in July 1915 as a resullof which
South Africa remaintd inmilita? occupation for tlie reniaindcrof the war and
thereaftet-pendingthe Pace settlenients.SiniiIarsitiialionsobtaiiiin respect
of oiher tcrritories conquercd and uccupicd by nther AlIiedand Associated
Powers'. 1-heseincIudcd,interalin, thefornierGermaricoluriyin Ncw Guinca,

wliich wasciccupicd by Austi'alia;thal inSamua, byNew Zealand;theGerrnaii
istandsin thePücificOceannorth ofthc Equator. by Japan; and various Gernian
territorieselsewherein Africa,by Great Rritain,ReIgiurnand Francc. Furthcr
north, various partians of th<OttornanEmpirewerein AlIied occupation.
7. During the war,sccrct trcatiesand agreementw sere made beiween some
of the Allieswtierebytheirrespectiveclaims tovariousoccupiedtcrritorics ivcrc
to be recognizedin ihe event otan AIlied victury.And theBritishImperia1 War

Cabinct rkcided itiMarch 1917 that the three I>nrnininns. Austrülia, hiew
Zealand :indSouth Afriw,, should bealIowed to annex~heübovc-nicntioncd

' In[hi.;respecvide ITüIH. n., M~ndulcs, Depende~tcie snd TrusrrrsR(i1p481,
pp. 17ersey.and "l'hc TrusteesliiSystrm", H.Y.H.I.L., VolXXIV (1947), pp. 44-
46;Wright, Q., !lf~ndo~csUnderilir Lmpc ofNatiun.s (19301pp. 15-23;Schneider.
W.. Dos I'dlk~rrechiiirhcMandu; (t926)pp. 14 ers~q.:Motir, E.G., iliI.-rug~&r
Sortve~RniîBin den M~ndars~cliiPtc(I9281,p.4; Tetnperle>,I,W. V,. A Ilistors of
ihr PeacrConfivcnce ofPn~is(1920-1924). VuI. VIp. 502; Kenriedy, W. P.M.,aiid
Schlosheri:H. J.TheLaw and Cltsronr of tlrc SoAfrican Lonrfiiutiv(1935), pp.
514-515: Rolin. H., "Le Systétiiedes Mandats Coloniaux", R.D.I.. Vol. XLYII
(1920), NO. 1, pp. 356-357,
? Wright,vp. cir.p. 3.occupicd terrilories, adjacent to their own, namely Gcrnian Ncw Guinea,
GernianSamoaand GcrmariSoiit h Wcst Africa respectiveIy',

On theother hand, certain proposals for iittemationa1control of conqiicrcd
colonies, sornc of thcrn ewin relating Iu a11colonies2, were aIso niadc duiing
the \varyears.
In 1918,G. 1,.Ber, historianatid adviser to I'residentWilson of the United
States of Amcrim, corin~tr:dsuçhproposals with otliersthen currcnt for the
establishment of the teagrii:of Naiiom. He proposcd a mandates systeinfor
Mesopotamia and certain of thc Gernian colonies. urging ihat the adminis-
trarionof thex arcasshoultl be entrustedto "ditferentStatesacting as manda-

toricsof tlieIague d Natitins*". Heer considered: howcver,that themandates
systcm coulù not be applied to Suulh WestAfrica aiid recornmended that this
region he incorporatcd inIhr:Union of SouthAfrica 4.
S. TlieEnited States of .Ilmerica uias nota pürty io the secret treatiesand
agreemcnrs mzntionedabove; sheenleredtheu7ar after mostof them had bccn
concluded.At thc tcrminatim of the war Preidcnt Wilson strongly advwated
a policy of' "no anneaations"; as will heshown, hc wcnt to the Paris I'eace

Confcrcn~~ dettrrnined to %:cure applicutionof the proposcdmandates systcm
inanextremcforrn,tunflex.cnemywlonies and possessions.
InOctoher 1918Colonel House, who had bccn chosen by tlrePresidentas a
nlcmkr of theAmerimn delegatiori to the Race Conferenw $, met with Mt'.
1.Ioyd George and gaincd Britishacceptanwuf the trusteesh piinciplcfor 311
cncrny Ierritories,wirhthe c:xception of South West Afrjcaitnd the Asiatic 1s-
lands.TheBriiish Prime Miiiisters!ated ihattliesrterritories wouIhave to go to
South Africa ünd Auslralia rebpectivc sinc,iT thisdid not happcn heinight

be confroiited bya revolution in those Ihminions 6.Ar-cording to Mr. Uoyd
Georgethe Dominiuns wcre not prcparcd to give up any of the colonies con-
quered by them during thc ,varaiidcontiguous to theirown territorics '.
Three weeksafter the wa.r cnded, on 11 Novernbcr 1918,PresidentWil.?on
leftfor Europe.In[hecourse ofa rncctinyuboard sliipthe Presidentstated tliat
"the Gertainticoimies shoul[!bc ckrlared the cujriti~pruprrry of thc Lecigucof
l?:~riorrrtd ~d/ni+iislerII)..i-mil nurioiThe rc~o~~uco~f.smcIiColoiiy sbould
be nvnilirfifoal/mn~nrber qsrrheLcaptc ... &"

Y. InDecemher 1918 Geiteral Si~iutspublished a pariiphletin which he, likc
Bccr, linkcd aproposcd mandates system wjth aprnposcd Lcüyueof Nations '.
He Iiinitedhis proposalstu "terrtories forrncrIybetonging to Russia, Austria-

: Vide I.loyd George. D.,-Th Trrtrlnborrrtlie Peuce Trcalie(~938),Vol. I,pp.
114-123 and Vol. TI,p. 766: Spiegcl,.M.,13us Vijikl-ci-recbrfMunrlur utidsrinr
Andwenditnr uirfPuliistini~(1928pp. 8-9Tziiiperleyop. rit.Vol. 1.p. 195; I.ogan,
R. W.. The AfricunMunikzres in Worid Pvfiiics(19481,pp. 1-2; Townscnd, TV[ E.,
The RisannrfFQII of Germarty's CokinialEiuirip(1930j, pp.363-359, 377-378.
Vida Hobson. 1, A., ?Or!rrrdsInteri~tioaafGowrniiicnf (1915). l'idealso the
disçi~ssionby Potter, B., "lkigirof the SystcniofMandarcs tinrlertheLcasuc of
Naiiiitis"A.P.S.R.. Vu[.XVI, No. 4 (Vov. 1922). pp. 503-583.
Beer, G. L.,AfricanQrics!iuiut ~hcAzri.sP~*u.ureilfrirnce, ed. b..H. Gray
(L923), p.431.
Ibid, p. 443.
' 'l'illmanS. P.A&-Ain~riron Relffrioiaf the PürisPfacc coiferenceqf'1919
(1961). p.59.
Vide Foi. Rd. U.S.: The Prrrij.Pp'eeionferenc1 e9,19Yi>1.1, p.407.
Lloyd George, op. cir., Vol, p. 114.
Yi& M~ller,D. H.. The ,>rofti~hofrl~eCowiurnr (I928), Vol. 1p.43.
Smuts, J.C.. TftcLvagrieofil.uriuasA Praciiral Str~grsiit(1918), p.15.Hungary .ind Turkcy". As far as these tcrritorieswerconcerned, heproposed
thatthe Lzagueof Nations shouldbe wnsidered as ~hereversiunüryin themost
generaI sense and as clolhed wirhthe ri& of ultimatedisposalin accordancc
wj th ccrtiiin funhrncntai principles. He expressly excluded the "Gcman
colonies ia tire I'acificanAfrica", sincein ihcscascs "Ît would be irnprac-
ticable tc.apply any ideas of politiralseIfdetermii~atioi~in the Europcan
scnsc '".Gencral Smuts furthemore propowd in regardtu the territoriesto

which he i~tended Iliniandates syslcrn to apply:
Ca)thar ;iny authority, controlor adminisrration which might be necessary
in re:;peciof lhosc tcrritcries and peoples, other than their own self-
determincdüutonomy, should be tlie exclusivefunclion of and vcsted in

the Leaçne of Nations andexercisedby or onbchaIf ofit;
(b) that iishouid bcIawfulfor theLeague of Nations todelegaie itqauthority,
contrd or administrationin respect of any people or tcrritoryto some
other State which it rnight appuinas its agentor mandatory ; aiid
(c) that $.Lidegrcc of authority, control or administrationexercised by the
rnandatory State should in eacli case be laid down by the Leaguc in a
speci~iactarcharter,which should rexrvc to the Lcaguecomplete power
ofuItirnatecontrvl and supervision, asweIas theright of appealto ifrom
the territoror peopleaffectedagains any gross brtach ofthe mandate by
thernandatov State.

10. Towards the end of Decernkr 1918 PrcsidcntWiIsoii had a discussion
with Mr. Lloyd George in London. The t'resident agreed that the Germiin
mlonics should not be returned to Germanybit1stated that eaçh shouldbe
put under some Pciwçracting as a niandatory. Mr. Lloyd George impressed
upon rlieI'residentthe distiiictionbetu~eenthe tieriicolonies conquercd by
the British Doniinions and adjacent to rhetii,and those in ihcconquest of

irrhichtheforces of the Ernpircas a whoIe had shared.He pointed out that ir
i~ould tic quite irnpossihleto separaie South West Africa frum thc Union
of Saiith hfrica becausethe former wüs csscntiallypartof South Africa. 'The
Ptesidentdid no1 =cm prcparcd to contest that contention but retorted ihat
the positionOF Australiawith regard to thePacifrccolonieswas ROL quitc:thc
samc. Inanswer to ati nrgutnentbased on grounds of sccurity the Presideiit
answeredthat a cax on siniiIagrounds rnighthe made out for every 0th
captureùtcrritory 2.
1I.After hismeeting wirh Mi-. LIoyd George, PresidcnrWilson weiit to
Pariswhert:hc drcw up n draftCovenantin ivhich he incorporatedmuch of the
thoiight aiid Ianguage of GeneralSrriuts.This draft ducumcni was known as

Wilson's First ParisDraft. In this draftthe Prcsidcntsugcsted rhe extension
of the tnatidatessystcm toal1Gerrnan colonies, includingthose in Africa and
the Paçific. Like General Smuts, the Presidcnt proposeci thal uny aiilhurity,
control or administration which niight be ncccssaq in respect of the said
territories shuüld bc thecxcIusivefuncctianof the League of Nations, which
sbould ineaçh caseexplicitlydefinerhedegree ofauthoriiy,control or adminis-
lraliunio Iiccxerciwd bythernandatory Stare.whilsln'servingtu itselcornpletc
power of supervisionand of ultimatecontrol. The draft also proposedthat
thereshould bcrcsei-ved tothe peopleof anysuch rerritory(lieright10appeal 10
~hc Leiigue of Nations for the redrcssand corrections of any brcach of the

-
Sinurs,op. ci!., pl2 and II;.
Lloyd George, op.cir.. Vol 1, pp. 190-t9I. mandate by thc mandatory SIate. Provisionwas also madc forthe possiblr:
confcrmcnt of inandateson "organized agencics" oiher than States,and for
the substitutionof rnandatoi.ies(kingSîatesor "organizedagencies")hy the
League '.
12. From the ahove, the tnakins of conflict at thc Paris PeaceConference
wiIlbemanifest. The futurcn~fthe Germr Colonies was discitsseas froni74
January 1919,in the"Coiincilof Ten" ,hich wnsisted oofthe heads ofgovcrn-
ment andforcign minisicruo:ftheUniteciStateofArneri~t,theUtiitedKingdom,
France,Italyand Japan. Rcprcxntiltivesor Australia.New ZealandandSoiith
Africawcreallowed to k prexnt and to expresstheirviews at the discussions
concernitnhgc futureof rhe former tierrnanCmlonie sn New tiuinea,Samoa

andSouth WaftAfrica.
There was fairi genera ar:reemeittthara mandates system was to bE cstab-
lished.The wntroversyçonu-medthecontentof such a systeni,anparticularty
the pcoples and territoritciwhich itwasto beapplied. especialIyinasmuch
as thercwas general recognitionof the \videdjiferenoes betwwn thc various
peoples andterritoriesconccrned, ranging from,on the unehand,develowd
sricicticsto,on theothepmpIcs still IivingStoneAge conditions?.
13.At the PeaceConTerence the discussion rclatingtocolonial tcrritorics
was opened by Mr. Lloyd Cieorgeon 24 January 1919. IIesaid that two or
thrcc metiiods Iizd been proposcd rcgardingthe inanncrin which these terri-
tories shouldbe dealt with. l'hefirst wasinternationali7 or ciotrol by thc

League of Mations. Ii was gtnzrally açreed, horvevcr,thntthese territories
wuld nui be directly administc~cdintcrnatiorially.Thcrcfore, iihad ken
suggested that some single nalion shouId undertakethe trusteeship onkhalf
of the Leagueas mandatory. The conditions nf the trust.wouldinclude a
stipulation ihat the territor heasld bc administered,not in the inrerestof
the mandatory, but inrhcintt:restsoal!tlrnations inthe League.Thercwuuld
also, no doiibt, hea nglitnf appcaI 10 the Leagiieof Nations ifany ofthe
conditions of thc trustwcre broken, for instance,ifthe missionariesor con-
ccssionariesofaizynationcornpIaintd ofunfairtreatmeni.
The nexi aItemative,according to Mr. LIaydGeorge, was frankannexation.
He statedthat thc German ci)Ionieconquered byAustralia, NewZcaIand and

Souih Afrim would bcdealt within defaiI by the Minisiers represenringrhow
Doininions, but pointed oui that South West Africa was cantiguous to the
territoriesaf thUnion. Hewentonro Say:
"There was no rcaln:.turalboundary andunlessthc Dutch and British

populatian of South Africa iindertook the colonization ofthis area il
wuuid reinaiit a wildemes~. If thc Union were given charge offierman
South West Africairltlie ctipitcityof a Mandatory thcrc wouldbe in a
territory,gcographicaIIyone. twa forrns of administration.IIwas ques-
lionable whethcr any advantüge would he derived from this division
capablcofotit\veighingi:s practicdificiitie"."

14. On 25 January 1919 Lord Robert hi1 circulated a British "Draft
Convention regardingMandita" which distiiiguishedbetiveetwo catcgorics

Miller, op. cir., Vol. II. pp. 88-89.
Vide For.Kcl.US.: TlrrP<rrisPrucConJeveiice1919,Val. IIIp.786.Accord-
ingtoan artiçlin the Unitedh-',ttionsRevietvof Sepi1954e(Vol. No. 3,p.3I),
thepeuple inscime parts<iNi:w Ciuincesri1live "iStone Age conditions opri-
mitivcsauügery". I7i&alsoVol.2, No. 3 (Sep. 1955)p.34.
For. Rd. U.S.:The Pariscure Conferrncc I,19.1'01.Il1, pp7[Y-710. WRITTF. N STATEMEN~I'OF SOGTH .FKICA 547

of the territories iqliesticinto the Dominions clüimingthcin siiggested that
thcy should formaninlegral part of thwecomïrries '.
If. After kir. hla~sty ol' New Zcalünd had amin prcseriled Iiis country's
case forthe snncxatioriof S:imua. Mr. Simon, thc Freiichhfinistcrfor Coloriies
at thc ri~eetiiigheIinihe aiternaun of28 January,prcsented his country'scüx

foi theannexationofthcCurrieroons and Togoland. Indcvclopingiiisarguineiit
againsrrhe acacptünçe of Picsideni Wilson'smandatory systernhc pointedout
thiitcvcry mandate w~~iild32 revocablcand lhat tliere woulri'therefore bc no
puarüntccfur ilscontiniim~x. There wrouIdthusbe littlc induçrttientfor the
investrrienrofcapitalüird fcrcolonizütionin a countrythe futui-cof which was
iinknown. Thc inandatory would have to bc cuntcnt tci]iveqitietly without
tryit~gtodcvelopacountry3r tuitiiprovethe conditions of lifcof the ~iaiiv'.
18. President Wilson tIit:nobscrsed thar the discussion up to that point
hnd bccn,in essence,a ncg-ltion in detai[-one case at a time-of the whoic
priricipieof mandarories. The Jiscuçsioi~had heenbrought to apoint ivhere it

lookedas if theirrnadsdive~ged. Hc was follorvedhy Mr. Balfour whocrrquired
whether it wüsnoi tructhatwhilsta gooddcül of thoi~ght hüd been given to thc
hague of Nations, vcry li:tIc thoughthad been given to thc position of a
inandatory Power. Hc said tliat he kneivof no paper or speech in which the
practicaldiflicultiesof the iiiandares systcm had bccn worked nut in detail.
IIIpnrticular,no conclusioii had rln reachedand no at~thoritutive statement
had ken made regardingan important point, namelywhetherrhctcniireof a
inaiidatory should bemadeteniporaryor not. He pointcdntit thatif thc tcnure
cvereiiiereltemporarj,,difficuIticsivoiildariseandihatthercwould bepeipetual
intriguesandagitation. For instance,ifa Gerrnan population ~verclcftinone of

the Gernian colonies who c.>uldhamperthc mündütoryand protnotea scmc uf
grievance in hc rninds ofthcnst ivcsby raisingexpccrationsof sorneelysiumto
corne, rhatmighr lead to a changein themandatoryby ihe Leigue of Nations.
lnhis opinion, ihe mandalory systetn could only work if a mandatory tvcrt
s~y:uredin his termof ofKct:5.
The samcview was exprecsedby Mr. Orlando of HaIywho raisedthequestion
how far thc pciwer oTa maridatoryshouldextcnd. He thought that the truslee-
ship need iiobepurclytran:;itory +.
Mr. Clemencwu, although stating that his senrimcnis were in agreement
with thnseof PrcsidcntWilson,cxpressedseriousmisgivings:

"Tlie League of Katiom: he thought.uJasto hc a Leagile of Dcfcnce ro
ensure the peace of the woslà. But itappeared thcy had now gonc
brycindthat limir whe~ithey propoxd to create a.I.mgue of Niitioirswith

governtriental Ftinctiorr10 interfere in internal alrairswith trustees in
various places scnding reporls[O-he did not knorv whom. Throughout the
world. cven in Europe, and pcrhüps inthe Adriatic, a conirol would be
set up. PresidenrWitron hin~self had said so. and. aî a result, appeats
would bc heard from;il! partsof the world. Who should deaI wiih those
aplieals? It had beensiid that an TtlternationalLegislütureandsome sort
o!'execurivepowcr, ahrut \r,llichckntwnnthing,would have tobecreatcd
without uny power to adiriinistepenalties,sincc this question had never

l ibid.pp. 739-750.
ibfd.p. 7hl.
' Ihid., pp. 736-764.
' Ihid.p, 768. inthe late'I'urkishEinpiri:irndiri tlie Geriiian Colonies, but Ihclassesof
mandates would have to be rucognize td,third category being dcscribcdas
follows:

"Mandiites itppIiçabIto countrieswhich formed aImost a part ofthe
vrganiration of an sdjoining power, K'~O~~IIIL~h(ibme1.he appoiritethe
mnirdaior-v'."(TtaIiçacided.)

It wasohvious froni the îc~rmulatioof the Sinuts resolurionand from what
Rlr.Lloyd George hadsaid that rhe Pacific lsiands md Souih Wcsl Africa
would be territories to whicrhethirdcategoryof niandates wrouId appIy, and
thatNew 7eaIand, Ausirali:~ and Souih Africa wouId hüve to beappoint&
Mündatvries.
Presidcnt Wilson indicatetthat hc considcrcd thc ducurnentcontaining the
Sniirts resolutiontbe a gratiryingpaper. On the otlrerhand he did noithink
thütthc Councilcould inakc a finaldecision inimediately. statcd that hchad
in Iipossessi asn:cparatpaver showing hhowthc schcnieof mandateswould

work in cnnnection with the Ixague of Nations (presumabIy his Second Paris
Drift), but that schemehadaot yet ken accepted. At thlitstiignnbboycvuId
siiyhow a mandatewould hl:exerciscdand what it \vouId invoIve.Whilstprc-
pared to accept the resolutionas aprecursorofagreement, it didnot, in his
opinion, constiiuia rock foiindarion, rIhe League of Nations had no1 yei
been fixcdon whichthissul~erstructurc would rcst2.
Mr. Lloyd George rcpliedthat theI'resideiit'sstatemenhad filled him with
despair.He pointed out that it was only with the greatcstdiflicultthat the
represcntativcsof the Dotniriinnshad bccn prcvailcd uporito accept thedrrifl

submitted,even prnvisionall:He consequently[nade an appeal tharthe man- ,
daiçsissueshould not Lelcfthanging in the airuniiIthLcaguc wüs established
and callcd for a provisionaladoption ofthe resolution suhject tosuch rccon-
sideration as might berequired whenthe cornpletccchcrne of the League of
Nations wasformuiiited 3.
Inreplying, PresidentWiljon saidthat he \vaswilling to acceptMr. LIoyd
George's proposais subject to rcconsidcriitionwhen the full schenie of the
League afNations had been drawn up 4.However, iMr.Hughes was not salis-
fIedivitha pureiy provisionalarrangement. He ivantcd a definitedecisionand
enqiiired whether they should arvaitthc acccpiano cfethe League ofNations

hy the Conference and by the world whilst they tverewaiting fora dccision.
"Was not therfeficru Lcag'leof Nations alreadyiiteiiislcncinthatroom?'',
he askcd. In his opinion this Leaguc should say who wcrc ro be the man-
datories:.
21. At the afternoon rtteetinMr. Massey of New Zaland ~pecifi~tly dcalt
with paragraph 8 of the Srnittsrcsoluti vnhicheventualiy becanieAnicle 22
(6) of thc Covcnant. Hc referred to the specific ubliyations of a mandatory
under a Class "C" Mandata:and asked the I'residentto confirnithat these
would be ihe only obligslrii~nsuf such a ~nandaiory? A ssonieibht heated
discussion cnsucd in whichthe l'rimeLTinisterof AiistraliarcndcrcdcIearihat

Australia renllydesired "di1 eccontrol" and thai for his country and New

For.Xe/. U.S.:ThcParis I'errceCvrrfPrrncc,1919, Vol. III.p. 786.
Ibiri,. pp. 788-789.
Ihid.pp. 789-790. ,
fbïd.p.791 .
'IIbid., pp.793-794.
ibid.p.798.Zcaland .tic Smuts resolution reprewnted ilic maximuni of rlieir.cvnccssio'.
,4 çpewh, general describcd by cornnientators as "conciliatory" was iiien
made by the South Africrin Priine Minister.GetieraIBotha, in which he siatcd,
iiifen/iu:

'-Ifeappreciated tliidealsof Presidenl Wilson . ..They riiiirernernber
tIiatiheirvarious péqples did not understand evcrything from the sanie
point. .. Pcrsonally he felt verystronglv about the qvatiori ufGcrnian
Soutli-WestAfrica. Hç [hought that idiffered eniirclyfrom any question

that thcyhad had to decide iithis cotifereri~, u1he would be preparcd ro
say thathe was a supporter or the doçumcnrhünded irithai morning Iby
I,loyd George],becriuse Ilek!~ewrhor. if the iclrufructijed, rl1-eupue ut'
:Vdi.irriswo~tcotisirniosii~of thtsriiiipeupic who wer~ presrni thcrc ~Iic~f
it<ri,ho udrsfood rlieposition arid nrhivouldnof innke if it>rpnss.ifirir
at1ymatidntorp !o goverairh~ cn1ctilvThat vdas why I\e said he would
accegt it'."(ïtalicsadded.)

After ldr.Masse? had spoken again, Mr. Lloyd Geurgc proposcd that the
Council should advpt ihc Smuis resalutiona5 a prwisional dwisioi~ "subieci
10 revisioilwlicneither theyfound tlie teaguc ufNations \vasunsaiisfaçtory",
or there wax sone atlierreason for revising the resolution 3. After further
discussiua. PresidcriiWilson agreed to accept the proposal. No formal vote

was iakeil an the resolution,but at thesuggcs\ion of PresidentWilson it was
agreed tl-ata coniniiiniqut be issuedstating that the Cvnfcrcncc had arrived
at a satisracioryprvvisiona1 arrangeiiient regarriingIheCierinanand Türkisli
[erriloric:; outsidc Europ'. IrnplicitItiwiu ugrccd that theDominions woiild
rcccivc the ferrirnriesto whjch the? had laid daiins,as Class "C" Mandates
upontheteririsspecified ',and at a subsequent meetingearlyin May,Presider ti
Wilson confirmcd that the tacit arrangenicnrshad sertled the triatterto a11
intents and purpnses, and that thc Mandatefor South Wcst Africa should k
given to South Africa, for h'cw Ciuinea and the adjacent islands to Auscratia,

and fur Samoa to New Zmland ".
22. Evenafter the Sniuts resolution had ken tacitly adoptcd, Prcsideiit
Wilsondid noi entirclygive up hisawn ideas. In IliThird ParisIisaft,printed
on3 February :, heagairiincluded a clausc rcscrving IO theLcaguc cornplctc
power of siipervisivn in respeoftmandates,and to the ~ople of any nlandated
tcrritory thc righttnapwal to theIxague for the rcdrcssor cvrrcction of any
breachof'theinaridateby ~hemandatory Stütc oragency and for thcsubstitution
of some i>tI~rState oragency as ~nairdatory'.

Thc copics of ihis, thelaqtof lhe Presiùeni'sdrafts,wereserit tohirrton tht
morniiig of 3 Februaryby D. H. MilIer,Arnericanlegal adviser iil ParisTn a
letterto h.iilIerrhc Presideiitstated tliat he hopewitli atl hisheart that his
finiit dra\vould serve as the basis of the wurkof the Di.itftinCornrriissio n.

%id. [ m816.
' SloniinCanurliaii Yturhonkof Irir.:rrintiLaw,iVol. VI. p.138.
Ihid. litscvcntunl rornia5 Ari. 22 (6) othe Cor4cnant,the S~~iutresulirtion
becairie parofthc '1-rcatofVersailleswliichwaï sigoci!r 128 June 1919.
Miller.op. cilVol. I, p. 73.
Ibid.V,ol. IIp.153.
lbid ..ol.1,p. 75. Hut, asMillcr puis it:

"Wilson's hope wasriot realizcd; iwas theHurst-Milfer- Ilrafr and nor
his reviwd Covcnsnt wl~ichhecarnethe brisisof the work to mme '."

23. Ii is necessaryta stre2sthe niainelernents orthe conipromise embodied
inArticte 22 (61of the Co\.enant ?. In return for thc co,nccssionthat a11 the
German criInnial possession? wcrz hrought into the ~nandatc ystcm, Presiden t
WiIsonhad tu abandon certain oflhc exrrerneaspects ofhis proposais concern-
ing Leaguesupren-iacyand sontrol and thc ypamcnt ofcxpcnses of mandate
administrationby League >lembers. All mandatories were to be States.no1
"organizcd agcncits". The mandates wcre to be allncated by the Principal
Allied and Associated Powe:s (nor the League), and, aiany ratc in rhecase of

the "C" Mandares, the allocation "wunld huvr 10 te" niade to the adjacent
claimantStatcs.Thc Prcsident'sexpressprovisions relaringto complere power
of supervision oiithe part oftheJxague, including thcpowcr to rcvoke a man-
date andsutistitritesonieotherStat.~u:rugeticy asinandatory,wercnot rcrained
in Articic 27. Thc rdatiunship between the League and mandatories was in
each case to be regulated by a niandate instrunient, thc iccrrnof which were
nsscnted to bs the mandatory and woiild noriiialiy require ts conscnt for al-
tcrstion. AI1 ihiswstsvery Air removcdfrorn the envisagedfree League Jis-

cretion to appoint and change mandatories.And in thc casc of"C" Maiidatcs,
the niandatorieswere ta hx;e power to adniinisteithe territories"as integral
portions" of thciuwn. Andiherr rvoiildbcno objectionil suchadminisrratiori
were to leadto eventual am;ilganiaiion,il'agreed to by thc inhabirant.;. t the
Pcace Cnnrerence PresidentWilson strcssedthat :

"It was up to the U~iion of South Africa to make itsu attriictivethat
South West Africa would came into thc Union of theirown free ruiI....
If sucessfit1ndministrarion by a mandatory should lead 10 union with
the inandatory, he would be the last10 object.... 3"

Later he said that-

"ifSouthAfriçarriariaged Sourh-WestAfrica as welIac,she had nianaged
hcr own country, then sht ivo~~ldbc marricd io South-Wesi hfrica '".
Finally, ihe"open-door" principleof equal tradcopportunities forMernbers
of the League, ri1houghoriginaliycnvisaged for al1mandates, was cxcluded in

the case of"Cu Mandates '.This exclusion was subscquent~y referred to by
Lord hTiIner,Chairmanof tf,e Cornmissionappointed to frame draftmnndütcs,
as "a co~iprornisexiually tccepted by the Powers "".
24. In view of the above iealures, cornnientatorsquite naiurallyrefcrred ta

' ASid$vascoriimçntedegznei-aIlyby W.dE.cRsippard, Secretary aiisuhsrqucntly
mcm bcr of thcPermanent Minda~et.5Coriiriiission: "The tcrof ihe cotiipromist

inretainingthcirconqucsts." I/jd"Tlie MandateseandnthenInternarionaTrustees!iip
Syslem", Yariu PoIifiri(l953j, p.182.
For. Rd. U.S. : Ïkr PauiPPLICC PonSfrencc.1919, Vol.III,pp. 741-742.
' Ibici.n.788.
.' vitk~'fiiu~ordsof Art.22 (6).
Corit2rt~nrde InPair IIY9-1920. Rrcirririrs Acrede /a Cotifireiice. Partie V1."C" Mandatesas bcing in thcirpracli~il effectnotfarreinoved fromannesation.
Thus, during the First Session ofthe Pcrrnancnr Mandates Commission,
Mr.Orn;sbl,-Gore, the Lnited Kingdoni niember, stated:

". . . ihcuw vfSouih Wrs? Africnwas,indeed,a typical example of the
complete political incorporritionofa mandared rerritoryin hc rerritory
ofthe mandatoryPower '".

"it has becn foiind nemsiary, also, ro devise three typesof adniinis-
[ration, and to givc in thc icsc of 'C' Mandales,powcrs that amount

ncarly to annexatiun.Oihem~ise the BritishDominions couid not Iiave
been won over torhc acccptanceofthe mandatesprinciplea[ al12."
Whrn inrroducing the l'eace Treaty in thcBritish Hou% ofConintons on 3
July 1919, Lloyd George stated:

". . South Wesr AMca, running as it daes sidby sac with Cape CoIony,
was fcittobe so much stpart,geograjihically,ofchatareüthat itwould he
quiti:irnlio.~si/>lrco rrif irhesatne Ray nsjmoirwoiild a coiut~2,000 or
3,001m)ilesaway frrim acentre of adininistration. Threfi nodoubr ut ail

rCiaSotirh West Africrrwill brcottrair integrai parof the Federation of
Sou1.hAfrica.ItwilI lxcolonizd by people fromSouth Africa.You could
not have done anything el%. You wuid not have sel customs biirricrsand
havc ü diffc~nt systeniofiidniinistration"."(talicsaddcd.)

And Ternperleywrote:
"CIearIy the deve1opinent of this territorymus[in ihe main corne €rom
thc adjuining Union of South Africa, and ir.progrcss woriidhc .rcrio~tsiv
irnndicappcdifitw~rcadrnifiisreredas n,disfinclrntiry witsipcrrufnuiive,
jisri, and rniiroud policies.As, hnwev~r, itwas fearrd fhnian exceprion

t~iadcinone cnseno ttiatrer hon:v(zlitiirighrte-inightupetrriredoor tu
ori~ern,r~,ncrrrnlpplictifionoJthsysief nrisinsi~redupon.This had some
unfortunsiteconfeqiiencessince, mainly inordcr to meet thc spccial cir-
cunistanccs inSouth Afrim,a broad forn~ula had to headoptedwhich wa~
notcompietely satisfactoryasfaras other areüswereçoncerned '."(Italics
added.)

C. 'I'heFramingof the Mandatefor SouthN'estAfrb

25. In ierms ofAnicIcs 118, I19and 157of thcTreatyof Versailles,Germüny
re1iounfi:d alriphtsinor over hercoloiiial possessions infavourof Ihe Prin-
cipal Allied andAssociatcd Powers.
On 7 lviay 1919, thus cvcn bcforc the Treaty ofVersailles was signedj, the
Council of I'hree, represented by Mr. Cicmenwau, PresidentWilsonandMr.
LIoydGtorge, annoiincedthat ttiey'naddecided nn6 May as IO thc disposition
of the fclrmer Gcmsn Colonies, interdia, as futlows: "fierman South West
Afriw :The Mandate shallbe heIdhy the Union of Soutli Africa6.''

PiMC'.Min., 1. p.17.
Margplith. A. hl.The Irirsrriarioi:M~ndaf~.(s19301pp. 33-34.
' ?rnl~crlcy, opcir.,Vol.111,p. 95.
' ibid. Vol. IIpp. 233-233.
' I'heTrraty wiissignrdon28lune 1919,nndcanie intoforceon 10 January 1920.
For. Ref. L7.S.:ThePuris Peuce C(~njercncc.1919, VoV, p.508. WRI'ITEEiSm-i'kMEhT OF SOUTH AFRICA 553

26. Bcforc ihc endof the I'arisI'caccConferenceof 1919, a hfandatesCoin-
niissionwasestablished and wasinstructedbythe SupremeCounciI, it~rcraiin:
"Tu gi~e arrentiunto theediting ofdraft mandates '." (TransIation,)
On the hais of the Con;miçsion's decision5 and reçorrimendations d,rafi
mandatc instrumentswereevzntualiy prcparcd bythe IegaIexperts ofthe nrafi-
ing Commi tteeofthe Peace ConTerence.?'hes deraftwere firscastin thcforni

ofconventions'and theintention hd originaIly been thatsuch conventions
shvuld form anncxcs to the Peaw Treiity3.By thc tinitehes were subrnittedto
the Council,as recounted below, tIiey had,however. beetirecastin thc formof
Council resolutions.
Transmissionof thc draft riiandaiesio thcCouncilof the kague wasdelaycd
because of a differenceofcpinion ainong the .Me~nbero sf the Commission
regarding the queslion ivhetherthe open-door prinçiplewas to beapplicablein
thecase of "C" lllandatcs +.
27. On 5 August 1920 theCouticilof the League of Nations dnsidcred and
adopted a veryfuI1repart by kfr. Elyrnansconcerning the mandates sysiern -C.

Aftcr pivingasunirnary nf th.:main sspcctsofthe system, thereportdeal t with
measures to betaken toapply it,nieastiresalreadytaken bythe PrincipalAllied
and Associated Powen: and rhc Mandate sommission, and measures which
Ihc Council should take. It pointed out that the rightto,aI1ocareniandatcs
beIonged to thePrincipalPowcrs. Situ, however, themandatory wouId govern
in lhe name of thc Leagile of Nations, the allocation shouldbe confirmed by
thc kague.
The iiextissuewas thedetmtiinatioit of the teriiiofthe mandaies. Mc. Hy-
ntanspoinred out ihat thisqi~estiorwasonIy partiallysolved by Article 22(8)

of ihe Crivenant, sincemost of ihemandam would conrain many provisions
vther than ihosc rclatingto rhe degr~u:of authority.A5 regards Article 12(8)
heconcludcd:

"II seern so mc thiit;:he realcxplanation of paragraph 8 of Article22
isas fotiows.When thisArticlewas draftedinJmuary 1919,ils authors
supposed rha tthe convcntionsdealiny ivith theMandates couldcertainly
bcincludcdin thel'reatyitself,or forni annexuretrit.Ttw3s alsnrhoughi
at thattiine that only tht:Alliedand Associatcd Powerswurildk con-
sideredas Original hfenibc rrsthe Leaguc of Nations. In other words,
thalon thc day of itsfoiindation theywnuld he its nnIyMembers. Itwas,
therefore,iiitendedin using ihwords'the hlernber; of thekague' lo refer
toal1the signatories excsrpGtrmany of theTreaty of VcrsailIes &."

The rcport procccded:

"How isparagraph8 io be appliedto the prtrentmoment? Ii is in prac-
tice almost impossibletcapply 11teralIythe procedure which we have just
defined.How could the tisscntof al1those signatories of the Treaty of
VersaiIIeswho are MernSers of theLcague k obtaincd?
. -

: C'oilf.rerrrieb Puix 1915-1920,Partie VIA. lc' Fÿrjcp. 327.
- ibid., pp399-416 (Annexei II toVIII).
?'t'ideKcport by Mr. Hymans in tliCouncil tithe LeagutnT Nations, L.r$,V.,
O.'., 1920(No. 61,pp. 335, 335.
VideWright, op. cil.pp. 47-48 ,0; Temperley, op.cil.Vol. II,pp.237, 239;
Hall,vp.cil., pI36;House,E.M. andScymour. C.(eds.)What Reully Happen~dut
i'ar'(is19), pp.227, 440.
L. ofhi., O.J., 1920(Not), p.i34.
Ibid.p. 338. WH[TTEN STATEMENT OF SOUTH AFKICA 555

29. On 17 Decernber1920the Councilcansidered a memorandutnprcpard
bytheSecretara inatcontaining suggestionsforatnendrnent incertai rnspects
of rhedraft mandatcs handd in by Mc. Balfour '.
Thc Council arrceptedth[:suggcsted amendments, crinfirmçd,interdi({,the
Mandate for South WestAfrica, and dcfind ilstertns.
The relevanr pariionsof the text of the Balfoud rraft mandate forSouth
West Afrim which wert:arriendedare here quoted in juxiapapositio the iext
thereof as amended and :dopted by the Council rcsolutionof 7 Decernber
1920.

TizeBolJiiuucii.afimcindaref;)r Gertnunïc~-iasnmcndcd ntid/inn[iy adopied
Sotirh Wesr Afiiccr sul>milferifor

crpproval.
Insertion of a fourth patagraph to
the preamble.
" Whercns, by the aforcmentioncd
Article22.paragrapti 8,itis provided
thal the degree ofauihvrity, coniroi
or adrninistratioito be exercisedby
the Mandatory no1 having heen
previoiislagreed upon bythc Mcm-
bersofthc tcague, shallk cxpljcjrly
definedby theCouncil ofthe League

of Nations:
"The Council of the t.eague of phc Council of the kaguc ofNa-
Nations. . . iions.. .]
Hcrcby approves of thc ferrns of Conftrining iht.said Mandate, de-
rhe Mandate asfollows: fincs its iertnsasfolluws:

ARTICLE 7 ARTICLE 7

The consent of the Couiicil of the 'Thc wnscnt of theCouncit ufthe
League ofNations is requirtdforany League of Nations isrequiredfor any
~iiodificationofthc tcrms01'thepres- modification of ihc tcrnis the pres-
eiitrriandate,provided rhat in the ent mandate."
case of anymodification p~riposcdby
the Mandatory, such consent may k
given by a niajority."

30.The rensonsforthe inscrtion of the foiirrhparagraphorthepreainblc and
forIhc amendment of the tertof ArticIc7arcçxplainedina report totheCoun-
ci1of the League by Viscount Isliiion 20 Fcbruary1922 2.
According to the Ishii ra:porirhe fourth paragraph of the preamble was
inserted-

". .to dcfirieclearlthe rclativnwl~ictunder the rerms ofthe Covenant,

shauld cxistbciwc~n the League of Naiions and thc Council un the one
hand, and the inandarrtryPower on the other. ..3".
Tlie proviso tothe firsparaçraph ofArticle7 was deleted-

' lbid.H.all,op. cilp. 153.
' 1.. oj'N., O.1922 (Yo. 8.Part II)pp. 849et se(!.
Ihid., p. 850.556 NhMIBIh (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

"... l~tcauseitIthe Courtcil] didnor think it advisahleto cornider the
possibililofaltering thc tcrms of a mandate by a decision takenon a
majority vote'".

31. The fuiictions of tlteLeaçue of Nations in reswt of Mandates were
exercised hythe Corincil,the Asscmbly andthePermanentMandates Cammis-
sion.
32. The Courrcilwas tl~ body to wtiichevery mandatory was ultirnatcly
amuntable. It was to the Councilthat the mandaiorics had to renderannual
reports l,Ioits "satisfaction'.

TheCoiinc do[ne hadthe power to iake decisionsand address recurnmen-
dationsto the mandaturies 4.
Article1.ofthe Ccivenan tentitledanyMember of theLeagun eot reprewn tcd
on theCorincil "to scnda Repr~cntativc to sitasa rnernberat any meetin gf
the Councilduring theconsideration of maiters spcciallyaffecfinthe intetests
of tht Memher".'Thisprovjsionenabled a mandatory to bereprescntedwhcn
the Counci t considerd matfcrs rclating to iown rnanàateand to mandatesin
general.
lnterm:;of Article 5of the #venant, decisions of the Council rcquired
"the agreement ofail ihe Mcmbcrsof the League rcpresented atthe meeting",
(Iialiçs adricd.)Whether a mandatory couldcxercise itvote in the C'ouncilin

such a wa:~ asta frustratettieunanimous view of al1the other Membcrs on a
matter affccting its~wn rnandatc,was ncver raised, biit iis now settIcdlaw
that a maildaro riy have thisright5.In factno occasion an which there was
such a division ofvotesevzr arose;al1 Coiinci[decisioiiconcerning mandiitcs
were iaker:unanimousiy 6.
33. The Assembly derivedits powers iircspcct ofmandates FromArticle 3
of ihcCov:nant in termsof which itcould "dcal atitsmeetingswithany inatter
within the sphereof action of the Lcaguc ...".
At rhc FirstAsscmbly a"workingbasis"was, however,decided onaccording
to which:

"Nitithcr budy(i.et.h,e Assembly ar thc Council) hasjurisdiction to
render a decision in a inatier which bythe Treatiesor the Cwenant has
hem cxprcssIy cornn~it toerheorher organ of thc Lcague. Either bady

may discussand examine anymatterwhich iswithin thecornpetence of the
League 7".
Thus, in respectof mandates, the Assemhly's role was çonfincd to-

;'.. . the exercisof a artain moral andvery general influence in this

L. ofN.. O.J.. 1922(So. 8.Part II.. . 854.
~rt:.22 (7).
' Vide,The~Mundate.S~y..siem-Ori~in-Pr'rinciPles-App(I 19c45)pi.35;iiall.
op.cil.p. 174; PMC, Mn.,1, p. 5.
Vide para.83,infiri.
Vide V~fingProcedureon Questiunsuclnlingro Krport.and Peiifions conwmin~
tlw Territ.oofySotirilhWes~frjcu,AdvÏsuryOpinion, I.C.J. Reporrs 1955,pp100-
101.(Judgc Lauterpachi'sseparate opinion.)
' f.of hl.Assernhly,Rec., 1p. 320. domain. IL-function may bcsaid to bc to maintaintouch between public
opinion and ihe Council '."

34. The Permanent Mantlates Conmission was institutedby iIteCouncil on
29Noverriber 1920,pursuantto theprovisionsof Article22, paritgraph 9,of the
Covenant, in icrrns of which its ftinctionswerc 30 receive and examinethe
annusil reporrs of the mandatories and to advise the founcil on al1rnatters
reIatingto the observance cvfthc mandates7*.
Article 72 of the Cuven;rntdid not makeprovision fur petitions froni in-
habitants of inandatedtcr;itories. nor did the mandate instrumentsdo so.
Petitionswcre, however, sent to the PermanentMandatesCommission,and au a
'
resultrhe C:ounciI,at ts 231-dsessienin 1973, framed rules rc1aiingto the pro-
cedureto bç adoptedwithrcgardthereto.In tcrms oftheserules,pctitions fron?
"curnriiiinitiesor sectionscdthe populations of mandated areas''were ta be
subrnitted onIy through the mandatoryconcerned, which would be entitled to
artach "suchcomments as it might think dcsirable".Petitions"rerardingthc
inhabiiants of mandatedti:rrjtories received... frum anysource othcr than
that of lhe inhabitants thcmselves", wcre to beaddresscù to the CIiairman of
the Conirnissionwhohad tcdccjdc whethcr lheyshould beregardcdas "claim-
ingattention". If so, the niandatory concerncd was then Io be askcd for iis

comments thereon 2.
'I'hequesiion whetherthr: Permanent Mandates Commission wzstsentitlet#
gmnt ors[ hearings topetitionerswas raisedon several occaqinns in thcorgrrns
of the Leagiie,espcciallydriringthe years 1926-1927, whcn a proposri[for such
hearings "in certaincases" met with consiJerable opposition. When the views
of the mündatoriesweresriughtin regardthcreto,they unanimousIyexpressed
theiropposition, with lhe resultthat the CounciI on 27 March 1927, dccided
rhat "thcrc is 110occasion to modify the prowdure whichhas hitherto been
followd by the Commissin in regard to thisquestion 3".
35.In ccinstituting thc Permanent Mandates Commission. the Council

decidcd, irrterczlithat ilwas to consist ofnine memhers 4, themajority ta be
nationals of non-mandatoryStates. It furtherprovided that :
"Ali rhc Mernbers oi"theCommission shaI[be appriintedby theCouncil

and selectedfor ~hrirpersonai nie?i~~airdcornpetence. They .chainot hvld
nny oficewhirfrprrrsihmr itapnsirioirofdirect depe~idenceon rheirGoverrr-
nwnts wffifemember.s gf rliConimi.s.~ion (Italieadded.)
Thc Permanent MandatcsCommission was described as-

"... essentiallyan adrisory body-a body whuse duty itisIOexamine and
rcport-designed to assisrrheCounciI in carryingout ilstask.Ttswork is
prelirninaryin characier.Constitutionally, it has no paivcr to tnkedeci-
sions binding on the inandatory Pnwers or ruaddressdirect recurnmen-
Jations.to them.Ttscoiiçliisionsarcnotfinniuntilthey have been apprvved

by the CounciI 6.''

Ti~aItictndur~Sysrem-i3rigiiz-Principi~s-AppIicario, p.35.
L. uj-N,,U,J,,1323(NO 3).p. 300.
' ~hid..1927(SC>.4). p. 3r,8.
Lalcr incrrasrù10 IO and thcnto II.
j 7'hehfundlrrrs &stcrn- Origin--Prit~~:@Ies-A~~plir~~ion,p. 35. Vialso van
.4sb~k, F.M., "Intcroiiti<inLaw and Colonial Administration", Grorius Suc.,
Vol. 39 (19531,p.14. The Commission itself rcalizand statedthat, havingadopted itierule or
"absolutc independence andimpartiaiity". its Membersshould exercise thcir
authority "les asjudges from whvm critical pronounccnients are expected,
than as ~~[iaburatorswho are rascllvedto devote their experience ancl hcir
energies t~ajoint endeavour '".
36. Altnougti its powen wcrt: purely advisory, the Coniniission developtd
into anelluclive imtitution.rrt thisconnectioiiMr. Kappard-a! firstSecrctary
and later Fora longrime a Mernber oflhe Conimissiun-siatcd:

"As the Commission. thatiks tothe persona[corripeten=and gcncraIly
recognizedindependenceof itsmernbcrs, came to cnjoy arealrespectand,
inùccd, quitc sonie prestige,an internationaI or rather a supernaiionaI
moraI authorityspiang up. ... In itscapciçiiyas a purcly iidvisory body
. . . tlPermanent MandaresCommissionhad no powers of coercion

whati:ver.As a universalfyesteemed group of inipartialand indepcndcnt
expetts, however, ils powcrs ufpcrsuasi~nwcre indisputablyvery effec-
tive. i\l~mandatorygovernn-ien.t.. coüldaKord todisregarditsadvicefor
fear of noather sanctiob nst thoseor public and parliamcnraryopinion.
The net result\vas a williny co-opcration between the League and the
inanchiatory governmcnrs, and the enhancernelitof the standards of ad-
ministrationinthernandatedterritorie andtven, by anatuwIrepcrcussion.
iiwlonial adniinistrativneverywhcrc '."

37.Thcre wasat al1tintescordialco-operationbetweenSouth Africa andthe
Pcrmancnt Mündatcs Conimissinn. On masion diferenc ofsopinionürow-
as was thecase also with regard io othcr mandatcdicrritorics-but this \vas
inevilable inview mainly of unccrtaintiesand obscurities in a new systein.
opcrating undcr thc sornewhat vague terms of the coniproniiseetnbodied in
Article 22 of the Covei~ant.And wiih bolh Suilth Africaand thc Conirnission
approiiching their task in the spirit of thcompromise, tlieproblernswhich
arosc wcrc alwayssatisfactorilysalved -z.

E. AmIysis of the Mandatefor SouthWest Africa

38.It ic;convenientatthisstage toproceedto o morc dctailcdanalysisof thc
mandatefor Soulh Wmt Afriça inthe çontcxt ofthe system as a whole.
ArticIc22of thefovenant of the League of Nationscornniencedwith seliing
out tlie signataries'agreementthai to thc colonics and territoriesin question
". . . therc shoiiId bc applicdtheprinciple that the well-being and develop-
nient of.. .[the inhabitants]form a sazred trustof civiIization.. ." It further
recorded their agreerrieniihai "sccuriticsfor thc performance af this trust''
should be embodied iirthe Covenant.
Thc second paragraphof the Article statedthat "the bcst merhod ofgiving

practical cRect to lhis prinçiplewould bcto "cntrust" the "tutelitge"of the
"peopltx" conccrned to suitable "advanced natioiis", wiIlinto acceptit,whu
woutd "cxcrciw-' it"= mandatories on behaif OCthe League".
The wording ofthe Articleas a wholc. as wellas itshistorical background,
sugçest.strongly that the refcrcncesto "trust","tutelage"and "mandatories"
wcrcnot intcnded to beartechnicalIegaImeaning, byexact orcloseamlogy to
-.

L. nfrh'.O.J.,1'121(Nos. IU-12).pp. 112.4-1125.
Rappard, Vuriu Potitirap. 184.
public ofSouiIidAtricain 1.(7.J. PleadingSoiiffW~sttAfiica,Vol. Il,pp.h24-32. WRITTEK STATEMEB?. OFWCïH AFMCA 559

inunicipallaw institutionscd trrisIiti~/agand ~na>idnru~ir.ofor instancethe
English word "triist"whickiiscapübIt of uteckmica[lep[ ineaning i+well asof
a inore generaiordinary m:aning, depending on context.was rendcredin thc
Prenchvcrsivn by thewordnrissian,meanjng in rhis context "fssk" or "under-
standing", tl~usconfimjng that a non-tcchnicaiconr~utaiion of "rrust" was
intended. The conception, alsu, or the,"tutelage" of a backward people or

community by an "üdvanct:dnation"coiild al most have ben intended in a
brvad, ii~etaplioricasense. Jt is signifiantthat in the aciuai mandate in-
struments which canie in to cxistcnce subsequently,the words ',trust" and
"t~itelage~'id notappcar ;iall. Evcn in thecase of lhe words"mandatory"
and "mandate".which\vert retained inthe niandütcinstrumentsthcinse[ses,
theanalogy, if any, witha privütc law~?inti&~iriwa? prohably intendecito be
d the broadest and most gr-nerdnaturc only.The morecietüiledand tcchnical
aspccts of the private law institution could hardIy have bocn known to the
PeaŒConfcrenw asa ivholt-as diutincipossiblyfrorn certainofitsMembers
-and cannot therefore faiily be presurned to havc ken intendedto bc in-

corporüied initscuvenants.It W~S probabiy hyreasonof considcriitionssuch as
thesethürthe rnajoritor th? Courtin thc 1950Advisof?Opiiiion expressed the
view ihat t was "...no1 ~iossibIttidraw any concliision by anrilogy from
thc notions or mandatein ~iationalIawor frnm any othcr Icgal concepti ofn
that law IF'.
It seems,then, thatwhar was süid in rhcopening pai'agraphsof ArticIe22
conccrning a"sacred trust"and "rutelage",mut bc rc~arded asking descrip-
tiveof the idealistic or himunilarian objectives involved in ihe mandates
spsieiiland tkat thcn.fercnc::u "mandalories on tKhalf ofthe League" isto be
understood as affordiiiga broad indication of thc niclhud whercby those
ohjectivcsivodd besought to bc aliained.It js,therefore,to the more detailcd
provisionsin Articlc 22 for "securitieforthe performance of rhistrust"that

regardmust Ixh:ad in ordel- to deterniinethejuridical content ufthe mandates
sq'stem asenvisage bydrhesigmtorics tu IheCovenant.
39.On analysis,the xcurities enihodiedin the provisions of ArlicIe 22
wcre thosc provisionsrequii-ingthe mandatoryto providecertain safeguards in
rlieinterestsof theindigenorispopulation.to sccurccertaininterests orbenefits
for Meinbersof the Leagueand their nationals, and to render to thcCouncil
ofthe Lcaguc an annual report inreference tothe 'l'erritorcvmrnitted ruils
cliarge.Furthermorc,a Permanent MandiitcsCommissionwould receiveand
examine the reports and advise the Courtcil on al1 matlers reIaring to the
observance of ihe rnaiidates;andthe degreeof authority, mntrvl oradminis
tratioiito be exercisedby the mandatory wasto lx explicitlydeftnedineafh

case-hy agreement kt\vce;i Membersof the Lcag~ieor by the <:riuncil.
40. II \vil1be obseived rlialAr~jcle22 did nat itsclf purportto put the
mandatessystcm inio ope~.cion. It sct forttheagreed ideilistic ohjectivcs of
Ihe system, agreed iiiethodswherehy itrvouIdix put into operationand agreed
fcaiures wl~ich would be iiicorporrrr hered~n.The provjsiuns of Article 72
cIeai-[yenvisaged thatconcietc stcps would have to be taken for thecornpiele
constitution of thc systcni,nameIytowardsentrusting ~he "tutelage" of thc
inhabiiants ofparticrila~errilurie10 particular"advanccdnatiotis... wiliing
to accept il" (Art. 22 (Z)) m,nstituting thosç "nations" as manùatorics on
behalfof the League (Art.2::(2)),andexpIicitlydefining thedegreeofauthority,controI or adininistratioito be exercisedby therri(Art. 21 (8)) arid those
provisions prescribedconditions which ir7erin this procests be irnposed as

ohligationsupon themandatories,substan~ivelyintheinterestsof the mandared
peopies aridMembers ofthe Leagur: (videArt. 27 (5and (6) )ndprmdurally
with a viw tointernationaIsupenfisionof tlie "observanceof the inandates",
Le.,d ihr:exerci~ of the substantivepowers and cornpliance with the su&
stantive obligaiions (Art. 22 (and (9)).
Inother words,Article22 was an agreemetitbetween Members ofthe kgue
as such, ri:gardinâ mandalessystem IO bcconstitutcd inpursuane thereof.
Thc systcrnilsclf, however, tvoutdbeginto oprate only upnn theconferment
on the rejpective mandatoriesof speciiic niandates in rcspwtof particiilai'
territorles.and upon the spcciftc definitioof the mandatories' rights and
obligations in conncction therewith.
41. TheconcretestepsenvisiigcdbyArticIc22 wcrcduIy takcn,in thefojlow-
ing order:

(a) The I'rincipaIAlIiedand Associatcd Powcrs (in whosc favour Gcrmany
was tu renounce her oveseas possessiob ns Arts. 118 and 1I9 of the
Trcaiy)aIIacatedthe various ierriroriesto difkrent mandatories, and.
inteidiü,decidedon 7 May 1919, thattheMandate for SouthWest Africü
shouId be hcId by South Afriw '.
(6) ,Draft mandate instrunients were çonsidered by the PrincipalAIIiedand
Associated Powersand, aftcragrccmcnt arnongstthcmxlvcs and iviththe

desimaleci mandatories asto theternisthereofsubmittedtotheCouncii of
thc League 2.
(c)The C:ouncil ofthe Leaguc confirmcd thc niandata 3,thcrcby conslit uting
the desimated mandatories as "mandatorieson behalf of rhe kaguc".
(4 The CounciI furtherin pursuanceof Article22 (81,definedthe terrnsof the
rnand.atesin the marner sct ouf in thc instruments of mandate '. This
was generalIyin accordance with thedrahs submitted,subject tocertain
altcrations5.

42. The provisions of thc Mandstc for German South Wcst Africa, as
defined by [he Cuuncil on 17 Uec~rnkr 1920weretypical of "C" Mandates.
Thcrnandatory's fitleappeared from rhePrcambtewhich set ou1that therwas
conferred and confirmcd, in accurdance wirh Article 22 of the Covcnant,
"a Mandate ... to adrniiiistertlieterritory aforcmentioned",which the
mandatory had undertaken "10 exerçis... on behalfof theLeaguc",and from
Article2whichprovidcdthat themandatoryshould havefull power of adminis-
tration and IegJation owr the Territory"asan integraIportionof the Union
of South Africa", and that ilmiyht apply the laws of the Union of South
Africa to the Territory,subjecfto such local modifications as circurnstctnces
rnightreqirire.The rnaadatory's substantiveobligaiionwereset out in Articles
2 to 5and its obligations regardingsüpcrvisionin Articletwhiçhrequiredthe
mandatory to render tu rhc Council of the League, to its satisfactioan
annual report "containingfulI information with regardto the territory,and
indicatirtgthc masures taken ta carry uut the obligationsassumed under

Vide pxa. 25,supr~.
' L.uj'N., O.J.1921 (No. I),p.89.
End of Preamhteof hlandate for South West Africa aiidalso ofother "C"
Mandates.
' Vide cndof PreambIe.
' Vide para.24,supra. WRITTl3NSTATEMENT <>FSoiTilAFRICA 561

Articles 2.3,4 and 5". Article7provided fhatihe consentof the L'ouncilofthe
League wss rcqui~d for8ny modification of the tcrmsof the Mandateand
also set out the martdatory'sagreement ta the submission tothe Permaneni
Cour1of International Justiceof disputesbriwren itseland another Mernkr of
the Leaguc of Nations,in :;Ofar asthey relatedto theiincrpretütionor appli-

cation ofihe provisionsof heMandate and #uId no1besettledby nego tiation.

P.The Mandatory's Obligation toReportand Acconnt

43. Thissection is devotd tu ananalysis ofa rnanùatory'sobligationswith
respecr.to supervision ofihe administration of a territoryundcr itscontrol.
The purpnse of lhis analysis 1sto ascerta i nether these obligationswere

capable uf s~rrvivingthe aisolution of rhe League of Nations. in the sEnx
that after such dissolutiot a substitutian ofssupcrvisvryorgans could have
taken place without the nwd of fresh consent on the part of a mandatory.
Such a result could notiocallq. have ben acIüeved by ~heoperation OPsomt:
principteof inrernationa11;lwopcrating indcpendcntlyof thc intentions ofthe
parries,or by some agrecmcnt incorporatedin theexpress or intpliedterrnof
the Mandate. Tiiese varioi~spossibilities wibedeal[ witii inlurn hereafter.

44. There was no suggt:stionby any Memberof the Court inthe 1950
opinions, or in theJudgmi:nt andopinions on the PreliminaryObjections in
1962or ttieJudgrnent and ripinionon theMerirs in 1966,that there existany
principle ~Psuccession,wh~ch, opcratirtÎnJcpenJentIy of the intentionsofthe
parties,could autornaticallhave effecteda substitiitioOFthe UnitedNations.
its organs and/or Members, fur the League of Nations, its organs andior
Mem bers '.
The only rcsIdiscussionof thistopicisfound in the 1961dissenting,opinion

OFJudge van Wyk ', whe;e hc held that no such principle exists, quoking,
Niferdia,the following sr:itemcntof Judgc Levi Carneiro in tlieAmharirios
case:
"Even when the arg:~nwhich wilsformerly conipetenthasbeen abolished,

Judge Tanaka's tcIeological approacin1966 may be saidio achievcniuçhthe
srimrresultrtan objective princiflt internationallaw.Videthediscussionthere-
of, Chap. IX, para. 63. infia. Howerer, JudgTanaka cxprcsslystatcdthat "we
caiinot rccognire universaucct.ssionithe juridicalscnsin thcsecaxs" (p.274)
and based hisconctusicithaiasuccessionof supcrvisorponrershad taken place tin
an interpwtation of the Ma,rdatetilbeihy n prucessof interpretation wliich was
ncitciincernedwith ascerrair,ingtinleniionsof thepartie(pp.276-278).For Che
reasons staiedin Chap. II,supru, itis submiiiedthatJudge Tanaka's approach
should not be followcd. Hcfcrcnçrnay alsobe made to ludge Alvarez'dissenring
opinion in 19513in which k:ccuncluded that the Unitcd Nations had succccded
"ipsojüc~o" IO rhc Lcrigu*ifKations (p.182). Judge Alvarezfailedhriwevcr,to
lormtilatcany Icgalprinçiplor rulc on which hisconclusion ctluld based. nor
did hccitç anyauthciritin i;~pparthercof.
South West Africu, Pir,finrilioOhjeciinn.s, Jirdgi?tenr, I.C.J. Aeporrs 1962,
pp. 643-604. it.pclrverswnnot be regarded as nulornaiicüIly transkrrcd to the new
organ which rcplaccs it'."

Judge auslamante, in his separaieopinion in1962, aIso in pawing rejected
thc possiEi1ityofcirhcr "automatic" or -'ex oficin"successi on the United
h'atioiistrithe Leagucof Nat ions 2.
45. Tite Applicantsin the .Yo~i/hWw Afiicacases, in theirObxrvations on
thc PrclirninaryObjwlions, rcIicd on a "Doctrine of Succession "" which,
they then said. hadforined thebasis ofthe majoriiy opinion in 1950.Thcy did
noi, howcvcr. indicatc th<: exact legalorigin OF such doctrine.This doctrine
was anaIy!;edand, itis respectful siyinitted, refiiieby Soiith Afriça in the

pIwdings atid oral proceedings,and received riosupport from any Mcinbcrof
the Coiirtin 1952. En the oral prwewling on the ~neritsin1965 the AppIicants
thereupon expreacd rcgrct forhaving uwd ihe expression "aurwtatic suces-
sion"and statedexplicitly that they dinot conceive-

"... ihat the United Nations acqiiiredtitle lu the kague's supcrvisory
power overniandatesby virue of somc gcncral internationallegalprinciple
of devolutionor succession aliicirdrthe mandate'".
Itwaf probatilyhy reason, illr~r ~l!~,fthis concession that theppossibility

of succession by virtue ofati objwiive rutç uf intcrnationa1law was not dealt
with in thc Judgment and opinions in1966 j.
46. Inview of ihe largelyacademic nature OC any suggestion ofautomatic
sucwsiun by operaiion of law, il sufficcsto statc that the Snuih African
Govemmcnt contcnds that no IcgaI principle exists which could (wit hout
consent of the parries, and,in particuIar, the mandatory)have resiiltedin a
transfcr of supervisorypciwersin rcspcct of mandates ttathe llnited Nations.
In the succeedingparrigraphs,the South Africati Governirientwill consider
whethersiich a transfer could have resultedfrornthe expressor any inlplicd

tcms of Ihc mandatc documentsthcmselves, Le., Article27 of the Covenant
and theniandateinstrument.

ilI.The Express Ternzsof the .Wut~duir

47. Alrltough commentaiorsfrequentlyemploy the broad descriptive terrns
"kaguc supcrvisit>n"and -'supcrvisory functionsof the Ikague", siichphrase-
ology did not owur iiitherelevafitprovisionsof ArticIc22 of thc Covcnant or
of the maridaleinçtrurn~mrT s.hest:provisionswere as fcillows:

(u) Article 72 (7) of rhe (,'ovetzunt:
"In everycase of mandate, the mandatorysliall render to the Council
an annuaI rcpart inrcfcrence to the territorycomniiited Io its charge."
(b) Arficie23 (9) ofthe Covenunt;

"A permanent Commission shallbcconstituted to receiveandexamine
thc aimual reports of thc mandatories and to advise the Couneil on al1
mattersrelatiiigto the observanco ef thc rnandatcs.-'

: Anzhufieln.~Y,reliinirrurr:Obj~rlioi~, Reports 1952.p.54.
Suafb Wesi Africu, Preliminury Objrci ionsJudgiueni, 1,C.I. Reports 1962.
P. 364.
I.C.J. Plraiiings, Soutlr WAfrictr, Vol. p.429.
ibid.,Vol. VIIIp. 132.
ltwas, howcr;er,~entiuncdina footnoteto Judge vvünWyk's separatç opinion,
at p.84, with refcrencto the itirnateattitudeofthe Appliçünisas quritedabo~,e.acçoiint i.the Council or thc Lcague inwspcct of cornplianct: ivith tsub-
stantive ribliçations perlainiiig to adtninistrÿtionof the territorand pro-
tectioii aiiddvcloprnentof the inhabitanis. The furtherobligation or function
of the mandatories relativc to supervision, viz., the îorwarding owtitions,
was purely subsidiary and dependcnton the factrhat the Council was the
supervisoryorFan-- whichL'act in turndepeiidcdon the obligationroreport and
B~~oUllt.
49. By its conient the obligation rcquiredthe rnandaroriar to report and
accouni o a spccificsup-trvisorybody, constituicd and functioning undei the

provisions ofa particularinternationalconvention. Iiwas noi an obligation lo
suhniit generuIiy io "interiiationalsupervision" or ro supervision by the
"international conimunity" or "the Family of nations", or "the civilized
nations of the world"or ~hclike.Itw3s anobIigationto reportand accriunt toa
spwific organ of a specificorganizalion of certainofthenations of ~hcworld,
viz.,the (ZuunciIofthe txague ofNations.
The implicatioiis of thisfeatureareof major iinportancc. Thc kagtie \vas
consritutr:dby a Covenant,the provisions ofwhichwereknown to the manda-
tories, andto which al1mandatorieswre, initiallysignaiorjes. The Constitu-
tion of theCouncil and ihc mannerin which it was tofrrnctivnwere laid down
in theCovenant.As hasken notcd abave ',the provisionsofthe Covcnmt in
that regard required, intealia, unanimity,as a general rule,for Councildeci-

sions(Art. 51,and an invitatioto any Memkr ofthe Lcague nar represented
on the Council to be represeniedat anymeetingduringthe considcrationof
rnattcrsspeciallyaflectingthe interestsof that Memher(Art. 4). TheCouncil
would in regardtu mandates beassisied and advisedby a permanent commis-
sion(Ar[. 22(9)).Ttwasto supervision throughmachiiierygoverncd, inter n{iu,
by these provisions of the Corvenanta , ndio no other, ihat the inandatories
conseiitecltOsubmit.
50. The practical importanceofthe fact kat theobligation retstcto specific
supcrvisory rnachinery, is illustratby certain statements made by delegatcs
at theWrisPeacc Conference. 11willberecalIed ihat on 30 January 1919, when
thecompromisearrangernmtregarding rht mandates systetri as arrivedat, the

South AfricanPrime Minister, Gencral Louis IIotha, starcdthat although he
feltwry strongl about the questionofGerman SouthWest Africaandthought
that itdifléredentirelyfromany question that they hadto Jecidc in rheChnTer-
encc, he wouId be prcpared to say that he ivaa supporter of the Smuts resu-
lution-

'-.. bwausc I-ieknew that, ithe idea fructificd.the Leaçueof Nations
wciuldconsist mostlyof the same peoptc who \vere presenflhere rhatday,
who understood the position and who would nol makc it impossible For
any xnandatoryto govcrn the country".
TO this cxplana~ionby GeneralRoiha, addcd significanceis lent by eariier

statements of IM~.LIoyd George andPrcsidentWilson inthc Council ofTen on
28 January 1919. as follows:
"MT. LloydGcorge said thar hc agreedwith M. CIemcnccau that if the
LeagueofNations weremade anexecutive for purposesof governiny.and

chargcd with funcrions whicliitwould bc unable ro perforrn,itwonld be

Vide para. 32, srrprn.
Videparri21. supra. The duiil functionof suwliervisionnd cv-opcration was again srressedin later
reports ',and ohsereved inpracticc'.
The Cvuncil of the Lmgue seldoni rook anyaction inregardto inandates
supervision saveon the basisuf thc Commission's advice, and usualIyacoepted
it.when given; resolurions wcrc tactful wlyrdedas çuggcstions or invitations
io mündütorics 3; and dueto theconsjderabIereprcscntationof MandatoryPow-
ers on the Council. it was gcncrally sympatheticro the mandatories'point of
vie, 4.

Thus ~hc agrccd süpervisoryntachinery was in kt vcry carefut chyecked
and hnlancxdsoas torcndcrun11kciyanyinjurinü~, hiasedor unfiairinterfcrcncc
wirRrnaii&aro govycrnrnent,and, indeed,aj was then apparcntly considered
io bc in tlicbcst intewstsof the inhabilantsof mandated territoriessu as to
contain the miiiiniuniof pvIiticalelenlent and a rnaxiniuriiof indcpendeni
expti'r approach.
52, In the above circtirnstances.the rvordingof theobligation to reportand
account as relu~ingLV a spccific supervisorauthorityandno uthcr, wasquite

evidently iiora maiterof mere fortrior trchnicality,but onc of basic praciical
importance. As a inaiterof interprctationtherecan therefore be no doubi that
the parties never inicndcd nor conternplated any olher supervisory authority
ihan thc C'ouncilof [theLeague,assisiedby thc Pcrrnnnent Mandates Cnjnlnis-
sion.
Since theprinciplc of contc~nporaneiiy would have to lxüpplied in inter-
preting thc provisionsof theitiandates,thc qucsiion may bc powd whetherany
interprerarion could rcasormbly be given to the niandate which would havc

entailed any ubligaçaiionon the mandatory tasutirnitditring thigerinieof ~he
Lruyiir to supervisionhy any oiher iriiernationalorganizatio orn any other
orgiiri of the Leaguea?regardsperformance dits fuiictionsunder the mandaic.
It seins self-evidcntihüt the answemust ke inthe negative.If, for example, a
group of Sratcswhich did iiojoin the Leiiguc hadfornicd an organi7ation of
thcirown, with objectivesbirnilato those ofthe Leagueand witltorganscapa-
bIeofexer-cisine supcrvisoryfunct ioninregard ro thegovernmcnt ofmandated
territories,itcould surely nui havc bccn coniended thar the rnandarories,

haviiig agreed to siibnlitto "international supervision" bq*Lwguc organs,
niiistfor ihüi rcason bcregarded as obliged tusiibmit to"internationalsuper-
vision" bysome organ of the paraIIc olrgiinizatinnSuch a contention would
seek to aitribule toihe nlandatoriesan obligation towhich thcy hiid never
agrtxd; and itsuntenahility wouId becorne thc moremiinifestif the orherform
of siipeivisioiishotild be lackiin the very qualitieswhicti hadmade the spc-
cific Leagiie supervisionacceptabletothe mandatories and had induccd them
to agree ificrct6,
Sin~ilarIit could not havc bccn contcnded that the mandaiorics would,

withoiil frcsh consent on theirpart. be obliged io subrnit to "internaiional
supzrvision"by some other internat ionai organirritioninfaci establishedand
havingfor itsmetnbers lurgclythc sanie Statesas thebague of Kaiions-siich

----
Yi&PMC:, hiin.,VIII, p.200; Wright,op. ci?..pp196-197.
Yid~Wright, op.cil., pp799-200;Hull, op.ci!.p.209. .
.<wr i,hi,op.cit..p. t28.
' IhiO.,pp.87-W.
Yide Chap. III paras8 and 4, sirpro.
Thi5 a:gument is ttierefornor rnercl~ atcchnical one. IIogiç and fairncss,
similarçc,r.sidcratioappty a forfinrti those whicliin niunicipal luuprrvent a
~iiastçirurnccding aservicecontracr wiihoutthe servant's consent.as, for.jnstance,the InternirlionaI 1-abourOr&ariisütion.Again sucha conteii-
tivn woiild seek to attribureto the mandatories an obIigation suhstantialIy
differentfrum that agreed trihy them in Article 27 of the Covcniini and thc
mandate instrtiments.
53. Evcn within the Leag~ie of Nirion srganization, an alleration in the
supçrvisory rnachiiieryprcvided for in the Covenanr could not bc irnposed
upon the mandatories witlioui thcir cunscnt<.g., an alteration transferring
the supervisioiifroni thCouncil to tliAssembly, or prnviding tha! theCoüncil

cvuld in rriatters omandait supervision arriveai vaIid decisionshy a simple
majorityor by a two-lhird!;vote.For again such an altcraiion would swk to
impose upon ihe inandatoi.ies an obligaiion of a content diflcrcntfrom that
agrccd lo by tlie~nirihe Covcnant and the mandate insirunients. Article 26 of
tlieCovenant did provide fnrarnendtnenrs io the Cmvenant, through riltiiica-
tion bytheMemberswhose representatives conipused the CounciIand a major-
ity of thc Mcmbers \vhoçeteprcscntativeswmpod the As~eii~hlybut itprn-
çeeded to provide that na ;uch amendment would bind a Metriber signifying
disxnr therefroin,although thc disscntieniwoiild ihen ceau to be a Mcmbcr of

the Lcüguc, AI worsi, thereihre,a inandatory rcfusingto agreeto an alteration
in supervisory machincry c:ouldl~se its membership in the Lci-igue.but rhe
alteralion coiildnot be rcndcrcdbinding upon itas a mandatory without its
consent givcn cithcr cxpreisly, otactlythroughacquiescencewitholrt dissent
in a Cuvetiantaiiiendi~ientin ternisof Article 26.
54. The considerations set oitt iibovc did not, of course, operate only in
fitvaur of the nirtndaturies, but could have heen ii~voked against them. The
quesiion ii~ighbe posed: ivhat woiild have beenthe reaction during the lire-
time of the Leagtie ifa particular niandatory wcrc tu have claimed a rightto

perform itsobligation of "interiiatioiial accouiitnhility" by subntittinç reports,
not to the CounciI ofthe Ltayut, btittO soine niherinternational urgunizaiion,
or Iosome other organ ofthe Lcaguc. or insnmc othcr maniier than provide id
its mandate instrument or tlie Covenani? Tt is quiteclear that sucha daim
ivuuld have ken surriniaril:cjeçted.
55. As a martcr of interpretation.itis therefore subrnittedtlithere cannot
possibly 'neany warrani forreading theniaiidatory's duty 10subniit to super-
vision by theCouncil or th<Lcaguc as meaning supervision by any othcr inter-
national organization,or af heing equivalent to a widerobi igationof "interna-

tional accounrahility"or !:omeihingsimilar which could have survived the
Jissotuiion of !heteaguc.

tV. Wkriker a11 Iniplied TerwCm Be Rrcid itrithe McinllnreImrtrn?rirr

56. The furthcr qi~estior,then arises whether there cank read iirto the
niandate instrunientan impiicd tcrm whichcould havehadthe eiTeciofprevenr-
ingthelapse, on thedissolirtionof the Lcague, of the mandatary'sobligations
relaring tosupervision. Th.: Court in the 1950 Advisory Opinion aliparently
did no! iely on anysuch iriiplied ierrrias willbe pointed ou1 hcreuoder '.In

the proceedin ugsthe PreIinlinaryObjections inthe Soiifh WesrAfricn cases.
Jtidgevan Wyk dealtwith the possihilityofsuch an iniplicd teriii onto rejcct
it'.No nthei. Judgedealt viith lhis aspecai that stage ofthe procedings. In

Vide Chap. lx. paras. 5otse<].infru.
South West Afiica. Pre!inriizrrrObjeciioizs. f udgriitIC.J. Reoorfs 1962,
pp.605 cfs~q.568 NhhilBI.4(SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

the proceedings on thc merits, Judgc vanWyk again considcrcd this aspect
with the sa.me resuIllandhe was supportedtherein by Judge Tanaka 2.
57.The feütur eiscusscd above to indicritethat the exprests crms of the
mandate dncuments mrrectly reflwted theactual intentions oftheparties there-
to, in thenisdves refuteany suggestion of ail~n~pliedterm running couiitertu
suchexpressterms.Butthcreis a furtherfundamentao l bstacleioans possibility

that theauthors ofthe mandates systeniwoiild have intended to provideforthe
consequcnxs of thcfuturc dissolutionof theLcaguc of Nations. Such provision
would hav.:beenrequiredonly ifthe possible frituredissolutionof the Leag~ie,
or rhe creation of ariotherbody to rake its place,was contenipIated inthe
ycars wheii the mandates systeni was established.Tt swms clear that no such
conteniplation existed.
Thus, Jitdge Bustamante staicd in his separate opinion on the PreIiminary
Objections :

"Ol~viouslythe provisions of the Covenünt which had institutcd ihe
internationai Mandates Systern did na!envisage the poss~bility of the
dissol~tionof the Leagur:of Nationsand didno1 rcircseeiispossibleeffects

on rhc Mandate agreements in forcc 3."
Judge Jmsup referredto rhe League Systenias "a systein which itwas hndly
Iwped iri1913wouIdbecorne universal 4". In iheirjoint disseniing opinion in
1962. JudgcsSir PercySpcnderandSir Geriild Fitzmauriceexpresscdthe view

that itis-. ,
". . .evidentthat tlioseconcerneddid iiorforesee,andwoutd have refused
tocontemplate, apossible break-upof thekague j".

Judgi: v;tnWyk statcdas follows:

"Tlie [ruthis ha1 thepossibiliryof the dissolutionofrheLeague was not
contcinplatd when the Covenant was agreed to or when the Mandate
DecIantian was made ... b''

In 1966 the Court round that the çircumstances of the Lcague'sdissolution
wcrc "nci~hcrforcswn not fnreseeahle"bythe frarnersofthe mandates systcm '.
AndSudgeTanaka said that actincIusiunthaithcUnited Natioiisliadsuccecd-
ed ro the supervisory powers of the League --

". . .catinot be derivcdfrom thc ~~pressor tacifintcntof theparties tothc
Mandafc agreementand those concerned,because ai the period of tlie
inceptinn of the Mandate an eveni such as the dissoIutinnof the Leagtie
surelywuld not bcforeseen by them . . .

58. Evenif oncwere toassume,c0ntrai.yto thegenerally accepted facts.that
thc authors of ihe mandatessystm did contempIatethe possibility of a future
dissoIution of the Ltaguc, itis sticlear that no tacitintcntcan bc irnputedto

Snlrrlt West Afrirn, Second Phase, Judynren!,I.C.J. Repo1966, pp. 84 etserf.
Ibid..ri275.
'South Wrsr Africa,I>rr/i~ninnUbj~c~ioiisJitdgn~en~IC.I. Keporis1962,p. 362.
+Jbid., p.412.
Ibid., p.514.
Ibid..p.601.
Sorrtfi West Apicn, Scco#?dPhase. J~idgrnrnr.1.C.I. R~puris1966. pp. 48-49.
Vidr also Judgevan Wyk at p.87.
Ibid., p.275. WlUTTES 57-r\l-EMEhT (IF .U)IITII AFKICA 569

them which woiitdhavehad the effectof thesubstitution of a ncw supcrvisory
organ. It has heen pointe6 out abovc 'ihat ccrtiiin of thc mandittoriescouId
nnly rvithgreatdilliculty b! revailedupon to accelitheinandaressyslernaral1
irisubstitut ioonontemplatedannexaiion; chata specia! compromiseformula
haà io be devisedin order to rnoctthcir dificuItieand that ttieiacwptance
rhereof,withreluctance, wia strongIy influencedby thecompositionand nature
of thesupeivisory organs.It is thereforr:alrnositconceivable tharthey wouId
have agreed in advance in 193) tosubmjt to supervisionüt some unknowndate

inthefuturc by a body,the wiiiposition,procedure and attitudeofwhichwere
ex Iiyporhcsunknown toth.?rnThis becornes themore apparent ifoneadds the
considcmtions ttiathe circuii~tanceswhereundertheLeaguc woul J be dissolv-
ed would in thcnaturcof tliingshavebeenunknown and unpredictabIcin 1920,
and thattheauthors of he Mandatemadeexpressprovision in Article7 rhereof
forirsfutiirtamendnient. Surely, had the matterWn raised, thereactionof at
Ieastsotlie of thprospectirle maridatoricwould haveken that the mattcr was
!cibcIcftfor furtherügrecinent in pursuance of the amendment provisions,in
the lighrof the as yetunkiiciwn circurnstancesthatrnight apply at the lime of

postiiIateddiswhtion of tiiçkapuc.
59.It seernsclear, lherctorethatnosuchiittplied agreemenr could possibIy
have been concIudcd. Further confirmation for hisconclusionis found iri the
facr lhatno State has everalkgcd thccxistcncc of such an impliedagrecnlent.
During thç discussionscon:erningthe futureof themandatesbythefoundersof
the LnitcdNations in 1945-l945and hy theMemtiersof the League at itsfinal
session in April 1946, thçre was ampIc opportunity and every incentive for
reprcscntativcsto refertosuchan agreement,if it\vas thoughtthat one existed.
No such 1-eferencewas made. Again, in the discussions during the ycars 1946-

1949 inthe variousorgan:; of thc Unitcd Nations, conccrning the conrinued
existenecofthcMandatc, no suggestion wasiiiadeof any impliedagreementcnn-
cliidedat the tiineof the crealion of the Mandate, providing for iipossible
futliresuccessionof supervisorsorgans ?.
60. Tt isconsequcntIy siibmittedthat, Iikewiseas regardsinicrpreration of
itsexpress provisions. their was nnothingin the Mandate or its surrounding
circurristancewhich woukl, by way ofan imp1iedterrn, provide a warrant€or
rcjcctingthc priniahcic crinclusionthat the Mandatory'sobligation Io report
andaccountlapsedon theiiissolurionof theLeague 3.

Z'.JlidirP iuoirnuncenienrs

61. As lias kn pointeii out4,it has been found convenient ta dcvute a
scparate chapter to the prt:viouspronouneements of thisCourt regaidingthe
question whethera substitritionof su~rvisory organs occurredon rhedissolu-
lionof ihe Leaguc. It willIx denionstrated thattheweight ofjudicial opinion
favoursthe view that sucb a siibstitutioncould not have taken placewithout

'
Yid~ paras. 3 etscq..sr:pru.
inSarzih WrsrAfiicu.Prelit)ii?aObjecrionsJiirfgtnenr.LC.1. Reports 19,P-607-
6IU and Secund Pjtusr. Jifdgi??e~iIr.,C.I. Re1966s ,p. 84-91. andCtiap.Vili,
itijrafor arcviewofthe reli:vanteucnts.

suggestion.Yidc Chap.aIX.rparas. 20-27, inh. rçpuiç fias evetnade a contrary
' VideChiip. VI, para.16.sirpru.frcsh comcnt of a mandaiop, and thdt such conwnt waç noi given in tht case
of SouthWest Afi-ica'.
Since. however, Judge Jessup in 1966 niade certainstatements pcrtaining to
historiml cvcnts and thc miindatcs systcm rvhich may uppcür toixin confiict
with coitti:nions advanced in this Chapter,certain aspects of his disxnting
opinion will beconsideredbelow.

62. In fis d~sscntingopinion in 1966Judgc Jcssup dcült atsonicleng~h with
the "ilatui-of the supervisionof the mandates"and with an argurncni of thc
South AfricanGovernmen[(the lhen Respondent)whichstressed iheI-oleof the
CounciI 2nd of the Pcrrnancnt Mand~ttcsCommission "as cxcIttsi\*einstru-
inentalitieof supervision *".This was in thecourse of a sectioiiof hisopinion
in whch te contended thal on a properinterpretationof historicaIevents and
of reIevantinternatioiialinstruments, the Court laid too much stress on the
rolesplaycd Iiparticularorgans of theLeague in supentisingmaiidatcs :.
It should bc borne in mind thal, for prcscntpiirpoxs, JudgcJessup's corn-
rnentson this topic arerelevantoniy to the question wherher the rnandatories

iveretinder an obligation of awuntabjlity ivhichcouid have obliçed thein tn
siibmirto supervision by other internationalorgans than the ~pecifrc I.eague
rirgans mentionedin Article 72 of the Covcnantandthe MandareDeclaration.
JudgeJcssup did not indcd Iind ihatsuchanobligation cxistcd-tris contention
that South Africa was not much conoerned withtlie lirecisnature of thcsuper-
vision to which ir would becornesubject, was clwrly advanced fora diffcrcnt
purpose,iiamely asa steptowardshis cwnclusionthat:

"If South Africa ngreedto subniit IO the jurisdicionof the Permanent
Courtof InternationalJusticc rvithoutdc~otingmuch thought to thenature
of tliiitjurisdictiothat faciwould not supply any basisfor dcny ing the
rightorjiiridical inrerrsrwhicAppIicanls properlyüsxried inthiscase

Since the naturc of the juridicaIintcrcstsof Lcügtic Mcmbcrs,and the extent
of theCoilrt's powers under Article7 of the Maiidate Declaiaiion, arc no[ of
direct relevance in the present proceedings. itwouId serve no purpose to
prcscnt a detaIlcd~cfutationof Judge Jessup's reasoning. Howcvcr, asaIready
pointed out, sonie of his stateiiienappear to beincunsisteiitwithcon~cntions
advanwd in thisChapter ,md wiIIaccordingly bedealt with klow.
63. In altempting to rninirniu:the rtlIeof the Council iind othc Permanent
Mandates Commission as againstthat of othei organs.institutionsand indivi-
dual Mentbers of lhe kague in the contexr of League siipervision. Jridge

kssup attcmpicd to mükc the following points which may bc pcrtinent alsn
to theissu e sivunderconsideration:
(rrj Judge Jcssup statcd that, for a proper understanding of thc negotiations
at thc Paris Peace Conference, regard should be had to the foliowing
factorsviz.,rhatatthough theIeadcrsof ihePrincipalAllied andAssmiated

Powers iucrcprcparcd to give the Doniinions a spccial stnti~atthe I'eace
Conference, the Dornii~ions did not at that stage have aity recogni7.ed
separateinternationalpersonaiiry ;1ha1in 1heIastfewdays of January 1919

' Vide <:hap.lx, infia.
South Wesl Africu. StrrondPhnse, Jirri~~iicntI,.Rrporrs 1966.p. 389.
' Ibid.,1)406. Prt~ident Wilson Iiad suweedcd in gaining tliesupport of Mr. Lloyd
Gcorgc for the principlc of non-anncxation and thc csiübtislitnenof the
rnandatessystcrn;[hatthe orhe mreriikrs ofthe '-BigFive "wcrcno longer
in opposition; thatthe tinai "cnmpromi~" basedon theSniuts resolutinn
which, with onIysomc modifications,becameArticic 22 of the Covcriant,

was a damesticniatterconcerniny the interna1arrangements of the British
Empire; aiidthat from theiniernationd puiritof viewGreatI3ritain had not
conditioncd her acccprance of the mandates systcni ur the role of a
mandatory on thcüdopl ionof thisrrsolut~on2.

It irespoctftitlysubinittcdthathislineof reasoningisuntcnabfe.
Itrnay be true rhat in the lastdays OC January 1919 the PrincipaI Powers
other than ihe UiiitedState; ivere no longerin opposition 10the pri~~riphof a
mandates systcm, but ther-: iccrtainly nothing to suggest that lhty tere

prepared to accept any of ~heParis Drüfts incorporating PresidentWilson's
ideas, andmorc particularlythe provisionsrelatingto tcrmination of mand~tes
and of ultirnateLeaguefiriancialrcsponçibility". It mas also k truc ihat
GI-eiitBrirainhad not condit ioned her acccptanct:of thc maridatessysrenion
the adoption of thcSmuts i-esooltiliuWhat isclear, however, is[ha1 ntleast
as fiir asSouth West Afrita andrlie PaciIic Islands were crincerncd, Grcat
Diitain wris not preparcd tu accept the particülar typc of mandates systern
proposed hy I'residcnt Wilc;on.TtwillIserewlled thüt when President Wilson
hadshownhirnselfdisinçfinrd to acceptthcSmutsresoIutioli, Mr. Lloyd Gwryc

liad statedthat "iht stâtcmznt tu whici~they had just Iistcncfilledhim with
&.pair "',
What wiis ultirnatety aaxpted was not üny of the systenis prtiposed by
PresidentWilson, but the systcniembodied in the Smuts rcsoIu~ion.It isclear
that rhis resolutionwasadoiited, infer aiibecauseof the vehemcnt opposition
of thc Dominiot~sto I'residcnt Wilson's proposals. Wheiheror not Mr. Lloyd
George wouId have been mure amenable to PrcsidcntWilson's proposals kad
it no[ been Vnr the opposition of the Dominions, tnight be open rodebare,
but appcars to be pureI~ speculative and in any event cntirtty irrelevant.The
iinportant feürur ic the attitudcs açiuall,:adoptcd and thç con~promises

açiuallyreached aithe ParisPexe Con fercnce.
lb) A Furthercontcntionadvanced by Judge Jessup wasthat whcnsheacclpted
the Mandate for Soulh N'est Africa.Soiith Africadid not know in detaï1

what kind of supcrvisory system wo~~ld be cstabtishedin respectof man-
dates,inasmuch as tht Smuts rcsolutiondid iiotinclude slnyprovision
for the PerinanentMaiidales Commission, which wtlsinserted latcr, and
becarneparagraph 9of .\rticle 22 uf theCovenan;'.
Since the featuresofntajo;impartancc fortheprospectivernandurorypnwers

were the composition and ~~robebl ettitude of rheCciuncil,which was to he
the realzupervisory orgait,Judge Jessup'scontention, even iTcorrect,would
not rnaieriailaffectheforci:ofthecontentions setouta bove.But itÏssubiiiitted

Vid(,para, 19. supra.
D~ssentingopinion of Judge Jessup, Sotri6 JVc~rffvicaSerond Phusp, Jifdg-
ni'n!.I.CiJ.ReportsiY66, pp.397-398.
Videparas. II and 15. sirpi-a.
' Disseitiiiopinion otJudgeJes~p. SourliI+'csfAJrica. S~rcPliase, Judgmcnl.
I.C.J.Rt-pot-I1966,p. 349.the argument advanccdby Judge Jcssup docs not rest upon a soundfactual
basis.
It isindeed (rue that thc Smuts resolulion did not contaiü provision for
the Permanent MandatesCon~rnissionb,utit is highIy probahlethatthe Dornin-
ions and niher interesteStates anticipatedthe inclusionof such a provision
in thc Covcnant at thc timc whcn the Smuts resolution was provisionally
adopted. It will be recalledthat o75 January 1919,V. H. Miller,theUnired

States le@ adviferin Paris, rewivcd a Rritish"Draft Convcntivn Rcgarding
Mandatci" from Lord Robert Ceci[ '. This draft made provisionfor annual
reports by theMandatory Power and included a provisionfor rhecrealion or
a Cornm!ssionto assist the Leagiie in its supervisorroleand to rcccivtc hc
annual rcports-.InthisrcgardS.Slonimrernarks:

"Juùge Jessup, inhisdissentinyopinioninS.W.A. 1966 Jridgtnetir,399,
in tkecourse of reiectingSouth Africa'sargument chat the coiiiprotnise
worC:edout on January 30, 1919,was thesum totaorobIigalion towhiçh
Soiiih Africa hadbeen prepared tosubscribe,points out that thatcom-
proniisehad nnr contajned the provision for the Pernianent Mandates
Commission, whichwas onIy added atalatcr date.II icvidmt, however,
rhatSouth Afria and the ieniaining Dominions were familiarwith this
provision,since irwas part of Cwil's driift, compIctcd on January 24.
Thc provision in fact was re-inçcrredinto the inandates article by
Geni:ralSmuts hiiiiself,vhen he presentettiefinalversionof that arlicle

to the Coninlissionof the League of Nations on Februav 8, 1919. Soe
iMiIlcU,rnfii~~ofthe Covenanl Vol.1,at 185;... ""
cc) A fiirihestatemeirt byJudge Jmup was that South Africahad accepted
the Mandatefor South West Africabefvrc slI thc dctails ofthc mandcitc
instrument {such as the nature of the report which would have to he

sübmitted)were kriown and agreed upon '.Inthis regardJudgt: Jessup
pointed out that, prioto the cuming into force of theCovenant an 10
January 1920, and the forma1 approvai of the Mandatefor South West
Africa on 17 Decemkr 1920, rhe following had occurrtd, vi~., South
Xfriçahad on 30Jmuary 1919 tacitiyagrccd to acceptthe Mandatc; thc
formal allocation hadken madebythe CounciI of Four on 7 May 1919,
and theSouth AfricanParliünicnthadin Septernbcr 1919passed IheSouih
West Africa Mandate Act (~uliscqucntlyexrended hy rewlutinn by hth
Houxs ofParliamenr),which Act, iirte~lk, entpoweredthe Governor-
0e1tt:ratodo al1such things"as may bcproperand expedientfor giving
etrectin so faras concents the Union iothe Treaty or fn otiyMmtdate

imrd ir~pirrsunnre rlzeTreat.i+with refererrru die rerri~vr)]ufS~uih
Wesi Africu;...5"
Itis .f courset,ruc thatafterthe Smuts reçcilutionhad ken provisionally
adoptedSouthAfricawasprepared roümpt a Mandate forSouth West Afiica,
but obviriusla MandatewhichwouIdconfomi tothe provisio OnstheSmuts
resolutioiiNo ùoubr everybodyconfidentfyexpected that the mandate instru-

p-

iVide :>ara14,supra.
* MiIIe-,op.cif.Vol. 1, pp106-IO?.
Sloniin,Ccln<rdiunYeueurbofini~i-irarionai Lnw. Vol. p.126,îootnote36.
'Dissenting opinio<iJudgc Jessup,S~iiih Wrsr Afrira, ScrondPhasc, Jud~inenz,
I.C.J.K~ports 1966,pi>399400.
111iliaddcd byJudgeJessup; ibirl.p.393. WKI'ITLIiSThTtMEXT OF SOUTH AFKICA 573

mcnts wcitilnot contain :lny provisions placing a greater burden on the
rnandatorics than Ihat envisaged by the Smuts rcsoIriiion, although il waf
obvious tliacertaindctails,iIIhild to besellled.
Ttwillbcobserve tdarSudgeJessup italicisedthat portion ofihepreambIe
of the South Wcst Aîricü Mandate Act which containcd the words "any
Mandate", Itseems asifJiidge Jessup inlended tn suggesr that South Africü
wtisprepawd 10 accepto- niandate wliichrnighthavebeenissued inpursuance
of the Treaty of VcrsailIes.Itis ubuious,however, thatthe rvord "any" was
uscd in itordinary sense ni legislaiion af anempvwerjng nature in orderto

conferupon the Goverrior-GcncraI (i.e,, thexecutivebranch of ihc Govern-
men[) a widediscretion.Pa inferfrom this thartheSouth Aïifan Govemmcnt
was instructedby ParIiantentto acceptany mandate. irresy>ectivof itterms,
is,uritlirespeca,cornplelem?nseqcluitur.
The iniportant pointis thatwhen South Africa acceptcd the Mandate, i.e.,
when itbccarnc IegaIlyboiind ',it had full knowkdge of the terms of the
Covenant and the mandate instrument, and \vasconsequentIyaware of tire
detaiIs of the 1-mgue's supervisory powcrs. These pnwers did not differ in
essencferom thc puwers totc çonferred uponthe Lciigutin terrnof theSmuts
resolution,on which taciagreement had been reachedearly in1919.What iseven
niore importantis thatSouthAfrica knew that the Coiincilofthe Lmguehad

to act iinanirnously andlhatas regards any question rdirtingto the Mandate
South Africawwld heentitlr:dtoexercise a vute ?.
(4 .ludgekssup alsostiitethat the wrnposition of thcPcrmanenfMandates
Conimission, theactiialprncedures tobt :olIoivedby theCommission and

the dcvclopmeni of ihc organs ofthe League of Nations wcrenot known
when theMandatc wascmcinferredpon South Africa 3.
Itissubniittedthattheextent to which thcsc aspectswereunknown whenthe
mandates wert:assumed, w;isnot such a to affecthe issucuunder consiclcra-
tion. Inany cvcnt, parayraph9 of ArticIe22 of theCovcnant provided that a
Permanent Commission w<luldhe constitutc td rweivc and examine the

annuüI reports of Ihe rnandatories and to advise the Council on ail nuttcrs
relatingto the obscrvilnccof-thniandafe Itw.as known rhat thisCommission
wouId consistof expertsand it wasalsa clcar thailwouId haveno power to
take any binding dcçision inregard to the administraiiun of thc ~nandated
territory hy a mandatory '.Ir isconsequently not cIear hou7 anymle~an~e
can bc atfaçhed to the factthaf the compnsition of rhe PermanentMandiites
Cominissionhadnot btvn wttled and thr itsactualprocedureswcre unkiiown
when South Africa ampied the Mandate.Everymandatory atleastkncwthat
the proccdurcs lu br:adoptsd by the PermanentMandates Comniission had
ta crirnplywithparagraph 9 of Article22 ofthe Covenant and wiih the provi-
sionsof the mandatejnstruments.

As rcgsrds thc Jcvclopm~nt of the organs ofthe Lcaguc of Nations, Judg~
Jessup pointe4 out that, aci:ordingto Article4 of the Covenant, lheCouncil
would have heen compnsed of thefive Principaland Associated Puwersand

Vjdp paras. 40-41sr~pra.
Videpara. 32: sirpru.
Dissentingop~nionofJudgr Jessup, Sorirti WAjricu, SccunJPfiast, Jiidgnienr,
J.C.I. Rc~o~~IsY66,pp.401-<03.
'Ihc Constitutioor the Permanent Mandares Comniission was approvcd by
cil. VidHall,op.erit.p.139.orc any maodarr declaratiowirçmadeby the &un-four non-~rrnanent Metnhersselected hy the Asscmbly. md that, since the
Uniled Staiesdid net.participi n thc Lcügue. rhe 1-arze Powers did no1have
a majorit!~evcn at the oritwt.As aiready notcd. howcvcr, cvcry docision of the
Council ]-.adto he unaninious. Apart froni the füct that amandatory would

also ix eiiiitleto vote on a Council rcsoIution ifits intecesisive1.specially
affectcd.cvery n~andatoryknew iitadvancethat no binding'dccisionwould bc
takenby 7heCouncil in the face ofthe opposi lionof only one of thePrincipal
Alliedand Assoçiatcd Powcrs '.

(4. From ir~hahas been stated above, it is clearthatduring the existence
or ihe League a rnandatorycould not have been conipelIed to s~~brnitto thc
supcrvisic*n of another internationalorganizxtion, and that the mandatories
did not, kiyaccepting the maridates, subrnitto "internaricinalsu-pervision" in
the abstr~.ct.Ir is cor~scqiientcontendcd that South Africaconscntcd to no
othcr sup=rvisinnthan that exercised by the specificOrgdnS of tlie Leagueof

Nations iiieiitiurieinthe~nandtttedocuments, whcjch sup-c.rvisiofneaway on
thedissoltition of thc League.

G. The PusxibilityofRevocation of the Mandate

65. A numbcr ofwrircrs and commentarorsun the mandatcs systcm have
posed thc question whether tlieI~ague had the Iegal power to "revake" or
"terminale" a mandale. At theoutsetit isnecessary to obtain clarityas tothc

phraxulugy to be employed. In order to obviate misunderstandiitg he word
"revocation" will be usedin thcsucmcding paragraphs to conrlotethe taking
away of iimandate from a pal-ticuIar mandatory rcsulting inthc mandatory
bcing dcprivcd of itst.igh(and freed from iis obligation..)underthe mandate,
but the status of the rriandaituitcrritory rentaining unaltered. The word
"terminarion"will beused to indimte the proccss wwhcrcby a mandstc is coni-
plctcly broughi to an end because it hasserved its purpose, iitother wwrds,
because tlîeinhabitantsufthc particularterritory have develuped to suchan

extent that theneed foi.administration bya mandatary power has faIIenaway.
The League's riçhts (il any) of "tcrminatio~" in ihis sense are no1 or any
relevancein thc prcxnt proceedingsfor the rrasonsnotcd in an carlierchapter
herwf, viz., that the CieneraIAsçernbIyof the United Nations did not in
resolution 2145 (XXI) purport to terminate the Mandate but tu r~vokc it
pursuant to powers clairned to vestin rhe Geiieml Assembly as successoi.to
theCounçilof the 1-eaye 2.
fifiThe present scçrion wiIJ accordiiiglybc Iimitcdto a discussionofthc

question whether the lxague was legally cntitledto revoke mandates, and,

Itis notclcar ivliawitslneanrby ihc raihet cryptic stacenieina footnote ar
p. 403 nfJudge Jcssup'sopinion.vil.,-'The unanimityrulc was notalways control-
ling". Tfhawas intending torefer io itlitriilclassoftnattcrsinrcspoctof which
the Corenan tspccificallydid not requirunanimity, hisstatcmcnt was corrcctbut
hardly relevantsinw supervisionolmandates wüs ntitinçludrdihçrçin.
Yidc C:haiaV.I,para. 5, supra. iVRITTI'N STATELlEh-TOF SOUTH AFRICA
575
ilsu, on what grounds. It busneverken suggested ' thar the 1-eague hadthe

far-reaching powcr of revc.king a mandate ai wilI. lt \vould be cvmplctcly
unrealisticto contend lhat the 1-eague wa..cmpowered to revoke a mandate
othenvise thaa by rtason oi'scriouv vicilalionsby the mandatory of its obliga-
tions under the mandate.ItvHas indeedon thisground thai ihe Gcncral Assem-
bly souyht to base rcsolution 2145 (XXI) 2. Ihe question whether eiren tliis
relativ erlted powerof revowtion vcstcd inthe Leaguef, orrnsthe subject-

mat terorthe nextsuccccdingparagraphs.
67. On analysiis t,appezrs that a power of revucatiun on the pari of rhc
Lcague couIdhave ken derived onIy from thc cxpi-essterms of thc mandate
instruments,sead withArticIc 27 oftheCovenant;or an impliedterm.or some
princip oleinternational Iii~.?'liese possibilities wilI be dcalt with in somc
detail below, and it will bf:shown rhat although thisCourt ha5never dealt
specikülly withthe qüest ior*. dcr consideration,the weightofjudicial opiriion

expressed in proceeding ri:Iatingto South West Africa supports thc South
Afrjcan Govtrnment's contt:ntionthat the League w% not legally emporh~ered
torevokea mandate.

68.II wilI beconverGent todeai firstwith the pmxiblc appIication of svme

rulc of internatiurialIaw i)peraling independcntly of the intentions of the
parties.Itisclcar thatlegal ruIcsin intcrnalio lawalperatektween subjecrç
of internationalIawonlywlien, and to theextent that, thcpartics so dtsirr:;in
thc scnsc thal it iopen to tlie partietoexcludesuch operationbyagreement 3.
If the iule iiiquesti011 preçriks thc incidents,sffects or consequences of a
transactionas between thc pilrtics theretthisgeneialprincipIeappliaqoforriori:

the parties are entitleio create whatcvcrrckarionship thcy wish and mny by
agreement,express or impjied, exclude anymlc of intemtional latv whiçh
wouId otherwisehave adde,j tu the incidents,effets or consequence s ftheir
transactio Ini,noi nccessary to consider to whatcxtcnt, ifat all, thisgcnera1
principle iuqualitid by the existenceof peremptory rulesof laiv (j~7rogeris)
whiclr\vouIadppIyevenif ciintrary tothc wilIof the partiessine in the instant
case [here clearly exists nc.such peseinptoryruIe of law which could havc

introduccda righiof revocafi inn0 the mandatesevenagainstthe will of the
authorsthereof.

Save hy certainGtrman wriicrs. PBII\Fiiuçhill Tfairdke Druif Inl~rna/ioaai
Pubfic,Tome 1,2' Partic (I925) p,546. pciintotitrhst thereasonrx8h y uchwritcrs
mainiaineid hat theLcagirch:id sovçreigntyover rhcmandated tcrritciricsa.nwhy
th- readily aczçprçd aright ofrçvtxaiion oiitlrpdrt ofthe Lcaguc, was thatthey
hoped thar when Germany &.urne a Mernbcr ofthe 1.cagucshc uwuldbt nominaid
as Mandatory foral1or partof lieformer coloniesIn thisregard ishould br poinl-
cd out thaiin a Notc address-:dby theGerrnan Government lo the League il1924
regarding thequestion ofticrman aci'cssioto the Lcague,theFoilaiuingwas stated
{freely translüied): '-Gcrmanwho has sincethc Iaswar been cxclirdcdfromevery
crjloniaactiviiy, waits to taki: part actively at an approptime inthe mandates
svsteni of thLeague oi Natici,~~.YiikWchhurg, H.,Die I/ijlk~rbr~ti (1927).
. . 117-118.
Vide Chap. VI,para, 2.sapro.
Vide Nnrflt SeaCo~~oririnettai",.Jii-kriierLCJ. Rraorrs1969....42: "With-
Oui airemptjng to enter ini:tillless pronounceiiporany qucstion ofjttscng~iisii
iswell underatood that, iprtçt~çe,rules of iniemaiit>naliaw caby agreement, be
derogated f'romin particular#:abes,r as bctween particulaparties.. ." WRITTES ST.4TE.MENTOF SOUTH AFRIGI 577

contained any provision autf,orisithc Lcague iorevoke a mandate.Article 7
ofthe MandateDeclarationIorSouth West Africa(andsimilararticIesapwr-
ing inal1 the other MaildatcDcchrations) provided that thc tcrms of the
mandate couIdonly beamendedwiththe consent ofthe Council of the Ixague.
This provisionwas, nu doullt,inwrled Io make ir abundantlyckar rhat the
mandatory did no: have the rightIOamend the mandate unilatera1Iy. Tdid
not,however, conferon theC3iinciIthe rightomodifythctcmsof the mandate.
As statedbyJudgeTanaka :

"The prohibitionof unilateral modification cxists not unIy in rcgard
to the mandatory butin regard to thc Lcague of Nations nlso'."

IV. Re~ocaiionby Yirtrreut-an ftnpjicd Terni

73. The circumstances untierwhich a term may lx implied in the murse of
the intcrpretationoan internatiunaltreatyor sgrccmcnt havebwri dealt with
in Chapter 112.lt has ken pointeci outthat courtsin al[IegaIsysremsguard

themIves against asseniing to a proposed implication on any but rtiemost
cogent grounds r,alisingthat implicationona hasisof spcculütion,oron what
the partiesought reasonably rohave done, wouId amount to themaking of a
ncw bargain ur compact fur thepariies.Conscqucntly,it isrequiredrhat an
implicationof tacit cottseit.must arisc nccessari olyinevitably from thc
relevantfacts.
74. Itis ihzrefornaxssiiryto have regard tothccircumstancessurrounding
and precedingthe confermerit ofthe mandatesin order ta determinc whcthcr
acleartacit intenttu provide a righof cevocation on the pariofthe League
can bededuced.Ai the autset itmus! bc notcd tliathadsuch an intentexisted,
ifwouldhave beensirangerio[ tahave incorparateciitin the mandate instru-
mcnrs. A tcrm providing for revucation of a mandatc wouId have beeria
potenriallyfar-reachingprovisionwitha number of implicationsaffccting the

population of thc tcrritoryconccmcd, ihe Leaguc and irsmembers, rhe man-
datory and any iiew rnaitdatoryrowhich the territoiymightheentrustcd.Had
a possihlerevomtioti ofmanilates beencrinternplated,ne wouldliaveexpected
expIicit agrccmcnt conccrniniit~îealiu,the groundswhich wouId have justified
revocation.the marrner in wliichitwould have tobe effecred,the rne~hodsby
which the furureadministrationof the territoryconccrncd wciuld have to be
dcfcrmincd (including theappointmcnt of a new rnandarory),and the adjust-
nientsof the rightsof tlie vai-ioiiiterestedparries.
75. The failure tomake expressprovisionsfor rcvocatioii attains increased
impcirtancc whm regardis Iiad tothc codiçting pointo sf view which were
uItimatelyresolvedin thecoinproniisereIating to themandates system. It wilI
be recaIIedthat at the end of the First World War certain of the sirccessfui

Powcrs claimed the annexation of somc of the former cnemy,terrilories,and
that agreements in this regardhad been rmchedduring the war 3. Amongsi
the States with such claims *erc South ATricii,Australiaand New Zmland.
On the other hand,rhere wap.a strongcurrentoffeeiinginfa~ourofinternarion-
ai administration of eneniy ~Ionies, wliichpoint ofview mas pressed partic-
uIarlystrongly by PresidentWilson < The crux of thedispute between the two

.COztfkIVPSAfricuSrrond P~LZJPjud~t~ent1,.C.f.Heporfs1966,p. 323.
VideChap. II,paras. O-1:.StlprQ.
Videpara.7, siipru.
+ Vide para8, supra.from which iii canbe ccineludcdthat it \vasthe unexpressedintention of the
States coiictmcd that the hgue wouldhavethe power to rcvake mandates
and substituremandatories, the mord showscoiiclusively that the idcas of

revwaticinand substifuiion were delikrately no1 incorporated in the Sniuts
resolution and in Article22 or the Ccwcnant, andtherefore also no1 in the
mandate instruments.There isconsequentIy iio room for ihe iniplicütion of a
tem which would have empowered the ieague to revoke a mandate or to
substitute aniandatory.
113T .his concliision is fortified bthe consideration thai, had jtken the
intcntionthat a mandate should be revocableby thekaguc. itisiiiconceivable
that the hunders of the Lcaguc woutd have made itimpossible for this

cnmpetenze to bcexcrciscdin practice. Keference has atreiidybccn made to
thcprovisions of the Covenantwherebyanydwision of the CounciI periaining
to aparticular mandate requiredthc agrccrnentof, irtieniios,the representative
of the mandatory Srate.airdit followtx hat a decision Io rcvokc a mandare
couldnot have ben taken had themandatory opposed such a course '.
This feaiure was ernphasizcdin the Judgmentsand opinions both in 1962
and 1966. In 1962, insupportof its findingsihaf the judicial protectionof the
slrcrcd trustwa% an essential fearureof the mandates systeni,the Court siated

that the rnim~i d'êtreof thisessential provisionin the mandatcs was obvious,
since, byreason of tlreunanimity nile mentioncd above, suwrvision by the
Lcague ccluldin theIastresort ncithavebeeneffective '.TheCouncil'sultirnütc
lackof effectivcncsswouid of course alw have rende& iiimpossible for the
Couneil trirevoke a mandateagainst the wishcsofthc mandatory. The Iogical
concIusion to be drawn from thissituatioiisthal ilwasnot thc intcntion of
theauthorsof the Covenantthat the Corincil of the League would be entitfed
to imposeits wili on thc mandatories,whetherin order ta revvke a mandate

or for anyother purpose.This was exprwly so hcId by thc Court in 1966, in
the folIowingwnrds :
"The plain fact is thaf,in rcliition to thc 'conduc!' provisionsof the

mandates, it was ncvcr the intention that the Council shouldtic ablc to
impo:itiitsvicws on thevariousmandalories-the systcrnadoptcdwasone
whichdeliberatelyrenderedthisimpossible. . .
As f~6~~rds~hepossibiliry that a ntanda!urrnighibe uctitrg cojtfrartiol
only torlzevferusofrfieresi ofilzr Cuuncibtiiruthe rnaridatcifse& therisk
of~lriwas evideri~lyiakutzwitlropeneycs.and thiit the riswaf rernnte,the
cventprovd '."(1talicsaddcd.)

84, This feaiurc \vas also srressed by JudgeSir LouisMbanefo. In his
dissenling opinion he posed the qucstion how,assurning the League still to
havc been in exisrence in 1966, adisputc htweeit SoutliAfrica and a majoriiy
of Membersof thc Lcague as rowhether the South African policies rverein

: The differencof opinion oii tIiipointhetween Judges ~lae~tatiand 1.autcr-
pacht in the 1955Opinion (vide VotitrPrcicrrlurc un @ue.stiorebrtiiiinReports
undPerilioiis concrrniiihpTerrilor uf SotltlWestAfricu, Advisury Opinivn, I.C.J.
Reparrs 1955,pp.85-86and 99-1 00) was rcsolved bytheCourt and individualJudges
in 1962 ancl1Y66{ride South West .4frica, Preliminorjr Obj~,~tionsJ,udgtr~rni,I.C.J.
Regnrt.~1962, pp. 336-33? and 354 ; Sourh Wesi Africo. Secotrti Pl~nsJitdgtrirrir,
I.C.J. Repori.1966, pp. 44and 218-219).The stattmeni in thetextcan accordinglç
now bc regarded asscttlcdlaw.
So~rtlfWest Afiicn.freliniinauyObjeciion.~,Judgnr~nf, I.C..I. Repnnp fFa,
pp. 33G337.
Vide South We.ri AfiicuSecond Phase, J~rrlgm~niI.C.J. Repurrs 1966, p.36. breach of the mandateprovisions, could be resolvcd. He gsvc thc following
answer :

"-Ihc Judgmcnt saystliat the Mandateprovides no rernedyfor such a
situation and lhat it wasa risk the 1-eaguemcnikrs took with tlieir eyes
widc open. Itseems tornc thüt i\vastu rrieetsucha situationfhüt Article7
(2) wasintroduced '."

Judge Sir Louis Mbaneio was accordingIy also of the opinion that the
frarnersofthe mandates systcm took the iiskof a brcach of the mandate with
thtireyes widc openin ihesensethat theLeague as such (as distinctfrom its
Mcmbersacting in tcrmsof Arr. 7,para. 2) wauId have beenpawerIesshad a
inandatory acted in breach af itsobligalions, atid, consequentIy,wouId not
have Iiadthecompcicnce to revokethemandate '.
85. As fur as "C" Manditcs were concerned, thereisan additionalreason
for concluding tha{ theCouncildid not have the power to revokethe mandates

falling in thatcategory. It will be recalIed that during the discussion of the
Council of Tcn stresswasrepeatcdlylaidon thecontiguity of thePacificIsIands
to Australia and New ZeaIiind, and especially of South West Africa to South
Africa j.Even before the CounciI metin Paris. Mr. LIoyd Georgepointed oui
IO PresidentWilson thai itivouldIiave been quite irupossiblctoxparatc Svuth
Wcst Africa fiom Soutl'iAFriça,becausethe former was essentially a partof
SouthAfrica 4.
When opening thc discu:;s~onrelating to Cdonial territorics üt thc Peace
Confcrcn~u: on 24 January 1919 Mr. Lloyd George pointed out that South

West Africa was contiguou:; to thc tcrritorirof Soiith Africa. He wenenorn to
say that there was no rcd ratura[bundary andiinless the Dutch and British
populaiion of Soutlt Africa undcrtookthe colonization of this area itwouId
seiiininawildcrness
At the third Mecring un28 January 1918 Mr. Lloyd Gcorgc again stressed
the coniiguity oftliePacificIslandsand South West Africa to theterrirorics of
ihe1)ominionswhich laiddaim to thcvecoIonies.Thiscontiguity,acc-ording to
Mr. Lloyd Cieorgc, suggesti:dthat theTerritoricsin qucstion "sliouM furni un
integralpartuf /ho.rcouritrics@'.(Italicsaddcd.)

86. Speakingat the fifth ineeting ofIhe Council of Ten, MF. Lloyd George,
rvith refeet'ento the Smis resofution, said that thrcc:cIasses of mandates
wouldhiivt tobe recognitcd;thethirdcategory bcingdescribcd as:
"Mandates applicabie to countrieswhich formcd ülrnosia part of the

organialion of an adj3ining power, who worridhclve to hc oppoint~d rke
tnrt~rdntor'" (lia1icsadded.)
It wasohvious from the tormulation of iheSmutsresoiutionand frvinwhat
Mr. Lloyd George ltad said that the l'acific IsIünds andSouth Wcst Africa

Ibid.p. 505.
Vrt the dissenring opiniurtsof JudgesWellingtiin Koo and Koretsky ihcre are
also iobe round passaycs rihich are for the same reasonsto a grsiter or Iesser
Jcyrcc inçansisrenwith thcnation of a power ofrevacation vcstinçin CheCriuncil.
Vicietheirdissentingopin~on:.ripp. 218-219 and 245.
Videparas. 13 elseq.q,7ra.
Vidcpara. 10,sriprrr.
Vide para. 13,siiprt~.
Vide para. 16,supra.
Vide para.20.supro.would bc tcrritories twhich the third category of mandates would apply and
that South Africa, New 7~aland and Ausrriiliüwould havc to bc üppointed
rnmdatorics.
As alrcady pointed out, theSmuts remlution was provisionaliyadoptcd and

it\vastacitly agrd that ihc"C" Mandateswould bc adoiiniste~ed by the saÏd
three coiintrie'.At a Ialer stagthe thrce Dominions were in fzt noniinated
as mandatorics of the territiiries subjto"C:" Mandates '.
$7. Th: conceptio tiat the Durniriionshad tu bc appointcd mündatories
in respwi of thoae territories appearsalso from the wording of paragaph 6of
Arriclc22 of the Covenant which, dmost tvord forwod, rollowd paragraph 8
of the Smuts resolution, aiid reaasfollows:

"1 here are territories, suchas South-West Africa and certain of ihe
Sou!\ PacificBIands. whicfi,owing tu the sparscncss of thcirpopulation.
or thcir small six,or their rcmotenessfrorn the centres of civilisatioor
their geagraphical contiguityto the rerritary Othe mandatory, andothcr
circumsiances, can bc best administcrcd undcr thc laws of thc niandatory
asinicgralportions ofitsterritorysubject tothe safeguardsabvc lnenlion-
ed inthe ititerestsohe indignous population ?."

ItwilI bc obxn,cd that spccificreference was made to the "geographical
contiguit!l" of the territories conerncdICIthe mundalory Statcs and that this
was one of thereasons for staringrharihe tcrritorie"cm be bcstadministered
undcr th#:laws of the mandatory Stateas integral portions ofiis terriloryIn

view of tl~isforniuIationit isinconwivtiblc that ihc frarncrs of thc Covenant
coiild havc intcndcd rhat the mandatories inrespect ofthe PacificIslandsand
South West ARica could ever.have ben any orher State than the thrce Do-
ininions r:oncerned. At rhat stttgthcrc \vas.for instance.no Statc other than
South Ai'rim which was contiguous to South West Africa and certainly no
othcr State which could hest have adrninisrercdSourh West Africriunder ils
laws as ailinregrd1poriivn of its tcrritoryThis is indccdstiIlthc position. Tt
woiild conseq~iently be idle tosuggest thatthe f~aniers of tliCovenant aird
thc mandate instrument for South Wesl Afrim could ever have intendcd that

the Mantlatz for Souih West Africa could bc rcvokcd by thc Council and
transferreà to anothcr mandatoiy, tn whicli.by raison of its position, situation
and gcrtc:alcircumstances, the said paragrapli of the Covenant çotild never
be applicrthle.
88.Thire cm üccurdingly,itissubmitted, beno doubt thata terniernpmver-
ing thc Lliagrteiorevnkea mandate cannor beimplied,andeven iCilisassumtd,
for the purposes of argurrtent, that theCouneil did cnjoy. sucha puwcr in
retarion to "A" and "B" Mandates, it isabundantly clcar that the Council
could no1 hüvc revoked a "C" Mandate and have appo~nted a siibsrituie
mandatory.

89. Thi:question wheihcr the League had a powcr of revocation hüs been
discusscd by a largc nnurnher of writers and cornnientators but unfortunately
thc vicwsof most are based moreon swculaiion than or1legal argurntnt or on
a realistiappraisaI of the relevant facts aiid events. These writers and conimen-
tators can hedivided in10three groups; viz.:

(a)thosc:who hold the view thatthe kague had a power of revocation ';

Yirlr para. 21, supra.
,Miller,op.ci!.Vol. II,p.337.
~idf IientwiciN., The !Munrlrites.y~:rr(1930).p. 16; Pahl,R., Dus wlkrr- seeing rhat this general poIicy was ciirriedout, but the I.eague was not
theauthor ufitl."

94. Itisconvenient ;~tthiistagealso ta refertostarements made tiyMembers
of the Perrnane Mnrandates Commission. hi 1924 Lord Lrigardpresei~ted a
mernoranduni to the Commission in which tic concluded rhat alhough a
Mandate could he revoketl in the event of grriss violation thereof, such a
revwation rnighl t'orpracti: palrpow be rcyarded as inconceivable 5 How-

ever, Mr.van Rccs, in tht: cnsuing discimion stated that the pvssibjlityof
unilateralrevocation "did not reallyexisteither inIawor in fact3". '1-oomuch
importance shouId not be attiichcdtu thesc sluterncnts since tfiey did not
professra be bascd on a Ic~aliinalysisof tlie mandatessysternand its origin,
butwerein essence inerelyslieculalionsdirectedtn the abstract hypothesis of
revocabiliry of amandate.

YS. Among the importafit unofficialsocietiesdevotcd to rhc promorion of
intcrnaiioC nOal-uperatiovas tlieInter-Parlian~ ennonaryIrgave serious
study to tliinandates systetnas from its 20th scssion in1922.Duriny ils22nd
conference in 1924 the Union adopted s resoIutir ocoinniending that the
Assernbly oflhc Lcasue beztiipowcredro modiry and revoke mandates *.Th~s
reconimendationwas obviously based on the assuiiiptionthat no organ ufthe
Leagiledid havethe leçalpcxer to revoke aniandate.

9h. As alrcady pointeclout, neitherthe PermanenlCourt ncirtttisCourt has
been called upon to considcrspecitîcallywhether or not thc Lcaguc cnjoyed 8
power of revocation of a mandate. Neither fiasanyindividual Judgc insa many
ivordscxp~csscd an opinion ,?storhisqucsrion 5.As alsopoint4 out, however,
there arc dicm in Judgmcnts and opinions which arc inwrnpatible with any
notion that a mandate was revocableal the instanceofthe Leagiie

97. The aboveexposition deinonsrrüted ihar neiiherArticle 22of thc mye-

Hall. op. ci?.. 117.
?PMC, Min. Y, pp. 177-1'73.
Ibill., p. 155.
Yki~ Wright, opcir., pp83-84
In his 1950disscntingopini<inJudgc Alvarez statedrhat,ifa Mandaiory Sintc
did not pcrfurrnlheohligiiiotiflov;ingfruin irMandate, the Uniied NationsAs-

scmbty wotrlrihave thepr>nveiunderArticle 10 of theCharter,ro retwkcthe Man-
daic (p. 182).Fcir present purpuseitis siificientipoinr oitt ihar Jiidgc Alvaru
did nritfiiitiiatlic LerigsrcIiad tpiiwerIo revoke a mandate. For thcambit of
.4rticleIOof the Lhaitcr, ridCliap. X, infioIn contrastto Judgc Alvarez,Judge
Bustariiairtein hi1962 scpaiarc opinion,hacmin g entioncdthat Arliçle 22of the
Covenant did no1 mentionwhetherthe Allied Fowcrswcrc ru pr=erve icithe ruriire
thc power to appoini mantiaiories wherencccssar oyrwhether ihat power kvasto
be conferrcd on the League <ifNations through ihç Giunçil, siated tliat "1xould
perwnaliy opt f~r ilielatteipresurnption sinçe, irnyview, tho intentionoTthe
Powcrs was Io renouncc tina!lyany righis 1the {ormer colonies"(p. 3543 .üdge
Busiamante did not givcan? rcasons for his co~iclusion that the Council had thc
power to appoint rnand:itoricjand therejs nothingto indicaiethatin thepassngc
quoted tichad in niinda revocationofa Maiidatc by the CoiincilfIe could asuveli
havc had inmind thesiiuiiiitin whidia .Mandatory Powcr, wilh rhconsent of the
Cuunçil, drçidedno longer tc~aci asrich. ankhç relevant viewsexprcsscdby him
çvnsequently do not constitute any authority for the proposititharthe CounciI
or an? othcr ormn of the1c;igrie \venipowered to rcvokc a Miindure.
' Vide paras. 82-83. supra.nantnor the rnuncliiieinsirunienisconiairiedanyprovision,expressor irnplied,
empoweriiig the Lcagiie to revokc a mandate and either to assume powcrs of
administr;itionÏrself,or to appoint anoiher mandatop; and that thereis no
objcctivc Icyat principiethe appliculion ufwhich could have conferrd such
powers or:the LeagueI. t showsthat the wcight of scholarfyopinion favouis
the vicw 1hat the Ikague did not enjoy thesepowem. It demonsirates, ftnally,
thatdicta in thc rclcvanijudgrncntsof thc Courl and in opinions of individual

judgesstrengtlienthisconclu.iion.
II is cmequently siibniiited thar ithas heen conclusiveIy shown that ihe
kaguc wiis not Icgüllycntitlcdto rcvokca rnandatc, ur toassurne administra-
tion of a tiiandatedterritoryor toappoint a new mandatoryin the place of a
deposed ox. IVRITT1:WSTATE,MEhTOF SOUTH AFRlCA 589

Thesupply of intoxicatin:<spiritsandbeveragcsto thnativesshalIbe prohib
iied.

Thc rnilitarytraining of 7henatives, othcrwisethafor purposes ofinterna1
policeand thelocalclefenccof th tcrrilory,skall beprohibitedFurthermore,
no rnilita orynaval basesshall be established or fortificationscrcctcdthe
territury.

Subjecttothe provisionsofany local Iawfor themaintenance ofpublicorder
and public morals, thc rn;indatoryshaH ensure in the territory frccdorn of

consciencc m-~dthe freeextrcisc of al1forms of worship, and shaIlallow aII
missionaries,nationals of anyState Member of theLeaguo ef Nations,to enter
into, traveland reside in the territoryfor the purpose of prosecuting thcir
dling.

The mandatory sha1I make totheCouncil of the LeagueofNations ananniial
reporrto thesatisfactionof thc Council,conrainingfullinformation withrcgard
IO the territorand indicaiingthe meafures taken tocirrryout theobligations
assurnedunder Articles2, 34 and 5.

The consen oftheCounciI ofthcLcagüe of Nations is requiredfor anymodi-
fication of thc tcrrof ihe presentMandate.

The niandatory trgrecsthat, if anydispute whatevershoülarisebetween the
mandatoryandanother Mt:mkr of theLeagueof Nations relatingto the intcr-
pretationor the appticatioofthe provisionsof theMandatc, suchdispute,if it
cannot bcsettI& by iiegoti.~tion,shabe ~ubmittedlo the Permanent Courtof
InternationalJusticeprovirledforby Article 14of the Covenantof the League
ofNations.
Thc present Declaration shaIIbe deposjtsdin thearchives ofthe kdgiie of
Nations. Ccrtifitulcopies shalk fonvarded by the Secretary-GeneraI ofthc
League of Nations tu afIPowers Signarories of ihe Trcaty of Peace with
Gcrman y. .4.Infroductory

1. ln Chapter VITabrive itwasdernonstratedthai no expressor irnpliedterin
iiithe Madate. tiotany IegaIrulc iippcriaining thereto, couldhave resulteù irt
a transkr cifsiipcrvisory funciions tthe IJiiited Natioiis wiiliout a frcsh agcc-
nient amoiigst aIlinterested parties, induding in particular South Afriw as
rnandatory.Tht prcsçnt Chaptcr will be devoted to a consideration of theqiies-
tion uUheth~s ?rchan apreei~ientwasever concluded. From a prücticüI pointof

view rhis iiivolvean exaniination of cvcntd suring the yeiirs when the United
Nations wliscstablishcd and ihe Leagueof Nations dissolue it., 1945-1946.
and short[>t.hereafter.Itwas on evenisduriny thispcriod that thc Court in 1950
placed reIi.inceforitçconclusion [kata succession of supervisory organs had
occurred. 2ndas füras is known, it hasnever ken suggested that any relevani
agreement (oiher tlian tl~oseinvolvedinthc crcirtiunofthc Vündütc itsclf) was
cnncluded at any othei titne. Thcprewnt Chapter wiII contain a survey ofthe
material events during thc saidpcriod, which willImd up toa considemtiori of
the legalirriplicationRowing therefrom, and inpariicular rciihccunclusion that

no agreement was reached providing for transfer of supervisorypowers in
respect or iaandaics from thc CnunciIof the League of Nations to any orgiinof
the Unitcd Nations.

B. EstübIishmentof the ie~iiitd Yaiians

2. The rstahIishmenrof the Uni tcd Nations Organi=tioil resulted Iargely
froitiinter-Allied co-operation during the Second WorId War. The nanie
"Uriited hlritions"I~adbeen adopled by thc AIlicsin the latcrstagesof the \var
and used ir decIar;itions, suas that of 1January 1942.at Washinptoii, j~ledg-

iriywar-tinic co-opcriition. 'lheprospect of establishinga new international
orgaiii~9ticn for the prewi-vaiion of intcmational pcacc was mcntioncd in a
declararion signed on 30 Octoher 1943,at Moscow, by the representativesof
fourof the major Allied Powers. vif., the Cnion of Soviet SociaIist Republics,
the United Siaiesol Amcrica.thc United Kingdrim andChina.'l'hefirst blueprint
af the orgiinizaiion was prepared duriiig discussioiisin the period Augusi to
Octohr 1944at Dumharton Oaks. Wasliington, in which lhe said four Powers
participated. Followiiig on thcsc discussionsthei-ewas published thc proposa[,
inwr aiiu, that the key body in the contemplated oryani~atiw ons to be a

Security Couiicil on which the "Rig Five" Powers (beiny the above four and
France) wei-eto be prtniunen[:nrtcprcscntcd. During the Yalta Confcrcncc of
Fehruary 1945, between President ttrioseveli of theUnited States of Ainerica,
Primc hlinistC crurchill of the Cnired Kingdoin and Premier Siatinof the
Sovier.Uniriii,came anannounccmcnt thatthe question of voting procedurc in
such a Security Council had ken seiettleand tliat "a confereiice of Ijnited
Nations" sl~ould bc called to meet atSan Franciscoto preparea charter Yor"a
general intcrnntianaLotganiration iomaintain pcacc and sccurity ..,along thc
linesproposed in the informal conversations of Dunibarton Oaks".
A confcrcncc ofdelegales of 50 nations was held a[San Francisco belvieen

75 ApriI aiid 25 June 1945, üt which thc Charter of the United h'at~ons\vasdrafted,unanikous~~agreed iipon andsiynedby al1thc rcpr~scntati\~cItcsmc
inio rorceon 24 October 1945, when,as requircd byArticle 110tltereof,thefive
I'owers thüt rvcrcto bc t'crrnancntMernbers of the Seçurity CoiinciIand a
rnajorityof the othersign;ttoryStates had filedtheirratification'.
3.During Ihe aforcçai e ventsthe Ixague nf Nations wiissiiIl iexisietice;

and jz cnntinued tu cxist sidc by side with the new organitation LtntiIApriI
1946.
Tkrc wasnu siiggestiot tluttheUnited Nations was tu bt ietLeagie un&r
a new name, or an autoniatic successur inlaw io Leaguc assets,obligations,
funcrionsor activities.Indeed,two of themajor Powerswhichplayed ü Ieading
roic in the establishn~entof the United Nations, and were to be Permanent
Memhers of thc Sccurity Council. were known to bcstrongly averse io any

notion of autoinaticsuccession. They were the Soviet [,nion,which had ken
expcllcdfrom the League in Wember 1939, and the UniiedStates of Arneiica,
which had never been a ivicnibcrofthc Lcague.
In ter.iiof ArticIe3 of the Charter, theoriginal Meinbers of thc United
Kations were theStates which. having participatedin theSan FranciscoConfer-
ence or having signcd thc.ûcclaration bylht:United Nations of I January 1942,
alsv signed Ihe Charteraiid ratified itin accordance with L\rticIe110. Thcre
were 51 suchoriginal Menibersof iheUnited Nations, ofwliich 17were not ai
ihat rime (1945-1946) Membersof thc Lcaguc. They were: ByeloriissianSoviet

SociaIisrRepublic,Chile,(:osta Rica, EISalvad ou atemala,Haiii.Honduras,
Lebanon, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian
Soviet SociaIist Kepuhlic,Unionof Soviet Sociülist Republics,UnitedStates of
Amcriça and Vcnczuelü. Of those7.I6 liad neve reen Mernbers of the Leaguc.
They wei-e: ByetorussianSoviet SoçiaIist RepuhIic, Lcbanon, Philippines,
Satidi Arabia, UkrainianSoviet Socialist Kepublic and &lieUnited Stares OT
Anicrica. AI[ thc others (except the Soviet Cnion) had inany years beforc
withdrawn froin the Leagileon noricc 2.

Ftirtheror the 42 Members of theLeague of Natioiisat thattirnc,11 were
not origind Mcmbcrs of thcUnii~ulNations.They were: Afghanisian,Bulgaria,
Estonia, Finland, Irelan~i,Latvia, Lithuania. I'ortitgaISiarii (TIiailand),
Swedenand Swit7.erland.1-ourofthese, viz., SwitzzrlrtnLithuania,Lalvi and
Esionia, ncvcr kcame M.:nikrs of tlieUnited Nations.The athers wcrc ad-
niittedto n~erntiershipatiarious times, insonlecrisesycarsafier theestahlish-
ment of the United Narions ".

As a resuItof the adrrii:isior new Menibers, United Nations rncmbcrship
grew to 993s aithe endor'1960 to i10as attheend of 1962,and to 127 a1 the
presentiinie. Although 14of theseneiv Mernbers iiadatsome stageor another
bccn Mcrnbcrs of thc Lcci:~uciht:oihershad never been.
4. At the San Francisco Conference,during the discussions mticerning the
provisions of rhe CharterieeIariVto a propased trusteesliisystem 4,the South
Afrimn rcprcscntütivc ma rtcthc following siateiiic:r

"1 wish io point 031 that there are territoriesalreadyunder Mandate
whcrc thc mandatory principlccannot be acliicved.

Hainhro,yF..~,hur~erqfihrnClrtifed.Votion.s(2ed.),pp.a3-18.GiiodricL. M. and

pp.o64-65,tes videWalters. F.P.A Ili.siory ofthLpripe ofNoriorrs(1952).Vol. 1,
' Vide datesin Evryvm(in'sUnitrrl Nuiion(6thcd-),p. 6-

+ In Comniittcc II!4on 11 May 1945. As an iIlustralio1would referto ihe former Germanterritory orSouth
Wcst Africa heId by South Africa under a 'C' Mandate.
'rile facts with regartriihis icrriiory asctout ina memorandurn filed
with IlleSn~etariat, which 1now read:
When the dispnsal ofenemyterritov iinder rhe Treatyof Versaillesu7as
under considcration, doubt was exprmsed as to the suitabilily of the
mandittory form of adtdininistratfor tlieierritory which fornierlconsii-
tuted the Germm Proteçtorate of South West Africa.
Neverthclcss,on 17 Decernher 1970,by agreement betweenthe Principal
AHicdand Associated Powers and in accordance with Articlc 22 Part T
(Covenant of lheLeague ofNations) of theTreaty, a Mandate(commonty

referrcd toas a 'C' Mandate) niasconferredupon the Govemrntnr O€ the
Union of SoutlrAfrica to adininister the said tcrritory.
Under the Mandate the Union of SotithAfrica was grinted full power of
adi~iinis~rationrrndlegisIafionovetheterritoryasan integralportion ofthe
Union of South Africa,with authority toiipplythc Iaws of thc Union toit.
For 25 years,the Union of Sotrth Africa hasgoverneciand adniinistered
the tcrritoar syan integral Paof itown territory and haspromoted to the
utmost the material and moral wetl-king and thc socialprogressof the
inhahitants.
Et has iippiicdmany of itsIaws to the territory and has fairhfiiIIyper-
forneci its obligations underihe Mandüic. -
The territory isin a unique position u~henconipared with otherterrito-

riesundcrthe same frirm of Mandate.
It igographialIy and strategicaIla part of ihcUnion of South Africa,
and inWorId WarNo. 1 a rebellioninthe Union was foinented from it,
and an attackIaunchedagainstthe Lnion.
It is inlarge mcasurc ccononiically dcpcndcnt upcin theUnion, whrise
i.ailula:,sseritand from which it draws the great bulk of its supplies.
Its &pendent narivepeopIes springfrom Ihe same ethnviugical stem as
the great iiiass of ihc natipcoples of theUnion.
Two-thirds of the Furopan population are of Union origin aiid are
Union Nationals, and the rernainionng e-third are EnemyNationals.
The teriiiory hasits aivn Lcgislative Asseinbly granted to it by thc
Ildon Parliament,and this AssembIybas submitted a requestfor incorpo-

ration of theterritoryas part of rheUnion.
The Iliiion hasintroduccd a progressive policl;olNritiireAdministration,
incliiding a systeinof loal government ihroughNativeCouiicils givinythe
Ncilivcsa vnice in the management OPthcir own afkdirs; and under Union
Administration Kativc Rcscrves have reached a high state of oconontic
deveIopnient.
Zn vjcw of contjguiry and simiIariiy composition of rhenative peoples
in Soutli WestAfricathcnative palicyfoI1oivedin Sauth West Africamusi
alwaysbeüIignedwith thatof tlie Union, three-fiîthsof the populatioof
whichis naiive.
Theie isnu prospcct of the territory ever exjstias aseparatc statcand
ihe uItimate objective ofthe maiidatoryprinciple isthereforeimpossible
of açhicvement.

The nelegation of the Union of Sauth Africa fherefoce clairns that the
Mandatcshould be terminatedand that theterritoryçhould be incorpora-
tcd as part of the Union of South Afnca.
As territoriaquestions are however reserved for handling at thc latcr
I'eaceConference where tlieUnion of SouthAîrica intends to raise this WRl-I?'W STATEMEhTOF SOUTH AFRICA 593

maiter, it is hereonIy mentionedfor theinformation of theConfcrcncein
connection withthc Mandatesquestion '."

5.The signifieance of the übove siateriicntis further acceniuate by an
extractfrom a Iatestatemeni hy FieId-Marsha[ Smuts ,hichçanccrnvcnientIy
-aIihough out of histori:iisequence-ha ciled here.Addressing the Fourth
Clomniittcc of thetieneral AssembIy of thc Unitcd Nations at itsFourteenth
Meeting on 4 Novcmlier 1946, Field-Marshal Smutsstüted, inter dia:

"Itwas ...incurnbent on the Union Govcmrnent as trusleof the inter-
estsof the pcople of South West Africa toensuie that, whenthe pruper
timc arrivedforconsi-lIcrcitiof atiychange iinthe statuof the 'Ièrritory,
such considerationshnuldnot beprejudicedby iinyprior comniitnienton
the part of the Union Government by virtue ofils mcmbcrship of any

organizationwhich rrtightrcpIiice thLeagut of Nations; accordingIy,in
May 1945,when quesrionsrelatingto trusteeshipwcrc undcr consideration
by theSan FranciscoCoriTerencet,he Union Governinent entered arewr-
vation designedto enjurethat thcfuturestatus of South West Africaand
the desirabilityoilsjncorporationin lhe Enion should noi bc prcjudiçcd
by anyproposais adtipted by tht: Conferencc inregard to the future of
rnandated Territories.The textof this reservationis given in Paragraph1
of Document A/I23. In the event, however. the Charter of the United

h'atium bythe use ofi:heterm 'ntay'instcad o'shall'inArticle77excluded
any obligationto piaix mandatedTcrritoriesunder truskmhip and made
the appIicationof th: irust.eeshipsysternto such territoriea mattcr of
voluntary agreement. This no doubt accounts for theract that in addition
toSouth West Africa.threeniher mafidates-Transjor Palestineand
theJapanese PacificTilands-have so far been exduded from thcTrustcc-
shipSystcrn '."

6. Towardsthe end of theSan Francisco Conference,on 25 June 1945, there
was estahlisheda Prcparatory Conimission ofrhe United Nations. consisting of

The officiarecordsof ihe SanFrancisco Conferencecontain only ahriefsum-
mary of thisstatemcnt(UNCI0 docs.,Vol. IO,p.434).The text quotehere istaken
Crointhe original typwrittedocumcntfrom whjch theSouth Africanrepresentative
Dr. D. L.Smit, rtadthe statementithcCurnmittccon Trusteeshipon 11May 1945,
which accords wilh anunolticiaircrbatirrsord inthecustody of the Cnited Na-
tions Szcretariai.Theorigiiiadocument read by the Soui11.4lrican rcprcscntative
contains alsothe îojlowjngpiiragraph which ishriwever.not reffcctcin the un-
oficial verbatimrccord:

"As stateùin ihe M,eniorandum, thisisnot a matter thai çan be decided
hcre, bu1 1arndirectcdto mentirin iforthc ~nformuticinof the Confcrenso
thet South Afriw mny not afterwardsbc held t<have acquiescedin thecon-
tinunnceor theMandate or the inclusior~the ierritnin anyformof trustec-
ship underthe new Int,:rnatiortal Orpoiciition."
Dr. Szriit,whodied during 1962.atfirmcd by Ietteto theSouth AErican Goverti-
nientbefore hjstieath, iIiathe mrithcwhvle starementas ilappearsin the South
African recordsJt wassuggested inthe riisxriting opinion ofJudge Jassupin Sourfi
Wfst Alrira,Second Phuse,.ludgmenz,1.C.J. Reports 196aap. 340, that DrSmir's
rnernorymay have ken îaulty rcgardin tgis last parayrapt.issubmittcdthat iis
of no importance whethcr<nrnot theadditionalparagraph wasrad sinc ctwvuld
not haveadded anytfiingwiiiçhwas notalready impliedin thercsor the ~ralement.
This appearsto havc becn irccxptebyJudgc Jssup.
GA, OR, FirstSess.Second Part, Fourth Cornm., Part 1p. 739.one represeiitativof eachsignatory Siuie'.The funçtions cntrustcd to itwere
to convoke theGeneral Assernbly in itsfirçsession,to prepare theprovisional
agcnda, dricunientsand recommendations for the firsl scssionsof the prin-
cipal orgatlsof the Organization,and 10 do certain other defined preparatory
work pcnding establishinent of the Secretariat'. One of thescitcms of pre-
paratory wark \vas in:

"Formulaterecornmendations concerning the possiblc ransfcr of cer-
tainf~nctions, activitizsand assersof theLcagiie of Nationswhich itiriaq-
be mnsidcrcd dcs~rübleForthe new Organirarion to takeover on tcrnlsto

be arr4inged'."
7.Providon was also made for an Ex~~utiveCom~nittee(consisting of
representaiivesof 14 Staics)which would exerciw thepowersand ftinciions of
the PrepariitoryCorninission wIwn itruas not in sessioTn.hc ExccutiveCorn-
mittee,for thepurposeofcarryin ogutits functionsset up IO Sub-Cornmirtees.

The ternls of refcrcnccof Comrnittce 4 of the ExeciiriveConiniittee inçliidcd
the foIIowillg:
"This Comniittee should he concerned with thc ~repawtion of the
Agenda and appropriatedocuriienisfor thc firstsessioOF the-1.rusteeship

Coun~il. Ii shouldmake recoinmendations defininq ~hcrulc ofthc Gcncriil
~k&nhk~ and of the SecurityCounçiI in trustoes mhiters and of tlieir
respectiverelations withthc Trustecship Council. ...
The Cornmirtee should prepare recominendationsfor procedures which
might be folIowed for approving trustt~shipagreements, for exa~nining
annual reports,for rc~xivingand examining peririons, foarranging perio-
dic visitto territoriesand forestabIishinga qucstionnairc as a basis for
annualreport S.li shoirfrfsrud~heyuesriunsarisirififritMaridatc.5-ysreiti
were to he wuutzirpand exa?iiitithefèusii>ifii+ovjflYoridfursiirhiinrrritn
urru2gemerrtsRS ma)' he posb-ibk,petidiiirhe ~srablishvie~otffhcTritsre-

ship Cowril 4."(1talicsadded.)
Conimitree9 of thc Exmutive Cornmittee was entrtistedwith thetask men-
tioned above 5,vif.to

". .,fi,rmulaic-rocornmcndationsconcerning the possibtefransfer of cer-
tain fiinctions, activitieand assets of thc Lcaguc of Nations which it
niay be considereddesirablefor the UnitedNations to take overon terms
to beiirri-ingc6".

TO thiswaj added :

"This Conimittce should also kcep in conlacl with the arrangemcnis
being madefor windinpup rhcLcaguc of Nations 6."
This Sub-C'antrnitrereecommcnded, with certain excepiions and qualifi~tions,
the transferaf thc functions, activitianes asset of the Leaguc. Arnong the

exceptions wcrcthe politicalfi~nctionsofthe Lcaguc ; and thc Sub-Comniittcc
also indiratedrhat:
- --

: IfridVol.o5, pp.300, 16. 300,315 and Vol. 1,p. 630.
-'Ihid.p.316, item (cj.
Doc. PC/EXill3/Re 1,12 Nav. 1945, p.133.
Vidr para.6.sup-a.
DOC.PC/EX/I 13)Kev. 1. p. 34. 'IVKrTI:NSTA'l'EYtNTOF SOUTH AFR1I:A 595

"Sinccthe qiresiionrarisinySram thewinding iipof ihcmandatessysiein
aredealtwithin Pari III,Chapter IV, no recon>rncndat o ntihissubjec ist
inçludedhere '."

8. Thc reference ta PariIII,Chapter IV, was Io a recornmcnda~ion by Corri-
niirtee4,Iatcrücccpted by IheExeceçutivCeommittcc,that tlTemporaryTriistee-
ship Colrln~itteebeformed '.
'I'hercasonsassignedfor thisrecoininendation wcre lhar inaccordancewith
Art~cle 86ofthc Charter, rhcTrustershipCYouncic lould nut befornled iintila
nurnber of ierritoriewre lirstpIacedunder ~rusteeshipandrhar it wasdesirabIc

that some intcrimoqan sIiouldbeestahlished to assisi theGcncral Asseinhly
in expediting the constitutioiiof the trusteeship system. and, pendirig the
cstablishmeniof the Trusieeship Couticil. in rakirigsucli other action in con-
nection wjth the trusrteliip systciriastnighthe foundnecessary 3.
The [uncrions recoinnicnded for the Teniporary '1-rusteeshipCommittee
ivere the following :

"The Tenlparary Ti.uuleeshipCoinmittee woiild, iiiizr rifperform the
follvwinp funclions:
(i) assisthe United Nations in expediting theconclusionof tr~isteesliip
agrwrnents by theStatesdirectlyconcerned,and Ihecoming ititooperation
of the trtistccshipsysrernprovided for in Chaptcrs XII and XII1 of the

Charter;
(ii) assisandadvise theGeneraIAssembly in thedischarge of aiiyof its
functions with regard to proposed non-strittcgiür~~s, including rlie ap-
proval of trustecship egreemcnts;
liii) assist the Security Councilisuch mattersas the SecurityCounçil
inight wish to rcfcrtc the Tcmporary -I'rustecshipConimittw inrelation
to matters mentioncd in Article83 (3);
{iv)ndvise the Cherni Asser,lCdy <inntiy tnatrrrs fhnrtiiighririw ri~ifh
rejiardio the~rcitis tjrhrcUnited :Vu$ions ofan)?Jùticrioiuuttdrrspotisi-

bi/iiie.s i~riile.rl.rci.r1tii~II~P iIfoiirlrrtSysreir-'."(ltalics added.)
Inthe proposed provisiunal agenda for theTcmporaryTrusteesl~ipCommit-
tee thereüppcarcd, itircrrrlia,the foHowing:

"Problerns arisingfrom the transfer of funcrions in respect of eliisting
mandates from thc League of Natiom to rhe UnitcdNations $."

Y. While the subject of the TemporüryTrus~eesliip Committee was utider
consideration in the Execuiive Coriiznittee of thePreparaioryComrnission,
the Unitcd Statcs ofArrieiica fiIeda propou[, datcd 14 October 1945, to thc
efect thnt tIrepmposed fitnct ionof the Tcmpomry Trusteeship Corninittee,
and subçeqiitntly IheTru>tccshipCouncil. should be extendcdspecific ally
cover thc cüsc tif mandateclterritories not brouçht iindcr trusteeship. 'Ihis
proposai sought to coltfe tre following furthcr runctionon the Tcrnpurav

Trusteeship Cortirnittee:
". . to undertake,fdlowing the dissaluticiof the League of Nations aiid
of the Perrnaneiii Mandatcs Corriirli~sionhe functions prcvio~islyper-

formcd by thc Münd:itesComznission in conneciion with receivin ançd

thid.,Chap. IX, Sec.3, paras.1,2 and 5, p. 110.
Ihid.,Chp. IV, p.55.
thid.,pp.7-8.
'Iùidl.p.56. examining reports subniilted by mandator Pyowcrs with respect to siiçh
lerritoriesundcr mandate as have not ken placed underthe trusteeship
systeni bymeans of trusteeshipagrccmcnts, and unri1such tinie as the
Trtistc:esbipCouncil is cstablished,whereuponthe <:ciunciwillperform a
similarfunction '",

Ori 18 Ckrober 1945,Le.,four daysafier the date of rhe UnitedStates prc-
pnsal, the reportor Cornmirroe4 of the ExecuiivcCornmittee crinrainingthe
enunieralion of hc suggcstcd functions of the Te~nporaryTrustmhip Corn-
niitteasx.tout inparasritph 8above,wasat;c:pted by ihcExeciitiveConirnittee
without inr;lusioofor rerrrmce to thefurtheradditionsuggested by rheUnited
States of Arnerim 2.It may be inferred that the United States dclcgation
decided itot to proceedwiththe proposa[ at thatstage.As will be noted Iater,
a siniilar proposaiwas piit forwardsubxqucntly on behalrof ihe United

Gtütco sfAmcrica.
10. Aftc:radoption of triesaidreport by thc ExeciitivCornmittee.the pro-
pmals regarding a Ternporary Trusteesliip Cornmittee were submitted to
Committcc 4 of the PreparatoC ronimission itselfThe mattcrwas dealt with
rtthe Second Meeting of Cornmittoc 4 on 29 November 1945.The Australian
represenrae tipveinedthe reasoiisunderIying ihe proposalfor a Ternporary
TrustccshipCommiitee 3.The Soviet rtpreseniative ~hcreuponstated his Ga-
- vernment'sobjection to theproposal for a ternporarybody based upon three
main contentiov niz.: ,

(a) itworild be uncunstitutional;
(6) itwoiiId haveno work to do sincenu territorieshadyct bccn placedunder
trusteahip; .
!cj iwor~ld 'de1ay:iheirnplcmcntationnFthe provisions of theCharter rathcr
lhan speed itup '-

Hc was supporied hy the representativeof Yugoslavia q.
Thereafterthe repraeniativc of South Africa spoke as follows:

"He hadfo1lowedthe agumcnr agaimt ihemtablishrnentof atempocary
orpn mostcloscly. It xcnied tn hirnthat rheywere based on rheonc hanù
on cunsrirutionalgrouiids,on the cithcr on expediency. The deIcga tor
theSoviet Union niightherighr,but that was a Icgal question. TheCom-
niitt eri:stscck legaljudgment on rhisquestion ifdoubt cxistcd among
some of the Delegations.
On the questionof expdiency, iseernec icasonablc tocreatean interini
body as the rnandatcs Commission was i~owin abeyance and countrics
holdiiig mandates should have a body to which rhey couId report j."

11.On 4 December Y45 aproposal was subrnittcdby thc United Sratesof
America(nuhich inekct rcpcatcdtheearljer~roposalrefered to in paragaph
4, suprrrreading as follows:

- 2 .

Duc. PC/EX)92]Add. I .
? Dac. PC!EX/107, pp, 9-13,
j ROC.PCjTCr2. pp. 2-3.
' Ibid.p. 3.
5 lbid.p. 4. WKIïTEN STATEMEKTOF SOUTHAFRICA 597

"PROPOSED AMFNDMENT TD I'AItT rn C,HAPTER IV, SEC-
TION 2, I'AKAGRAPH 4, COKCERNIKG FUNCITONS UT; THE
TEMPORARY TRUSTEESI IIP COMMTTTEE.

I. The Report by th: ExecutiveCommittccmuka no provision for any
organ of the United kations Iocarr):out the funciions of lhePermanent
Mandates Conimission. TriPartIiI Chapter TX, dealing with thc League of
Niions ihere occurs tlie following statcmcnt:

'Sincethequestions:irisingfrom thcwinindjng up of theMandatessystern
aredcaltwiih in Part T1,ChapterIV.no recomniendation on this subjccis
included ticrc.' (Scctioti 3, paragra5, page 110.)No spcciiic reference
to the riinclionof the Permanent Mandatcs Commissionis to beround,
however, inPart TIZ , liaptcrIV.relaiingto thetrustccs hysternScction
2, paragraph 4 of that Chapter{page 56) rnerely assigntn the Teiiiporaty
Trustccship Coitirnitteea general advisory funclion in thisfield: '(iv)
advise theGeneralAscernblyon uny tnatterstliat mighrarise withrcgard

Io thetransferto the llnjted Nations of anyfunciions and rcsponsibilities
hithcrtocxerciseduiidar the niandatessystem.'
2. Inar&r !O prouid,n d~brreenfcoiirinuity htiveeir rtrianahteirretti
attdrhc früsfecsh syjrpirz, lpertrrithe nïundnrary powefi ro discharge
~Irrirnl>figaiions,nndfo fi~rrhrrrk~ Iransf~rIf iwuticinzedfertirori~sfo

rrmteeship, 111rTe'niporaryTit~sreesh Ciotnn~ittee !!osirclr rr n)mi,ritiee
usisfsfabiish~dfi'perf..rrirs~wci+iutzsand,later, rhe Trus~ersl~Cocmcil
shoiiidhe.~pecificalernpon.eredro rccrivethe rrporis ivkicrtitnatldutory
powers are II~Woldig~r.irclniake iozkeP~rrriarienl,Wtzndrzr~,onitrri.ssioii.
'I'he~istingobligatio~sand ri&ts uf theparties involvcdiinder thc mari-
daressystemwith resprct to anqinandaicd territorycontinue in forceuntiI
such territory isplam:diinder trusteeship by an individual triisteeship
agrcemcnt or until scme othcr inlerriationalarrangement is madc. To
bridgeonypn.r.~ihie247 which miglit exisi bet)i;e~ht!ferritinarioriof rh~

inutzrlafessysfenz utiheesfab~islrm~niofthe ~rusrecship sys!em, ifwould
appearappropriof~ th, rhe.rripcrvisoryfunciiu r»the Prrmaneji~Ma iidfntes
Comnii.ssionshoitld he cnrried orreinporarily by rhe orgalr oihe L'r~ir~d
Ar~fiotiwhicffisruIwede ~r~sfees h>lifErS.
3. In order, therefoïe,thai thc rcptlrof ihe PreparatoryCommission
may be cornplete in this respectthe following ainendment is proposed.
4. At?iciirhnetu
Add a ncw sub-panigaph (v)to paragrnph 4 of PartIII, Chapter IV,

Secrion2, in hewordcdas follows:
+ '(v)undertake.following the dissolution of thLeagile ofNations andof
liePerrnanen t Manda? es Commission, tu receiruund exnnti~zr~ports sa/)-
mi!red 6ymu~tdu~ory Pgwcrs withre.rpecrrosnchrerriroriesunder niaiidale
as have Ilor beripl(i<:rrl tintfertrusfeeship sjstcmhy inrcrris/rnlsfee-
sbip .q.qrceaneranriitt.sttchiittias rheTrr~steesliCoimcilis estubfisfred,
wher~rrpo~~iIiCou?icilwillperform o similkirJinciiot'."(Italic~added.)

This proposalwas placer1 on the agenda ofCorninittee 4 ofthe Prepiiratory
Conimission for the %inth hlcctingheIdon 8 necernber 1945 '.At ihat nieet-
ing, the United States rcprcscntativedelivcreda lengthy addrcss.Ir isof great

: Doc. I'C[I'C/t.t
' L~oc.PC!TCJ31, pp.21-:!2.significaiax ihai hc niade no reference to the above-melit ioned proposal :.
17. In,:hecourse of ttieprocucding of Conimittee 4 of the Preparalory
Commission. va rious proposalsweie placed beforc it ris alternativefor the
rgcornnicnda tion of the ExecirtivcCommittcc that a Teniporary Trusteeship
Cornmitte?heestablished.Arnonçst these was a proposal that aitud fiuccorn-
mittee heestablishedrather than a'Rniporary TrustWhip C:rimrnitteeas alsotlie

proposa1ivhich was ultimately adoptcd,viz., thatthe General Asscrnbly shoiiId
adoiit a rcsolution çiitlinun States ariniinislering territoriesunder Leaguc ol
Nations Mandateto undertake practiçal stcps Forsuhmi ttingtriisiecshiagiee-
mcnts in respec of them "pekrably not later thanduriny thc Sccond Partof
the First Sessiuiof ihcycncral Assembly'". The rccornmendation procccdcd:

"Tliose trusteeship matters wliich will be lakcn up by the General As-
fembly at lhc First Partof its Firsr Session for the purpose ofcxpcditing
ihe esrablisli~nentof the trustccshs iypsteni .illbe consideredby Ihc
Trustzeship Lodirnittce ofthe GeiieralAsscmbIy, using thenie t odswhich
~heGcncral Asremhly considcrs most appropriate fur thc Further consi-
deriaiionof these rriattç2."

13. While these various proposals were befvrc Commirree 4 of rht Prepara-
tory Coiniiiission,the representariueofAustralia on 20 Decembcr 1945 made
ceriain reservütionsconcerningaspect nsfthe preamblc proprised in respectof
the resohtion which was ultimatelyadoptcd. Hc stated, iirr~r'uirlir:

'-l'heie \vasan implication rhai Ariicle 80 imposed an obligation on
Statesadminisicring the territories mcntioned in Artide 77tu place those
rcrritoricsunder triisteeshiThe terrnsof AriicIes75 and 77made it clear
tbat the placingof a tcrritoryunder trustecshw iopuld hea vuluntury act.

Thirdly! the phrase "callson', sinccit had a special connotation in the
Charicr {c,g.,Articles 33 and 4I),was uiifortunate in ihis context.
His 1)elegaii cordially associared itsejf ~4ththe languageof the reso-
luiion, buthad to insistthat thc language nTthe prearnble wüs not within
rhc lcttcr and spirii of Ihe Charterihr nctioiofa t~in~idnforrvoitlhr i1.r
uofurltnryus~f~notfntty SIU~Ppirrringar2ykitd of deperidenr{ri-rituriuirki.
irirslrr~shp." (italics added.)

The South African reprewntativc on tlie saitieiicciision-

"... reservrd thc position of his Delegatian tintil rhe rnteting of the Gc-
neriilAsscmbly, liecause his country round itscIfin an unusual position.
The niandaiedtcrritorÿ of Soiiih-West Africa wa? ali'eadyaself-govcming
counIry, and Iastyear iis Icgislatüie had passeila rcsoliitionasking for
admission inta the Union. His tiovernmcnt had repliedthat acceptancéof
thisproposalwas impossihfe o~ving io theirobligationsunder theniandaic.
Ttie position rernained upcn, and his nelegaiion çould nut record its
voic on the presentoccasion if byso doing itwould inipIy that South-West

Afriw. was no1frce todererniine its own destiny.WjsGove~nrncniwuuld,
hnrirrer, do cverflhing initspiver 10 implement the Charter '."
Iii thdixussion on the samc subject in the Prcparator Comiiiission rneet-
in::on 23 Oecernber 1945 the South African reprcsentatsitv ateed:

l DUC. PC;TC:~O.
Dtx. PCljtfi, Chnp. IV,Sec. 1p. 49.
- Dot. PC{TC/42. p. 39.
fbid,,p.40. ". .. theSouth Afi-icanDeltgation associateditself wholIy with thedesire
of Cornniitree4 10apply thcprinciplcslaid down in thc Chartcr aiid thatits
clTuris;had ken direcit:dtowards thatend. In uiew, however,of ihe spwial
position of the IJliionof South Africa, whichheida rriandaieover South-
West Africa, itreservetiitspositionwith regard to thcdccumçrtt al prexnt

undcr revieiv,and esp~iiilly because Soutli Africaconsideredthat it had
fulIydischargedthe ol>ligritionslaid upon it by rhc Allies,under ihe Cn-
veniinrof rhc Leayue of ~atiois. on theadvancemcnt towardsself-govern-
inentof territnriaundcrmandate. and ihatthe iiinehad riuwcorne for the
position 10 be exarriitit:dar a\i,holc. For rhatrcason,the Snilth At'rrjcan
delcgation rescrvcd 11sartitudeuntil the Aswrnbly met '."

The attitudes adopted b> niandatorieçothet than South Africa 'conccrning
propusii[sfor iriirrinibodie:;wercconvcnienilysummarised in the1966separate
opinion of Judge van Wyk as foilows:

"(a)The Uriicçd Kir~çdom.although supportirrg the proposal of the
Executive Comrrrittcc for itieestahlishnientof a tenipnrüry trustec-
ship coinmittee -'-a prupusül ivhich did nut cun~rirnphte rhatthe
said coniniittoc would have any supen,isoi-yfunctions in respect of
inandates not converteci to IriisteeshipziIso enpresscd itsclf in
P~vourof the aItt-rnativcproposal For thccstiiblishmcni of an rrdhoc
criminittee,bitt suggested that the only fuiictionswhich such an rld

hr>ccornmitteesIiouId haw relativeto mandaIes shoiildbe--
'. . . to advisthe General Assembly on any mattefi that rnighi
arise with regard to the transfcr to thc United Nations of any
functions and rcsponsihilities hitherto exercised under rhe man-
datessystem I'.

The United Kinjtdom therefore intended the saine liniitedrote for
the proposed ad !roccorli~iitteerelativetoinandatesas did ihe Exec-
utive Cornrniireein its proposa1 for a ternporary triisteeshipconi-
mittee.
(hl Aiisrraliasiipportedfhc rccornmcndationof IhcE>iecutiveCommit-

tee for thecsiablishment of a temporary trusrecsh cimpmittec with-
out making üny suggestion thal rhe I;,xeciitiCornmiliee should
have provided for widcr priwers for the proposcd Icrnporary triis-
tccship~committcc so asto enable italso tosupervisemandates not
converted to tr~~tetship5.
(cl Relgitrrexpressed niisgivingswith rcgiird tu thttçtablishnlent OC a
tcmporarybody and made proposais which intcndcd to avriid thc
estahlishment of üny temporary or provisional body 6.

(dl New Zealand supportcd thc proposa1 madc by Yugoslavia, which
included ihe appointment of an od hoc body, subject,inter aifa, to
the arnendments siiggesreù byihe Uniied Kingdom (as towhichsee

' UA'.PC, 3o;rrirtrp. 131.
2 The coininents ofthe South AFrican rcprscntÿtive are quoioredinthe present
pai'agraphand para. 10, suprn.
' Dttc.PCjTC/Z, p. 4 and DOC.PC/TCi4, p.7.
+ Dot. PCiTCi'ZS.
Doc. PC~TC!~. pp. 2-3and 5.
DUC.FCiTCi24 and Dot,. PCiTC/.;2. p. 25. paragraph (a) above) but 'hesiiatedto agrcc that a temporary
corninitteof any kind was necessary''.
(cJ France recommended the establishment of an ad hoc comn~ittee
which was intended ta have no mission other than that or heIping
to bringabout asquickly as possibletheestablishment OF the Trus-
teeshipCuuncit.This proposed body would havehad BO supenfisory
fiinciionsinrespect of trust territoriesandwouMharpehad no func-
rion rclative to niandatcs other than-

'... to üdvisi:ihe Asxnibly on any niaitersarisinguut of thc
transfcrto the Cnited Nations of those funçtiuns and iAesponsi-
biIiti whsichoriginatedeiiheirn themandatessystem, or in other
international.grtxments or instrurnen ls3."

14.The reasonswhythe proposais for aTcmporüryTrusteeshipCornmittee
or an ud hoc cornrnitrervererejected, were that incertain quarteitu-ascon-
sidcrcd that anysuch body would be unconstituiionaland that ihc cutablish-
ment ofa tempomry body might delüytheformation of theTrusteeshipCoun-
cil4.
15.The Prcparatory Cornmission's recornrnenda isuorns ürisein para.
12,siipra)were considered atthe FirstPartof the First Sessionofthe Genei-al
Assembly in January-Febriiary 1946. Addressing a Plenary Meeting on 17
January 1946,thc South African rcprcscnrativcstatcdhis Govcmmcnt's posi-
tion on theSauth West Africa Mandatein the follo\vi egms:

"Undcr thcse circurnstan ches,nion Grivcrnrnentconsiders that itis
incuiiibentuponit, asindeedupon al1otheriiiandatoryPuwers,to consult
the peoplc uf the mandatcdterritoryregding the form whichtheirown
futurg eovernment should take, sincetheyare the peoplechiefly conwrned.

Arrrrfigenrrnure uurvitr frujur srrccot~su~~alio~ustalie pluccriiunfil
rltelzaw becn coticludcd.the Soirth AJiicai~Governmcni iiiiircscrw its
posiri47roncertiin~thefiriireofI~E !nn?idurelopclirer wilh iifht #f/u//
1iher1oj'acrim,asprovidedfor inparagraphI of Article80 of the<:harter.
Frclmwhai 1 have saiù 1 hope it wilI be clcar thaSoiih West Africa
occupics a special position inrelationto the Union wtiich diffcrcntiatcs
that territoryi'rom any other under a C rnandale.This specirrî posiriort
shouki be givcn /.ilconsiderorionirrdctcrrniriingf11utriresrafirsof fhr
rcrrirorySauth Afrjca is, nevertheless,prowrly conscinus of her obli-
gatioiiunderthe Chiirier. 1an yive cvery assurancethat any decision

iakcn inregrirdtothefuture of theinandate wiI1be characterizedby afiill
senseof our responsibilily,aa signatoryof the Charter, tojniplernenits
provisions,in consultation with and with thc appruvül of the local in-
habit;in ints,e marnerhest suitedto tliepromotion ofthei maicrialand
moral welI-heing "."(Irdics added.)
On 22 January1946,in thc Fourth Committcc, hc added:

"Referring tothe rextof Artide 77, he said that~iirderthe Charrer rhe

' Doc. PC!TC!32,p. 25.
' Doc. PC!TC/33.
Soi~lhWest Afric#,Second Phuse. Jiirlgmriif, I.Reporfs1966, pp. 99-100.
Originalfuotnotesarc rctaincdbut,r-vhcrcncccssarrcnumbcrcd.
' UN, PC. Jouriioi, p.125:SoirrfWest Africa.Second ph as^Jiidgtnenr, I.C.J.
Reportd-1966 ,isseniing opinioofJudgr:Jcssup.p. 344.
GA, OR, FirsrSess.FirsPlart ,2thPltnury Meeting,17Jan. 1946,pp.185-186.in~cniiunc to negotiate trüsteeship agreements in respect of the mandatedter-
ritories atIniinistered by the'.
17. In itsresoIution XI of 9 Fcbruary 1946, thc General Asscmbly (in thc
prcarriblej.itrtrr aliu, expressregret at the fact that the Trusteesliip Council
could not be brought in10 beiny at thatSessio bn,caiiseIrusteesah gretrnenrs
tiad first be concluded, and referredto thcabovc-mcntioncd rccommcndation
of the Pri:paratury Comtnissioii as regards expediting the coiiclusion of such

agreements. The resolution prweeded to staie.inter aiinthat :
"... with respect ro Cluiprrrs Xli nirrXili uf {lieCiwu!rr. !lie Geirrrrrl
Asseri~hly:
IVi4winr.s the declarations,niade hy certain States adrninistcring terri-

turit:;nvw hcld undcr rriandaie: or an iriientionto negotiate trusteesliip
agreements. iiirespect of sonicof thosetcrritories and, irespect of Trüns-
jordan, IOestahIish iisindependence.
ini:ifetthcStatcs adrninistcring territories tiow heldunderiiiandate io
undertakr pnctical steps. iir concert with the orhcr Statcs dirwtly con-
cerned,Torthe iinplementarion of Article79 of the C:harte[which provides
for thc conclusion of aégrccments on the ienns of irusteesliipfor each
territory to k placcdunderthe trustecship systcm], inordcr io submit thcse
agre~rnentsfor approval, preferablynot late,[han during the second part

of the first session ofthe GcncraI Asscmbly =."
18. Thc manner in which the question of mandatcs was deaIt with in the
lareparatory Commission and the First Sessio ofthe Cieneral AssembIy of the
Unitcd Nations, must h conirasicd wiih thc ircatrntnt aflorded io ottieracti-

vities of ihe1-eagiiof Nations and the assetsof the League. AsaIrcady stütcd.
Comrnittee 9 oftheExecutive Cornmittee recommtnded. with certajn excep-
tions and quaIificatinns, the transfcrof thc functions. activit~csand üssofsthe
League. l'hese recommeadations, which were cited iiisectioii3 of Chaptcr TX
of the report of the Excçulive Cornmittee, expressly excepted thepolitical
functions ofrhe League. Also excepted were "the questions arising from ihc
wiiidinp up ofthe ~nundnies sysicm" which were dealt with separately,as shown
above 3.
In rcgard to funciions nrising froni treatieç, the ~ub-~ommitt& rccotnniend-

ed the adoption of a resolution by rvhich the United Nations should cxprcss
their wilIingmcssto exercix functions and pokvers previousIy entrirst toethe
Lcsgue, reserving. however, the right in decide which functions and powers
they were prepared to taki:oiler and [O deterniine wtiich organ of the Lnited
Nalions, or speçiaIized agency assoçiaied with ir, would exercise Iheiùnctians
or powcn takcn over '.
Added to this recommendationwas the foliowing :

"Thetransfer tn the United Nations of functions orpowcrs mtrusied 10
the1.e;tgiieofNations by treaties, wnventioiis, agreements or iitstrumcnts
havirig a polirical charücter, would if the partics tothe- instruments
dcsirc.bc separately considered in cachcase

As regards possible transferof funcrions and activitier, asweIl as ofaswls,

Ihid. 14thand 15th Plcnaiy Meetings, ISJan. 1946, pp.227, 233 and 238.
' UN dot. Ajh4. p.13.
Vidf paras.7 erseq.,.rirpra.
Dm. PCjEXjl l3:Rev. 1, Chap. IX, sec.3,para. 8,p. 1 1.
ibid.,para. 10,p. 111. WKI'nEPI STATti4ltNT OF SOU'I'HAFRICA 603

theSu bConirni tteesuçgested ihc appoiniiiient hythe I'reparatoryCommission
of a sinaIl corniiiittcto ncgotiate with rhcSiipervisory Commission of the
League of Nations regardiii~"the parallel rneasuresthai shauid beadopted by
theLeagucof Kaiions and ihcUnitcd Nations '".
19. The Hxecutive Cornniirlee's recorninendationsa ,s sct0111 in wctions 1

and 2 ofChapter IX of its ieport, reveaIrrcceptancein sithstance of the Suh-
Comrnirtoc'srewrnrnendntions. Recornmcndaiion No. 1 of the Exetutive
Cornmittee reads as follows:

"1. thüt the funçtion:, activitics anassctsUT iheIxague of Kalions be
transferredto the United Nations with such exccprions and qualifications
as are made in therepo1.treferredto above, and without prejudice to such
action as the United Nations may subscyucnlly take uith ihe under-
standing that rhe contornptated tmnsfei- does not incliide the political
functions ofthe Ixague, whiçh have inFactalreadr ceawd, but solely the
technicil and non-polilical functions2;"

A foornoie relative to cxo:ptioiis anqualificationsreads in part :

"7'he fommit tee rwoiniiicnds that nu politicalqurstions sltould lx
incltldedin the transfi:r. II niakes iro rccumncrrrlrrrionto rrnnsyer the
nrriviliescotiwrtzitigr~fijgees, tnr~nrk~~~ or it~teurrcitioburrriru '."
(Italics added.)

Sect~on 2 or thiç chapter ofthe Executive Cornmittee'sreport containcd a
draft rcsoluiion for[lie GeneralAssernbIy.concerningthe assuitiption hy the
U tiited Nations of functionsof the League undcrintcmarional agreemenrs. It
distinpuis held een:

"A. Secretaria1Functions";
"H. Functions and Pawers of a Tcchnica ald Non-Politicai Character";
and
"C. Trcaties atid 1nternaiionaI Convent ions, Agrocrncnts and other
Instruments having a Pt,liiical Charactcr."

In regilrd toA and H itsuggested an expression of wiLIinyness,subjcct lu the
cservat ions rncnrionedby tlic SubCominitree, IO ensure con!inuedexercise of
functions and powcrs. In retard to C it suggcstedihe following:

"The General AsserribIy of the United Kations dccides that it wiIl
itselfexamii~e or will iubriiitto thc appropriale oigan of the United
Narions any requestfroni theparties tliat theUnited Nations should take
ovcr thccxercix or functions or powcrs enlrustedto the Lcague of Nritioiis
hy trcaties and internaiiiinal conventions, agr~w~~tntsor otlter instruments
having a palitica1characier?.'

Thc Sub-Corrimittee'rseccrnmendarion thai a small Committce beappointed
to negot iate with the Lea:zue Supcnisory Commission regarding paralle1
rneasures \vas endorseci4.
20. Discussionsin the I3repara[oryCommission itsclf ~vt.aled hat tn.0

delegates inthe ExcçutiveCiimmittcc had voteclagainst acceptance of Chaptcr

' Ibid.. paras. 32 and 33. p.114.
' lbici., pUS.
inin.,p.IIO.
Ihid. p,109 (lasi paraof sec. 1).IX of it3 repart',and also thatthere ivasconcern amongsr soine deIegatcs

about the possibilityth( theword "transfcr",as uscd in the remrnrnendations
conŒrning functions and activitieof the Ixague, could "imply a IcgaIcon-
tinuitywMch wauId not infacttxist", rmuItiiigaisuggcstiun that thphrase
"thc asslrrnptionof rcsponsibilityfor certain functions and activities" rnight
be adopted '.'l'hiswits eireiitul done ',wiih thc furihcr substitution of
"powers"' Kor"activilies"The rwommendationsof the Coniinission. relative
infunctims and powers,in theform asftnalyadopted byIheGeneraIAssernbly
in itresolutionXIV (1) of 12Februar1 y946r,cad as foilows:

"TE:AYSFEK OF CERTAIN FUKCTIONS, ACTIVITIES AND
ASSETS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

FUKCTIONS AND I'OWERS BELONGIKG TU THE LEAGUE
OF NATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
Under various treaties andinternationalconventions, agreements and
othtr insirumcnts,thc Lcague of Nations and its organsexercise,or may

be~:questedta exercisenurnerous fumtions or porversforthecontinuance
of which. afler the dissolutiuof the League, itis, orrnay be,desirahle
that the Unitcd Nations shoutd provide.
Certain Memliers ofthe United Nations, whichart:partics to some of
theseinstruments and are Memkrs of tlihgue of Nations, have in-
furnicd thc General Assemhty that, at the forthmrning session of the
Asst:niblyof the Imgue, they intcnd to movc a rcsolution ivhcrcby thc
Metnbersof the kaguc wouId, so faras this is necessary,asseiitangive
cffot:to the stepcantemplated kiow.
Th-efir~:
1.The Genernl Asscnih(v resentestlierightto decide,after dueexami-
natim, not toassume any partiçular Funcrioor poivcr,and todetermine
which cirgan of the United Nation5 or which spxiaIized agency broiighr
into rclationsl-iipwith the Lnited Nativns should cxcrcisc cach pariicular

functionor power assiimed.
2.The Geii~ral As.seinl)lrecords that those Menibers of the llnited
Nations which are partiestotht instrunientsrcfcrrcdtoabove assent by
thisresolulionto ihestepscontemplatedheIowandexpr-5 their resoIvetu
usetheirgood officestcsecure theco-opcration of the other partiestthe
instriimentsso far astliimay be necwary.
3. TheChnrrui rlsseinbb ùocIarc that theUnited Nations is willingin
principk, and subjcct to the provisions of this rewlutian and of thc
Charter of the llnited Nations, to assumc thc excrcisccertainfunciions
and porverspreviousIyentrustcd to theLeague ofNations,andadopls the
following dccisiuns.sctforth inA, B andC below.
A. Fmc~ionspcrtniriirtgiaa Serreturiut

R. fitirciions andPowcrof n Techniculcind!Von-PoliticalCknrncifr
Among thc instrumentsreferredto at the beginning of thisresolution
are some of a technicarand non-politicalcharactcrwhich contain pro-

Duc. PC{LN!2. para. 1, p. 2.
Ibid.para.3, pp. 2-3.
' DOC. PCiLN/IO. pp. 10-11. visions, relatintn the substance of theinstrumenrs,whow duc cxoctttion
is dependent on theexeri:isc.bythe kague of Narionsar particularorgans
or the 1-eague, of funt:tionsor powcrs conferred by the insrruments.
Ccrtain of thex instrv,nieniare iiitiniat cenlyected with activiics
which thcUnitcd Nations willor may continue.
11isnecessary, howevcr,toexamine carcfu1Iywliich of the organof the

United Yations or whicltofthe spfxiali agendciebroiipht inrorelation-
ship wirhthe Unitcd Nations should. in rhe future, exercisiliefunctions
and powers iiiquestioir,in sofasas they arc rnain~aind.
Thcr~fore:
TheG~IICPC AIssemnb[ïiswillingsubjtxt tothe.% resci-vationto takethe
necesçrtrymeasures to essure thecontinucd exerciseof thtsefunctions and
powers, and refersthe rriatler lihe Fxonomicand Social Council.
C. Fiitrrrionarid Powors under Trenrirs, InreunnriotiaCCnt~vcrrlioris,
Agreetnenls ancl01kcr fnslrr~nietrHaving a foiitic(z/ C'Imracr~r
Ïï1~ Grrierai Assemblÿ wi[t itscçxamine, or will submitto the appru-

priateorgan or theUnited Nations, any request from thcparties that the
Unitcd Nations should assumetlie exercise of functions or powers en-
trustedto the Lcague of'Nations by treaties. internationalconventions,
agreementsand other instrumentshaving a political charactc.r.'"

Regardingtransfcr ofassei-sthe P~parittory Cotniiiissionori 18 Ikoernbcr
1945set up a committee-
"... to enter,on its bellaIf,intodixussion with the I-eagiteof Nations

Supcrviwry Commissior:, which bas beendu[yauthorized by thc mcrnbers
of thc Lcayuc of Nations, forthe purpnseof estabIishinga cornmon plan
for the tmnsferof rhc assets of ihc Lcaguctothe Uiiiied Nations on such
rerms asare considered ,justand convenient. Thisplan will bc subject,so
far as ihc Unitcd Nations is conwrntd, to appioval by the GencraI
Asseinbly 2."

Ir wilk observed that tht:taskof thisnegotiating cornmittcr:\vasconfined
to assctu, ihc earlier rewntrncndürionsof the Executivc Cornmitteeand its
Sub-Cbmrnittee(paras.18 arid 19 ahnve) not bcing foilowed in so faras thcy
rclated tofunctions and aciii.ities-ostensibly insrnucha5rhe cconccprionof a
"transfer"of ccrtain funcriorisand octivitizshad beenabandoned infiivourof
one of "assumption"of ~~rihin funciions and powers.
TheConiniission'srecomtnendation regarding assctswas merclythai the plan
IO be dcvclopcd as a rcsu1tO(the discussionsshoüld be submitted forapprovaf
to the GeneraI Asscrnbly 2.This wasdone attheFirst Partof the FirstSession,

the General Assemhly apprwing of theconlinon planin Part IIIofrrsolution
XW of12Fcbruap 1946 (scpru).

C:.I)iswliitirof thcImgw of Nations

21, -The situation as far iisthe League of Nations \vas concernedl üfier
establishment of theUnited Nations,WBS dcscribediiia Lcague publicationas
frillows:

"The adoption ofthe Chariricrfihr United Nations by aConference al

- .-
: GA resolutionXIV (I), 12 Feh. I446, iLN doc.Aj04, pp. 35-36.
? Dm. PC/20. p.118. whizh thc grcüt inajurity of the States Memhers of the League vierr:
repi-esentedmade the latter'suitiniate disappearance a foregone con-
cimion and from that timc onwardsthechiefconccrn ufihose responsible
foritsdestinies was to seethat its activities wetcrrninated ina münncr
ivorthy of ihe pariithasplaycd in worfdaffüirsduringthc iast quarter ofa
cenrury I.''

22. Tl-ieSecretaryGeneraI ofthe League. in a comiiiunicationdated20 Scp-
tertibzr -945 ,reulthe attention of Leayue Membcrs to the task cntrusted at
San Francisco io thc Unitcd Nations PrepararnryCommission reiaiive iu
"the possible transferofcertaiirfunctions, nclivitieand assetsor the Lratie
which ii rnaybe considereddcsirabk for the ncwOrganization io takeover on

tcrms to bcarrangcd "'. TThccornniunicationcontained a proposai that the
Supervisory Coinmission of the League be einpowered to negotiale with
represenwives of the Un~tedYations in thisregard and todra-1 up provisinna[
terrnsof transfcr"subjcct tothe finaldecisiortof1he I..eagueAssenibly '".The
proposai was accelitedhy the Meiiibers of thc Lcaguc, and negotiations were
tntered lnto with the United Nations ncgotiatingcommittcc cstabIished by its
PreparatriryCumrnissia on 18 Ileceinber 1945'. By reasvn OC ihe limiied
ierrnsof'referenceof the Unitcd Nations cornmittoc " the negotiürionscon-
cerned assets only. The joint delihentions were successfuland resiiltedin the
"commr-n plan".which wasapproved by [he GeneralAssernblyofihc Uniicd

Nations in Pari IIIof its rcsolutioXIV of 12 February 194h3. ltstill required
the asseliof rhc Lcague ttsseiiihy to beconleelt'wtivc.
After having referredto the Vniled Natiuiis rcsoluti reIii~iveiopossiblc
assurripliciriuLeayuc functions and powers '.the authors-ofThe Lmgw Han&
Overstated:

-'Thus by rhc tinicthe Assernblymet in itsiwetity-firssession it wasin
pas:icssion of the UniteNations' pIansforrakinyof theLeague'smaterial
assetsand for crtrrying on, cithcr dircctly or through one of iisrelaied
agencies, al1 thc League's~nost important funclions andactivities af a
non-poIiticalcharacler. Its niain business, thereforewaç 'to make prc-
visionfor bringiny~hc Lciigticof Yations to an endin orderly fashion, so
thai as muçh as possibleof its surviving work can becnntinued without
intcrrupiion and asniuch aspossibleof itj propertycan beused to promoie

thosehigtiputposcs of international peaceand co-uperation fur whichthe
League irsclfwasfounded' '."
13. Tlie League Assembly met in itsTwcnty-first, and last,Session fimm

8 to 18 April 1946.
Iisfinalresolution, üdopfed on IR April 1946,providedat the commence-
nient of its operativpart as @Iloivs:

" Dissolririorioftl~cteag~te of,Votions
1.(1) Wirh eEect froni the day foIIowiiigthedose of ttie preseisession
of iliAssenibIy,thc Lcague ofNation shall ceasetocxistexcepft or the

'The !.PURIIHaniIs Ovrr (1916) ,.Cil.
Vitle püraA,supra.
Yi& para. 20, sitpra.
At p. 63.Tlie yuutaiion$vastakenirom the Report of the FirsCommiitrx Lo
the AssciiiblyitL. of,X1., O.JSpcc.Sup.. 30. 194, p. 250. sole purposc of ihe liqr~idationof its afîairs as providcd in the present
rcsolutioi'."

The rcsiot" rhe resoIution relütcd to practical arrangeriientsconcerning
liqiiidation. Thus in paragraph 2 provision waq made for thc appointment of
ccrtain pcrsoiistofornia "Board of Liqi~idation"which waî to ''i'eprcscnihc
I~ague for the piirpose oretrectingiis liqiiidation".
In the same paragraph thc powers of the Board were circurnscrikd as
follows:

"Subjectto the provisionscifrhisresololutioiiandothcr decisions
laken by the hsscnibly a( iht:presentsession, the Board shall have full
priwcr to givt suchdirections, make such agrccmcnis and take al1si~cich
rrieasiireas initsdisçrciion irconsidcrsappropriate forthis piirpose."

Paragraph 5 of theresolittion approvcdof the "Corninon Plan" for transfer
of as.sertr,thc Uniied Nations.
The finalparagraph of the resoIu~ionprovided asfollo\vs:

"On the completian nf its tiisk,the Board shall make and publish a
report ta thc Govcrnmc:ntsof the kfeniliers ofthe Lcayue giving a full
account of the mcasurc!.wkich itlias takcn, ~td shalldedare itwlfio he
dissoIved O.n the dissoluion of thc Briardthe Iiquidation shalbc dccrned
to be carnplclc und nu liirtherclairnsagainst the Lcaguç sliall he recog-

nized,"
The rcsoliiiinncontained no provisiuns with regard to iiiandatcs orf'uiic-
tjons inconncctioriwith niaridates.
14. "The Assurnpti ayntlieUnireriNr~fiotiof 'uiirrir,ii.rand Puwm Iiirher~o
cx~rciscd by?Ar/drzplte~tt~de~~/nrrr~ A gric~cc~rI" was the hciiding of a

separate resolution advpted i:ailier on18 April 1946. It rcad, inso Far as is
relevant, asfollows:
"The Assembly of the Ixa2ue of Natiuris,
Hayingconsideredthei~solutionon thc assumpr ion hythe UnitedNations
of functions arid poweis hitlierto exercised by the League of Nalions

undei international agret:menrs, hich wasudvpted by thc General Asseni-
bly UTthe Cniied Naiioiis on Fehruary 16th 1946 2.
Adopts the followiny rcsoluions:
1. Cust~r~ ~ij[BeOrigind ?>A--rsof~ttfcvtrario~~dbrrec1lient.r.
..........................
2. Fimciir>,is atiii Pom~s nrisitzuitr ofInrrvnotionnl Agrretrieno of a
Techniccliand von-piiiiticni Chcicr.
The Assernbly rccorninends the Giivrrnmen~s of the Metiibcrs of the

I.eague tofacilitatc lc.r.crway the assuriiptionwithvut interruption by
Ihe Uniied Nations, or hy specia1izc.dagencicsbroüght into rciationship
\vih thatorganizatio ornr,tinctinnsand yuweis whichhaveken cntrusied
to the lxague of Narioris, undcr iniernaticinaaçreemcnts of a techniçaI
und rion-politicalcharacier,iind which thc United Nations iswilling to
mainiain '."

L.uj N. O.J.,~~cc.'~rip.No. 194, p. 281.
Thc tcxt of thcGcnçral ;i.ssrrrihresolutiunappcars in parri20, ruprriTlie
daic thcrcof was 12 Febrwry 1946 ,ot 16 February assicired ithe 1.eaçuereso-
Iiiticin.
L. vfAr.,0.J..Sycc. Siip.No. t94. p.278, 25, "Thr A.ssrrt~iprioby the Unircd Aariom ofdcrivirics hirherroperforr~i~d
by rhaLtwgue" was the headiiig of a furtherseparate resofution of 18 April
1946,reading as fullow~:

"The Aswmbly directstheSecretary-General or the League of-Nations
ro alfordevery facility fothcüssumption by thc United Nations ofsuch
non-polirica1 octivitia5hitherto perforrned hy the kague, as the United
Nations rnaydecide to assume '."
25. Fiilally,"1Mnnriurrs" was the heading of another important separate
resoIutionof 18 April 1946. Bcforc scttingout its tcrnis, regardito be had to

certainr~cnis whichprecededits adoption.
(a) The sessio wnas scheduled to lasi less thantwo weeks, and delegates
knew that itwould not be possiblc todiscuss thcfuturcof thc niandates sptcrn
at any lcngth in an appropriate Cornmittee. Inforinal dixussions were con-
sequentli-initiated betweenthose Mernbersof the League mosi direct Iy çun-
ccmcà, with a view ro seciiring the greates tossible measure af agreement
before thernatter was oficiallyconsiderd in the Corrimitter.
In putsuanco ef the said disc~issions,the reprcsentativcs of Mandatory
Power,, in adàressing the Plenary Meeting afthe Aswrnbly, made staternenrs
indicatingthe intentionsof their Governments regardingtheir resptciive tnan-
- dates. In theresolutionuttimateIy adoptedthe Assernbly "took note" ofthese

statements.
{b) Tlie following arc rclcvant cxtractsfrvm thcse sliitcmcnts uf inlention
by the variousiiiandatories:
(i)By th represetitatire of tL7tiiredKingdon?(on 9 April 1946) :

"Tlie mandatcs adminisrered by the United Kingdom were originally
hose for Iraq,Palestine, Tran~joriisn,Tanganyika, partof thc Ciirncroons
and pari of Togoland. Two of tlrese territories have already bmmc
indepndent sovcrcign States.Iraqin 1913,and Transjordan just the other
day in 1945. As for TanganyikaandTogoland undcr thcir mandate, and
thc Ciirncruons under their mandate. EI is Majesty's Ciovei-nment in the
Lniied K ingdom have aircndy cliinouncedth~ir inrenriofioJpiacurg itieni
irnder rkr ~rtrslershsJ:.cierofihe Litiileti Ivnrions,siibjlo?~cgulinliutu
otr~~~tisfucrf ertrrof zrrrsirrskip.

TltefutureofPa~cs~ine mtriiotbe dcciiiedtat~friiAn&-Ai?irriran Con?-
mirtee (#'Enquiry Lave rendered iheirreport, but untilthc tthcc African
territorieshave actually bcen pIiimd urider trusteesh aip untiI fresh
arrangementshave beenreached in regiird to Palestine-wl~utcwr ~hvsr
irrrrrv.qcmcpzma.v6e-it is the intefirionofIlisMajesty's Governrncnt in
the United Kingdom to continuc to administer these territoriesin accor-
dancc hviIhthegeneralprinciplesof theeliistingmandates 2."(Ttaliçsadded.)

(ii311 the represen/nriw ofSouth Africa (on9 ApriI 1946):
"Since thelast Leaguc meeting,new circumstances have arisenoblidng
the mandatory Powers to take into revicw the exiaing arrangc~ntntsfor
thc ;idrninistrationof lheir mandates.As was fulIyexplained atthe rwnt
United Yakions Geneixl AsscmbIy in London, the Cnion Govei'nment
have deemed il incun~be upon thcm to consult the peoplcs of South-

Wcst Africa.Eurupcanand non-FuropeanaIike,regarding theform which
theii-own futureGovernmentshould rake. On rhe basis of those cnnsd-

' L. ofN.,O.J.. Spec. Sup., No. 194,p. 278.
ibid.p. 28. tations,and having reeardto thc unique çircumstanceswhich sosigiially
difi'eientiatSouth-Wet Africa-a territory contiguous wirh the Union-
frnm a11othcr rnandatt:~, itis tIic intention oihe LinionGovernttzen~,nt
rire fartlrtroitr,te.r.~ofn!Ar L'r~ir~dNurions Ge~wral Assembl~il? New
York, iojurmulrife ilscgse for riccordingSoirthWc.71Africa n stolus finder
whihirltworridhc Nriarniiio?inllyrccogriizeirs linirgrul pmr oftlr~Uiiion.

As the Assemblywill kaow, itisalready administcrcd undcr ihe tc~rnsof
the ~nandatc as an intg:ral partof thc Uniori. lnthe iiieantimethe Union
wiI1 continue to administer the territory scrupiilouslyinawordance with
thc cibligatiunsof the inandate, for the advancement and promotion of
the interartsof the inixibitanrsas shc kas done duriiigthe past sixyears
when meetings ot'the hlandiitesCoininission could no1 be held.
7hc disnppmrarice vf:husr organsofrhr I.rrigueccincrrii~wirtithesupcr-
i.isionofrrinriduiespri,rrt~rithe Maridates Conrinissiort and the LEO~IIB
Cotincil.wiiIize~e.t.raiprecfudemmpicre corrrpfiancewi:Ii~he knrr ofrhe

ninnclateThc: Union Goveinment \vil[ neverthe!esrcgard thc JissliIrilion
of theLeague asin no way diminishingi tsobligationsunderthe mandate,
which itwi(l mntinue IOdischarge wwith thefidl andproperappreciation
of its rcsponsibilitiesuntilsuch tinie as other arrangcmcnis arc agwed'
upon concerni the fururcstatus of thc tcrriioryl."(Italicsadded.)

(iijBy therepresentutii:e0f.krrnr:(on 1O April 1946):
"The French Govcrnnient intcnds to pursiie the execution of the
missionentrusted to it:>yrhe Ixague of Nations.Irconsiders rhat itisin

accordancr:wilh the spiritof the Charrer that Thisniissionshoul J hence-
forth be carried out utider the kgirnc of trusiceshipand itisready 10
examine the terms of an agreement to define thisr&ginie in the caw uf
Tugoland and ~hcCameroons '."

(iv)By ~he reprcsetrruriuj-ilirw%en/nnd (on I1ApriI 946):
"New Zcaland hiis a!ways strongly supported rhe establishment of the
InternationalTrustceship System, and hitsalrciidy dechred ils ir,illingness
toplacethemandated ti:rrirorof Western Samoa undcr trustee~hip ...
New Zealand does noi consider that the dissolution of the Lcriguc of

-Nations and,as a consttquence.of ihe I'ermancnt Mandates C~i>ini-iiix~i,sion
willhave the eiTector dirninishingher obligations to the inhabitantsof
Western Samon, or of incrcasing hcr rights in the terrjtov. Until the
condusion of Our Trus;:eeshipAgreement for Wcstcrn Surrioa.therefore,
the ferritorywill conrinue to bc aclrninistereby New Zcakand, in accor-
dance with the terms of thc Mandate, for thepromotion of the welI-king
and advanceinent of tlieinhübitants - .

(v) B-vfihclleipiari r~pras~tite~on1t ri 119463'. -

"At the meeting of :he ~eneial Assenibly of the United Nations in
London onJanuary 70th Iasi, shç [Le., Belgiiim]:dccIaredher inlefilion
af entering into ncgotjations with a view to placing the Territory of
Ruanda-Urundi under the new régime.In pursuunce of this intention,
the BeIgian Govrrnrne~thas prcparrd a draft agreement setlingout tIic
conditions undcrwhich itwitladrninisterthe tcrritoryin question.

l Ihilip. 34. 32-33.
lbid., p. 33. In thc course of the same declaratinn of January IOth, WC expressed our
confidericetIint~he Trustccship Couricil would saon conie to wctipy in
the United Nations Organizatito hn iniporlant placc which itdeserves.
We can only rewt rhat hope herc and giiiean assuralice that. peiidiny ils
realidion, BelyiurriwilIrcmain fully alive toal[ the obligations devolving

on n;ernhersof the United Katioris iindcrArticlc 80 of heCharter '."
(vi)3y fhc Arrsrruliatrepreseniaiive(on II April I945):

"'I'he trusteeship system, strictly su ciillcd, wilIapply onIy to such
lerriiorieas are voluntarily brought within itsscope by individiialtrustee-
ship agreements. ... Affe~ th ~li.\:wlitrofrlieLraguc of t\'t~linnrrnrtthe
cutzsi~yurni liqrtidurionothe Pernin,renrMnndaitrc C.'ntnrnissionitwiil he
irnporsi5I:O ronrinirfircnianihrcs sy.5-reitilseiitirery.

Notwithstanding this.the tioverntnent of AustrüIia does not regard ihc
dissclution or ihc ixttgue as lcsscning the obligations iniposrd upon it
for the protcctioi~ and advancement of the inhubiianrs of thc mandated
tcrrii.ories, whiit regards ashavingstillfiilfurceand effect.Accordingly.
untitthe coming iriioforce of appropria te trusteeship agreernenls under
Chaprcr XI1 of the Charter, the Governinent of Ausirulia willcontinue
to adniinister the present inandated teriitories, in accordance wi th the
provision of the Mandates. Tor ihc protection and advancenient or rhe

inhabitants. Inmaking plans forthedissolution ofiitebague, thc Asseni-
bly will vcryproperIy wish to beassured ro the futureof the inandated
terrii.ories, for trveIfaz-oef thc pcoplcs of which this Leagire kas becn
responsible. So far as the Australiün territories are conarncd. thcre is
full assurance. Indue course these territorieswill be brought under the
trusteeshilsystem or the UriiiedNations: until then, thegrouiid is co~er~d
nu, otlivby ihe pl+e iv1zicirriteG<n~ern?treni Aitsrralinhas ~ic'c~iio~his
Assetnbly ro-dny !>utnlsn hy fhr e.~piicifinferr~o~ionnoihiig~i!ioIuid&WII

itClrupler XI of tlrChtirter,to which 1have referred. Tkrrr wiilbe no gnp,
nointerregnitm, IObe pro~idedfor ?." (ftaIicadded.)
In the carlierrefcrcncctoChaptcr XI nf the Charter lhe Australian rcpresen-

taiive hadsaid:
"Aniongst other things, eachadrninistcring authority underthat chaptei
undeitakes to suppIy to thc United 3at ions informa[ion conwrning
cconomic. socid and ducat ionalcondilions in itïdcpcndent territorie2."

(vii)No stalemcni was made concerning the ruttire of ihe PacifieTslands in
respcctof which a Mandate had been yranicd toJapiin.

{cj After the abovestatemenrsbythe rcpresentatives of theCniled Kingdoni
and of South Africa had bccn made (on the morning of 9 April L946), but
before theotherscould be deliveied. and whilc thc informa1discussiow nesre
stitIproceeding regardinth ge drafting of a remlution. the represenlativeof
China, Dr. 1-iang,raiwd thc qucstion of the future or mandates in the First

Comrnir teeon the afternoon of 9 April 1945.
Thc Cornmittee ivas at the tin~econsidering thcdraft resalution coiicerning
assuinption by the Uni!cJ Nations of Leaguetùnctions and powers arising out
of international agrecmcntsof a technical arid non-puliticai charüctcr (vi(ic

.
t. of .W., O. J.,Spec. Sup., No. 194, p.43.
= Ibid.,p. 47. WK~TTE:I JI-KIEME'IT OF SOUTFI A~RICA 611

para. 24 above). Dr. Liang, wished to propose for discussion ttie following
drrifresolution.whichheread out :

"The Asscmbly,
Consideringthat thc Trusteeship Council kas not pt becn constituted
aiid tliatal1 mandated ~erritoriesunder the Leagiit have not ben trans-
fèrredinto tcrritoriesunder trusteeship;
Considering that the League's function of supervising mandated terri-
tories should be transft:rred10 the Ilnitcd Nations, inorder to avoid a

period of intcrrclçnurriin the supervision of thc mandatory régime in
thcscterritories.
Xecon~iri~iidsthatthe rnandatory powersas welI as those adrriinisteriiig
ex-enemy~iiandatcdteriitorics shaIl continue to subrnil üniiual rcporrs tu
thc Lrnited Nations and to suhmit to inspection hy the same until the
'irustee CounçilshaIlhavc kn constituted '."

Tlte Chairman, tiouoever,ruled thaï the proposil waq not relevant to the
item ttien underconsideraticrnby the Cornmittee. What transpired isstiforth
as followsirtiieSurttir~ctRiarnrrfsofthc Lmgue:
"Dr. LorreLir;ng (Chinü) rderred to the position of territorieuiider

nlandate and to thc po:.ition whichwouid ariseon the dissojutionof the
Lcague. in view of the facr Chat the trustwsliip council of the Unitcd
Kations has not yet be:n appointed and $vas not Iikelyto be set up for
some rime. Thc Chincst: dclegation wisliedtn submil a resolurionrecorn-
nicnding that the manciat01.ypowers should continue to SUbmit annuaI
reports on the mandated tcrrirories io the United Nations and lhat they
should agree ta inspection by the latter. pendingthc constitution or the
trusi~~shipcouncjl.

?ïrrClmirmanrhough t that [hequestion raisedby the Chinesi:deleetion
cotildbediscussed latcr, but forthe mument theymust conlirie thcmselves
io cxamining thereçolutjons of the Un~tcd Nations in the order in which
they appeüred in d~umcnt A113.1946. 'The G~merai Assernbly of the
United Nations had cc:rtainlynot had rhe question of the sptern of
trusiccship ininindwhen itdraftedits rcsciluiionon functiuns andpowcrs
under intcmtional agrecmcntsuf atechniml and non-political character.
Dr. {.me Liottp(Chinit)accelited hcChairman's expianation 5."

(dl Follnwing this incidcrit.theinformaldiscussions mcntioned above were
rcnewed, the Chinese detegarion also participar tihnrein. The fiml outcorne
was that whcn the qtiestion of Mandates was reaçhed in the Eirst Cornmittee,
on 12 April 1946, thc Chinrsedelcgate, Dr. I.iang,himselr introduced a new
drah of which Sir Hartley Shawcross of thc United Kingdoni said, when
secondingthe proposa!, thatit--

". . had becn sctrled in consultation and agrccriicnt by al1countrics
interestedin mandates. and hc thougtit it could, thereforc, be pas~d
wirhout disciissionand viithcvmplete unanimiry "".

In proposing the newdraft rcsolution I>rLiang-
"... rtxalILulihnihg had already drawn thc atlcntioiiof the Cornmittee

10 the complicated prrihlenis arising in regard to niandates fi-0s-nthe

f'iffL. of N.,2 [SI~sscr,itify, 1sCoiilin.2nd Meeting, provisional record.
' L. ofN.. U.J.,Swc. Sup..No. 1Y4,p. 76.
ihid.p. 79. transferof funciionsfrom the Leaguc tothc Unitcd Nations The Uiiited
Nations Charter in Chapters Xlï and XII1 established asysteinof trustee-
ship hased [argely upon the principIesof the tnandatcr:syslcm, but thc
funciionsof the kayue in ihat rcspcctwerc 1101rrffnsfcr nrfrdinnricnily
totkcUnited Nations.The Assernblysl-iouldthecefore takesteps tosecitre
rhe mntinued appIjcation of the principlesof thc n~andatcssystcm. As
Prof:sscir Bailey had poinlcdoutto thcAsscrnbly on the previous day,
the tcagi~cwouldwishrohe nssuredas to tlifuture ofiiiandatedierriiories.
The matter had alsobeen referred toby Lord CcciI andothcr dclegütcs.

Itwus grcit$ying lothc Chincsc dcIcg;itionas representinga countiy
which had alwiiys stood for the principle of irusteeship. that al1(lie
MandatnryPowersharIminoünced their inrmtion toadrninistcrthe icrri-
turics under Ithcircuntrol in accordancc with theirahligations underthe
nlrindatcssysteInri~irolher orrungrmrrr/.wrrr uprecd upoii.II*.osrn h~
hoprd that theJiirurearran~~menIsiobe made wi th regard to thesc lcrri-
torieswuukd apply, in fulthe pprincipleoj'~rirstce.qinderlyingthe man-
date:system.
The Chinesedelegaiion had plerisiirirrpresentingIthedraft reçoluiion
nuw hfon: thc Committcc,so that the question could k discusscd by the

AssernbIy ina cwcrete fririn andthe position of the Lcüguc clarifiedl."
(Italicadded.)
The rcwlutionwas supported bythe FrenchandAustraIianrrprercntatiws.
TheFrenchrepresentative.speaking in support,

"...wishcd to stress once Inore the fact that al1 territoriesunder the
manhie of his Ciovernment wouIdcontinue to bc administcredin the
spiriloftheCoivenantandof theCharter '".

The Australianrepresentative:
"... welcomed the initiativeof the Chinese delegaiion in rnoving the
rcsolution, which he supported. The Australiandelegiafion had made its

psi1 iotcIearin ihc Asscmbly-namcIy, that Australia did not regard the
dissoliirion of the League as weakeniiig the obIigatioiis of wunt ries
adrninistering mandates. They regardedthe obIigrrtionsasstill iiiforce
aiidwould conlinue tu aclminis~erthcirrnlindntcd territorieinaccoi'dance
with the provisionsof the mandates for the wdf-hein':offlieirrlinlii~niits.
Ovcr and ahove ihat,Aiisrraliarecognizedobligations iinderthe Charter
which she hadaIreadyiissurncdasa Mcmbcr of the Unitcd Nations and
others whiçhshc would assumein bringing tlieTerritoriesundei thcintcr-
national trusteeshipsystem '."IIfalicaddud.)

The Egyptian repr.esentutivm:üdc al1r~scr\~aiionsonkhülf of hisChvern-
mentwif Iiregard toPalestine '".
The draft tesalution Ras nut to thevote and addo~tedunanintouslv.ubie-t
to draftiiig.theEgyptianrcprcsrniativcabsta 3ininp
feI the ne^ drafrcontaincdwhatcvcntuallvbectirne the,2sscmblv'sresolutia~i
con&rningrnandatcs. 'l'Readoptionof that <ésolurjnnby ihe ies&rnbly on 18
April 1946 Ras wiiIiout discussion, save that lhe Egyptian reprcscntativc

indicated that he wouId abstain from voting hy 1-easonofa rcscrvation of

' L.of W., 0. J.,Spoc.Çiip.,Yo. 194, pp.78-79.
Ibid.p.79. WRITTE:~ STATEMENT OF S(>L:TII AFRII:A 615

rena rvhichinçludcs'unilateral eng.agernents of an internaitonal character
which have heen acceptixi' l".

28. An cxarninatiun of V.~liime1 of tirï'rcc~rySevic.of the Li~iitedNations
discloses thiitno intcrnatio agreelments arising from the liquidalion of the
Leagiieikere regisrercd ündi:r Part 1.Had an agrccmcnt (including a unifa~cral
cngagcmcnt which had bt~fi accepted) heenentered inro whereby ariymember
of rheUnited Nations undrrtook to silbmi~ to Cnited Nations siiptvjrion in
respect of Mandaies. such sn agrccmcnt would have rcquircd registratiun in

tcrnis of Ariiclc 10or ihe Charter.
Under Ilart II of Volume Iof ihe Trrati.Srrips, thefirslsix itemsal1relate ro
matters invoIving the transferofiiswts and sctivitics from thc Lcagueof Nations
to ihc Unitcd Nariuns Organization. Fo agreement relaring to ,Mandatesis
inctuded.

Il. Thc Pcrid 1946-1949

30. Overtheyears of the :Aandatc'scxistcn acgrowing desjrchad developcd
amongst thc inhabitants ofcouth West Africafor closer association with South
Africn and for tern~inatioi~of the Mandate. This desire found conçreie expres-
sion in resoIuiions passed tny fihcSouth Wcst Africa Icgisiütive Assrrribly as
für back as 1934. On 14 May 1943 the Legislative Assemlily agaiiiaskeù fur
terinination of the Mandate and incorpor.ation oftheTerritory in ihc Cnion of

Sourh Africa. A s~ni~la esolut ion was passcdon 8 May 1946.
Since thesc raoltlfions irrnatiatcdfrorn a body rvhereiii the non-White
sectioiis of the populatioii wert no! dirwtly reprrscnted, the South African
Governnient fell that they :;hould bc fuIly and dircctl consultcad s io tlieii
wjshcs. Thc Souh African Governmenthad made knowi~on n number of
occasions duriiig 1945and 1946its intertrions asto the futureof South West
Africa. This \VASdone filmsiIIhe San Francisco Conference in May 1945 2. In
Januüry 1946.at thc First P:irt oitsFist Session, the Iliiited Nations Gcneral

Assei~~hlyu7as informed '. aiid in April ofthatyear also ihe Leagueof Kations
Asstmbly ai ils Iinal Session", of South Africa's intention to cnnsult ~he
inhabirnnts of Soutli WestAfricarcgarding the luture of iheTerritory.
The consultation^ whicli were thercupon çondiicred, wsiilted in an over-
wheIrniny majurity uf the nun-Whire inhahitants ofSouth West Africaexpress-
ing thcmxivcs in favour of "our corintry [kcotnitig] part uf the Unionof
Soutli Africti"; 208,85 \vert!in favuur; 33,520 werc againsr; and 56,590 could
iiotbe consiiltedbecaiise ot'praçticaldifftcultics.

Thc rcsultsand thc rnanncr ofcot~sultation, as weIl as a reasoned siaierricnt
on the questioi~ of incorporation, were Cullyset oittin a "Memoranditmon the
admini5rration of Sotith Weit Africa and on thc wishcs of its pcoplcs as totlie
fulurc of thc Tcrrilury", s~ibmittedto tlie Secretary-Cieneral of tlie Uii~ted
'lations hy the SouthAfricanGovernment inOctober 1946 ?.
3 1. rn Noveinber 1946, !he South African represeniat ive (Ficld-Marshnl

' Uiiired Nh'ootisTreary Seie.sV~<il1.p. ?vi.
Vfd~para. 4, sitpro.
Vicieparu. S.supra,
YÏde para.26,supra.
UN doc. A!123, iri GA,OR, FirstSess.. Sccond Part, Fourth Cumm.. Part 1,
pp. 149-235. 32. Apart from the exprt:sscdwishcs of ihinhabitanis,the iiiimcrousother
considerations relicdon fc+iriicorporatioiias set out in the Memoiandum '
and elaborated on by Fit:ld-Maihsha lmiits in his addresses, included the

following<brieBystated!:
(a) Expcncriçe had showri ihat the circunistancesof SoiithWcst Africadid
not wrmit of entirel:: satisfactriryadniinistrütionundcr the i-i~andates
sysiem-or any analogpus sysieni.

(hl Thc geograpliical features and locationof Soiith West Africii, ils vast
semi-dcscrtarcris.its (:limateandlow rainfal alndils spiise population
re~idereditincapableoca separateeconomic existence.
(c) Expcrience in two WorId Wars had shown Ihai forstrategicand wurity
reasons South AfricaaadSouth West Africashouldconsiiiuie a singleunit.
(ri) Tlie variouspeoples of'Soutli West Africa had a closc cthnoiogicaland
national alllnily withthose of South Africa-a substantial number in
füct beingof SouihAfriciinoriginandSouih Africancit izei~s.
(P) A large nleasureof inti:gratiooftheadministrationof South N'estAfrica
with thai of South ASrica-as sancrion bydArticle 22 of thc €civenant
and tlieMlindaic-had already iaken place,and furthcr iritegratiowas

essential ithe Territo~ wcre io sharefullyin thendvancedleclmicaland
adminisirarivt.servicesSouth Afriça could provide.
{f) South West Africawas economicallydependent un Souih Africa,notonly
for financiaassistanceand ihesribsidizationofitseconomiclife, but also
as a frcc rnarkeiroriijagricultiiralproduce.
!&) Tlieuncei-taintas tothepoliricalfutureof theTcrritory inevitablyrnilitated
against raciaItranquillityand rhe opiitnutndevelopment or theTerritory.

33. In vicw tif thc uboveconsiderationstheSouthAfricanGovernnirntçon-
sidered ihat the CieneraIP,sseniblyought to endorse thc proposa1 for incor-
poration. The General Asccrnbly, however,rej~ted (in resoIution 65 (1))the
projmsalon thc ground "ihat the African inhabifrinlsor South Wcsi Afnca
have not yet securedpoliticalautonomyor reacheda stagcof political dcvelop
ment enabling rtiemto expressa cr~nsideredopinion whichtheAssemblymuld
recognizc on such an inipunrintquesiion as incorporationof hcir Lerritory",
and recoinrncndcd ihat So?ithWest Africa he placcd undtr the international
trusieesh syitem of the I!nilcd Naiions=.
In rcjcctingthc proposiil for incorporationon this ground the General

Assemblyreflectedoii only one aspect ofthe factorsfavourinyincorporation,
namely the expressedwishcs of thc populaiiun,and reniainedsilent nn al[ the
others.
Inthe view ofthe South African Ciovernment thc othcr factors,cspeciaily
those relatingtotheinteres~sof ihcinhabitanis,wei-eof importanceandshou1d
havc kcn givenweiglit in the GencralAswmbly's consideratinn oftheproposal,
particularlyif therewere d-riuhtas to theabilityof the popiiIationto express
themselves.
Frorn the factthat the (jenerül Assembly did not, in itsrcsnlution 65 (11,
rdect onrhcsePictors at all, couplcd with the natur oefthe disctissionsinthe
Fourth Chmniitfcc, thc Scuth African Govemment fcl t justitied in infcrring

ihai ihere wereotlier reasiins which had motjvatedthe approachof at Ieast
some Membersof the Unitxi Nations to thc proposa1 for incorporarion.
The tone of ihc statcmcntsiiiadein theFourthCornmiltee and ihc General

UN doc. A/i23.
GA rcsolution65 (I), 14Dec. 1946in UN doc. A/G4iAdd, 1, p. 123.Assenihly hy somc dclcgüiions wiis regarded as an indicatioi~that political

rnotivatioiis,unrelaied and cvcn detrimenta1torhe inisresrs of Ihc inhabitants
of South \Vcst Africa,woiild be an inherent eIerncntin an): suyiervisorysysteni
underthe Iinited Nations. This, in the view ofthe South ArricanGoverrinient.
would yrciitly harnper iistaskiii administeringthe Territory; and as South
Africahricl assumed a "sacred friist"in respect of thc inttabitanrs,ithad in
ariy event to hemindful of thcir cxprcssed wishes aiid thcir in~erests.
34. In response to the General Assen-ibly'sinvitation "to propose for the
considerationof the General Açsernbly a trusteeshipagreement I''the South

African Governrnenr znnwquently rcplicd by Ietter (of 23 July 1947) tu the
Sccrctary-~Scnerul.jttle«Cirz,as foIlowe:
"The Union Governrnent dcsircto reilerirteiheir vicwthüiiris irriplicit

in thc niündü~csysternaridin tliemandate for South M'estAfrica chatduc
regart1shallhe hüd to thc wishes ofthe inhabitants in theadministrarion
ortheTerrilory.The wishclearly cnprcsscc-bdythe ovcrwhclrninprnajority
ofail thc nativc rüccs iSouth West Africa and byunanimous vote on the
part of the European representatives of the Territory IlizrSouth West
Aîrica be incorporatedin the Lnion therelùre debürsihc Union Govern-
mcnt from acting in accordance with thercsolution of the CienerrilAsscnl-
bIy .ndthereby flouting the wishes or rhosewho under the Mandate have

becn ~;ornrniliedtotheir chargeI.n thc circurnslances thc Union Govcrn-
ment have no altcrnativc but [O iiiainiain thsfntus quo and to cantiiiue
toadininister theterritoryin the spiritof theexisting Mandate '."
In zhesanie [elter the South African Govcrnrnent refcrrcd tu a rcsolulion

adapted by thc Housc of Asscmblyof the Cnion Parliü~iient, on I1April 1947,
readirigas follorvs:
"Whereas in tcrnisof thc Trearyof Ve~saillesfull power of legislation

and adtnitiistrafionwas conferred on the L'nionof South Ar'ricainrespect
of thc Territory ol South West Africa. siibject only iothe renderinogf
reportsto the League of Nations; and
Wlicreas the I.t.rlb.uf vur rionshns siilccceosrd ro e-risr nmIwus not
mipoivcrcd b,v the provisionsuJ-rireTreotyaf Versaiii or~of rlic Cowi~ntir
;ci ~~OR.F~Pils rifill~s atpoivers itiregrirdfo Sourlr West AJrirrlta !hc
Utiiredkfiorrs Or~wiiizu/ion,or ro an^ other iiirrrr~arioilrgairizorion or
body, and (/idnar iifactdo so; and
Whereas theUnion ofSouthAfricaIlasnot hy internationaI agreement

conwnted to surrerider tlte iights and powers so acquired. and has not
surrcndercd thesc by signing theCharter orthc Unired Nations Organiza-
tion and rernains in fuIlpossession and excrcisethereuf; and
Whereas ihr civerwheIriiinginajority or boih the European and non-
Europeaiiinhabitanisof South West AFrica havc expressed thcmsclvcs in
t'avourof theincorporati ooSnoulh WestAfricahirh the Union of South
ATric;t;
Thcrefore this House is of opinion that thc Territory should be repre-

sented in the Parliamcnt ofihc L'riionas an integralportion rhcrco&and
reqrrejtsthe Covernment to iiitroduceIcgislaiion, after consulratinn with
the inhabirants of the Territory, providing for ils rcprcscniation in the
Unioit Parliaincnt.and that ihc Government shouId continue to render

' GA rc.;oliition 65 (1).&ç. 1946,in UN dcic.Afi4iAdd. I, p.123,
UN dix. Ai334. inGA, OR, Second Sess..Fourth Ctimrn., p.135. rcporis [cithe LniltJ Nalions Organiza~ionas it has done heretufore
underthe Mandate '."i:Ttaliadded.)

The letteral= referredto the fact ihat-'theUnionGowrnrritnt httvcalrcady
undertakenlu subrnitreporls on theiradministration forthe information or
thc Unircd Nations", clcarly a rcfcrcncc to the ahove-quoted statenient by
Field-Mailihai Smuts 2.
35.In compliiince rvithan rindertakiriggiven by South Africa at the First

Sessionof theGcncralAsscniblyin 1946,meetings u'ere held throughourSouth
Wesr Africa durinç 1937 to acquaint rhe non-White irihabiiants with the
Gcncral Asscnibly'srcwlulion 65 (0. These trieetingr ,howed that the over-
whelnlinginajority were still ifa\lourof incorporatjon. I.ikewiçe,the South
West Africa Le~islative As;emhly on 7 May 1947 unanimuusly adopted a
furrhermsoLuiion urging incorporation.
The wishes of the people cdSoiith WcsrAfrica were again communicaredio

rheUnited Kations ina specialreport -3and werc furlhcr claboraicdon by the
South African rcprcscntativci-n thc Fourth Corninitteeon 25 Septeinber 1947.
Ife intimatedthat Soutli Af~ica:
Would not prmccd rvith thcincorporiition of South West Africa;

Would consider itself underno legal oliligation to propose a triistecship
ayreerrientfor the T~errilory:
Could not furtherignore ihc wishcs ofthc grat rnajority of the inhabitaiits
of South West Africa wl~oiavoüred incorporation,by placing the Territory
iindtr the trustetship systernand
Would continue tr, niaintiiinthcstatusquo, to adininisterthe Territoryin
the spiritof the Mandate. arid to trünsmit tothe United Nations for its inTor-
nration an annita1 reporton Iheadminisirationofthe Tcrritvryof South Wcst

Africa.
At the thirty-thirdmeeting of the Coinn~itreeon 27 September 1947 in
respunse to a requcst by th;: representativeof Dcnrnarkfor arnpIifimtion of
the South African proposal r-.gardingmaintcnanŒof tliesfatusquo, therepre-

sentative oothe Uniori of SozrthAfricaexplaiired tItat:
". . rke nntiitorrpori ivhickhk Govei.nt>icnlrvi?usul>iîiiloSouth W~.rr
Africu woulrlr<~niuitikr,smr type of iflfarnmrirrnrrrhe T~rriin rr is

reljtrirpd for &on-SejflCi'or~rngTerri~ori~s~rnclcrArticIe 73 (el of the
Clinrrer.Itwas ihe assumption ofhisGovcrnnient, hesaid, thatrhe report
wouId not be cunsidered by the 'rrusteeshipCoiincil and would not be
dealt wjth as if a trustcrshipagreementhad in fact bccn conclud~d. Hc
Furtherexplaincd that,since thc Lcaguc of Nations Iiad ceasedto exist,
rherightto subniitpetitions couldno Longer beenercised, sinceilrutrigh!
presrpposcs ajttrisdicrioiwhicf~wuiifd oniv csislwhercrhcrc is a right of
conlrol or supervisionand inthe virwo/fJzc UtiioioJ~ouclr Africa no snch

jitrisdicfiuti vesteclitzrhe Ut~fted Ntt/fof~swifh r~p~rd 10 South West
Africa4." (Italicaddcd.)
36. InNovernher1947.theSouth r2friçanrcprewntativcdcaltintheGcneril
Assernbly with thequestion ofan allegedinoralobliwiion tn suhmit a thtee-

' Ihitip. 134.
Vide para.3 1,.rirprzi.
-'UN dw. A/334/r\dd.1,in GA. OR. Sccond Sess.,Fourtli Comrn.,pp. 136-38.
UN doc.,4022, in G.4,017, Sccond Sess., Plenary Meetings. Vol11.p. 1538.ship agm3ne~-a contention based,firstlyon thefacr thata11otherrnandated
territnrieihad bccn placcd undcrthc lrustwship systernor tiadbecn oIlcreJ
independencea , ndsecondIy, on 1-esolütionsofthe GeneralAsseinblyof 9 Feli-
ruary 'aiid 14 December 1946. He again stress& the many and niaterial
respects inwhich Soitfh Wcst Africa diffcrcdfrom othcr mandaicd tcrritorics,
and empnasizd thatSouth Africa would he acting in dcfrünceof the wishes
of the vz.st majoril of the ,inhabitants if n trusteeshipagreementwere con-

cluded. He addcd that, whcrcas thc rcsolutionof 9 Fcbruary1946convcycd
an iiii.irriiand that of 14 Deceniher 1946a rerort~nienrlario1th.at a trustee-
ship agreemeni be subriiittedin respectofSoiith Wesr Africa,hisGovernment
had "coriscicntiously pcrfomcd" itsduty in giving "mus1 iinxious considcr-
ation" to the recoiiiniendation,butcouId not accede thereto 3.
At thc same iime he inrormedrheGeneralAssetnblythat-

"... the Union of Soutli Africa has expi-essed itsreadiness to submit
anniralreports fur lheinformationof lhc United Narions. That under-
takiiistandq. Atthough these reports,if iicceptedwill lx rcndcrcd onthe
bnsi?rharthe Uilited,%'utioli-lzno superv~suryjririsdiciioin respee! of
tki.'errilorthcywillservc to keepthe Unircd Nations informed in rnuch
rhe c.arneway as they wilIbe kept informed in relationto Non-SeIf-Ciov-
' crning Territutics under Article 73(e)of the Charter '." ([talics tidded.)

37. Pspite the above, the General AssernbIy adopted a resolurionrnain-
taining itspreviousrecommendationthat South West Africa he pIaced ünder
the trustr%shi p~~stenandiurginy SoulitAfrica toproposeL'ot rheconsideration
of the GrneralAsscmbIy a triistccshipagreementfor the Territory,rnotivating
its reçolutionin the following terrns:

"\Vhereasir isa fact that al[ otheStates administering terriloriespre-
viouslyheIdundermandatehave placedthese rerriroriesunderthe ï'rustcc-
shipsystcm oroircrcd thcm indcpendcn~~ 3."

At the Third Session of the Generai Asseinbly in 1948 the Souih Arrican
representativeforniallyreiterated-

". .. that tlie IloiGoveminent, afterfullconsiderationof al1thc aspects
of thernatrer. hüdonceagain corne to the conclusion rhat it would he in
thc intcrcsntesitherof the Tcrritary of South Wcst Africaand ils people,
ilor af the Unionand its peopIe,toplace theTerritoryundcrtheaiiihority
of tF.eTrusteeship Coiinciof the Lniied Nations, and that.in the circ~lrn-
stanw, Ihe Govcmmcni rcyrctted not being able to comply with the
requcstof the United Nations Assernbly to submit, voluntariIy atrustee-
ship agreement &".

38. In cvmpliancc with itsmrlicr voluntarj-undcriaking.theSouth African
Govemment submittedin September1947 a reportonSoiith Wesi Af'rica for
the year 1946.

GA rcsolutionXI cl),in UN doc. A!64, p. 13.
CiA rcsolution65 (1).
GA, OH,Second SCSS.,Vol.1, 105th Plcnary Mccting, 1 Niiv.1947, pp.632
etsey.
' Ihiul.p.632.
GA rewlution 141(11). 1 Xov.1947, in UN dm. A1519, p.47.
GA, OB. ThirdSess.,Part 1FourtliCornni.,76tli Meeting, Y Nov. 1948,p. 292. WR[T?ES STATEMENT {JP sou-1-HAFHICA 621

'Thireport was submi ttctl on thbaçisclearlysiared in thesaid undertaking,
namei y :
(rijtliaitwouIdIx foi-iri<orriiatjopnurposes only, cnntainingthe sainetype

of informationon theTcrritoryas rcquircdfor Non-Self-GouerningTerri-
toricsundcr Art~cIc73 (cl of the Cbarter; and
(b) that South Africa didiiotrecogni7ethe llnited Nations a s~ipervisory
auihorityin respectof thc Tcrrilop-the reports~iotking intended for
use hythe United h'iitivnas ifthelattewere thesupcrvisory autharity or
asifa Trusteeship agrt-cmenthad infxt beenenteredinio.
Afterreceiptofthis repoct, thc Gcncral Asscrnblyauthurigd-

"... lhe Trusteeship Cuuncilin the mcantime to examiw the rcporion
South West Africa. . . and to submit its observations thereon to the
GeneralAssernbiy l".

Sorith Africa declinedar* invitation by the TrusteeshipCouncil to senda
rcpresenlativeto attend its rxarnjnatianof thrcport sincesuch action woulù
not have ken consiste n th iis vieiv that the Couitcwas not vestedwith
supcrvisoryfunctionsin respectof Soiith WestM'ria.
The South Africin Gove~ nrnent hriwever,offercd totransmit furthcridor-
niaiion in writing if roquesttoddo so. In responsero such a request,further
information was subrnitted;andin a covering leiteof31 May 1948 the South
African Goverriment, iiztc~~iiur,eitera~ed:

"... hat ihc [ransmiçs~ontothe Unitcd Nationsof information on South-
West Africa,inthe form of an annual reportor any other form. is on n
voltrn~ur~vsis u~zdi.f~rpurpuses uf infurtmrioton1,vThey huPeon severnl
occasio~ariiaJe itctet~rrhnr~heyr~cogiiiz~no ahiigc1rioru frcrnsn~iihis
irrforinaiioi~the L'iiirtN~~ioris,butin vicw ofthe wide-sprcridinterest
in rhe administration 31'the Territory,and iriaccordance with normal
dernocraticpractice,thcy arcwilling and anxious to makeavailable to the

wcrrldsuch factsand figuresas are readilyatthcirdisposil... The Union
Governinent desire triitcall thatinofferingto submit a report onSouth
West Africafor ihc informationof the United Nations,thcy did soon the
hasis ofthe provisio o fArticle73 le) ofthc icartcr. This ArticIecalls
For 'statisticand othcr information of ateclmical nature'and makes no
refercnccto infomatioii on questionsof policy.Inthesecircumiances the
Unioii Gove~nmenrdo no1consider tht information onrnatters of poIicy,
particularly future policy, should be inciude inda report {or in any
supplenient to thc rcportwhich isintended tobc a factualand statistical
- accountof the adininistxlion of theTerritory over thepcrioofa caIendar
year. NevertheIess,the UnionGovcmmcnt are anxious 10 Iieas helpfril
and asCO-operative a!;possible and have,thercfore, on thiv occasion

repliedinfull to tliquestions rlealing with variausaspcctofpolicy.The
Union Govemment do not,however, rcgardthis ascreatinga precedent.
Furîherrnorc, the rcnderingof replieson poIicyshouIdnot bcconsrruedas
a cornmitinent asta future pdicy or asimpbi~g any meirsrire.ofnccoiiaf-
nbiiif-#OrlieUnited.N~!iioiisonrheprrrrofthe UtifonGoverriment.In his
ccinnectiontheUnion Ciovcrnnienihave noted that theideclmd intention
toadministertheTerritoryin thespiritof thernandatckas ben conslrucd
insome quarters as implq'inga measurcof international ;iccoiinraliility.

GA rcsolution141 (II). rnaticnkas providd an opportunity triutilizethe-ïrusreeshipCounçiI and
the'IIuaeeship Corninittee asa foruinFor unjusiifiedcriticismandcensure
of the UnionGovernment's administration no1 oiily in Souih Wcsi
Africii but in the Union as well. Inferences and dduçtions have boen
drawrifrornthe informaiionsiibmittedwhichare quite incrinsistenwith
facts and realiriesThe rnisundcrshndingsand accusationsto which the
Lnitcd Nations d~scussions of this suhject have givcn rise have had

relien:üssions both in the Unionand in South West Africa, with dele-
rerio1.selkcts onlhcmaintenan= of the harrnonious relationswhich have
hithei,tocxistcdandare sn essential to successfiiladministration.Further-
more, the very act ol subrtiiitina reporthas crcated in the minds of a
numbcr of Members of theUnitedNationsan iinprcssion thal thcTrustuc-
shipChuncil iscompetentto makerecommendaliuns on niatters of internai
adrniriistriitinfSouthWcst Africaandkas fosteredother niisconceptions
rcgürdingthe statusof this'Ièrritory.
In thesecircunislancesthe Union Governmentcan no Longersee that
anyri~l bcnefitisto bc derivedfrom the suhmission olspecial reportson

South WestAfricato the UnitedNaiions, and Iiaveregretfullcorneto the
conclusion that in the intcresisof eficientadministrationno furthet
rcpor:s should befnrwarded. ln coming to rhisdecisiontheUnion Govcrn-
ment are in iio way rriotiviitcby a dcsircto ~vithhotdfrom the world
facrualand orherinfurmarionrcgardingSouth Wesl AIfica publishedin
accur~~ncc with the custnmary practice of dernucratic rat ions, and
infortnationof thisnaturepreviously~~nhodiedinannual reportsto the
1-eagrraf Nationsor the UnitcdNations\rfillontinueto beitiadeai-iiabfe
tu ihc gcncral public in the fornl of sratistia. departmenta[reports,
reportsby the Adrninistratorto theSouih Wesi African Legislaturc,bluc
books, and olher governmental publications'."

At ttieFourlh Session of the General Assembly in Septtmkr 1949. the
SouthAfrican represeiitative(wjfhrerercnccto the aforesali etterdaLt fulIy
wirh the South African deçision to discontinüe the ~ubmission of reports*.
4 1.h ihcprcwding parsgraphs attention was given moreparficu1ürIy tothe
South African attitude concerning thc qucation wheiher the supcrvisory
poviersof the League had been transfcrredto the United Nalionsin respct of

rtiandatcdtcrritorics notplaced underthe trusteeship system. Ir ishowever
relevanticihaveregard alsoto Ihc attitudescxprcsscdby orher Members OFthc
UnitedNations on rhisquestion.ln orderto facilitate an accuraterevieofthe
aititudm of Cnitcd Nations Members in this respectan Annex, markedA, is
attached hereto, the First Part of which conipriscssinindex tristatements
made by the representarivcsofa11 theStates which participattd indebates on
South Wcst Africa over rt~eyeari 1947, 1948and1949, and tlie SecondParr
ofwhichcontains extractsfromstaienients made hy reprewntatives of certain
States over the said year3. Both partsIistthe States in iilphabciiciil order.
Thc following paragraphs contain what is submittcd to be the sigrtifkant

aspectsemergiiig from Ihecontcntsof Annex A.
42. (O) As reflecredin the Fit-st Part of AniiexAihc rcprcsentaitveof 41

' UN doc. Aj929, in GA, OR, Çourth Ses..Fourth Comm.. Annex. p. 7.
GA. OR, FoirrthSrss.. FourthComni., 128th Mccting,18 Vov. I949, p. 200.
The South Rfrican prtipusal rcgardiigcorpi>rrttinfSouth West Africa kvas
rejectedbythe resolution othe Gencral Asscrnblon L4Dec. 1946.Dcbatcs rcgdrrl-
jng the quesrioof accoiiotabiliunder the Miindate,asa rcsultof theinçcirpcira-
tion proposal, starrin 1947.France. India, Iraq, the NetlierIands,New zealand. I'akistan,the Philippine
Republic, the Suvie1 Lnion, the Utiiled Sturcs of Amcrica and Uruguay.
Extracts from the statements made by rcpresentativesof these 14 Staleç are
quoted in ihe Second Part of Annex .4.
Tt isnot necesun, to reciteal1suchcxtrscts. The folIowing are indicaiiveof
the tenor of thestatenientsniade:

Mr. Grrk, rrprrsrntlrriveof fhc Unitrd Sta!c.sof Ai~trricu.in the Tritsrsesliip
CouriciioiiI2 Dccwiber 1947:
"lt wus s(;irfier^carlierthis afrernaon,and i riiriiot hearurryinoribcr.
objeci, thüt whilewe al1hapl-rny dclcgaiion as much as any delegarion

feels rhatway-that therewiILbe a trusteesliipagreeiiientfor this ierri~ury
[SuutliWcst Africaj, ii7do nor. M thr nbstwcp qf a rrusf~esliingrecr)icirr,
bave siip~rvisorfirilctiomover ihis territocThcrcfurc,1 do nat ihink we
oughr to impIy that we do have suprvisory functions to ensure lhat ihc
Unio11 Govcrnnicnt discharges its dutics undcr the prcscnt mandate,
adrnitting thatiexists."(Italics added.)

"'Iltemandates sysiem now ducs not operate. As there is nolonger a
superking authorily. hcrc isno longer a mandaies systern.The voluntary
transmission of information,rnerelyfor thc sükc of information, by the
Uniortof South Africa to theTrustccship Councjl does i~otgivethe COUIIC~I

the ss.mejurisdiction as the Permanent Conimission on Maridaleshad.
...wr: considerthat the prewrii situation constitutcsü stcp hckward, in
so far asn ~crrirory niirut~dcritircri!ationsicperi.isioisnow utidertio
sriperi~rtemfmct...."(Italicsadrled.)

"Wherros the lterritoryof SouthWestAfriw, though no1 sclfguvcrning,
Îsar prt.wni orruide II~P~~nlrffm~d supci-vi,rioofthe Unitcd .Mririorrs."
(Italicadded.)

'The statements oti bchaIfof l'akistanand (:hina were eqiraIlyexplicit,arid
those on behaIf of Australia also very clear on the point.In other cases thc
aiiitudccnicrgcd bynccmsary implicat~onT. hustherepresentativesofColoinbia.
Iraq, the Soviet Uniuriand Uruguay, consicieredthat the Mandate IiadIapsed
altogelher--frum whichwouIdfollow ihat thcri:wuld bc no duty of rcpurting
andaccouiiting withregard io mandate obligations. And in thecasesof France,
New Zealaiid,Cuba and the PhiIippine Hepublic the sratementswere tothe
effectthartheinformaiiio nnfact subinitteby SouihAfrica couId lx exarriiried

forinfurmation purposes only. or not aral[.
43. Duringtheyears1948and 1949,in debates on South West Africa, similar
views weri:exprestd also on behall' or ai leasi four o!her Stales. They Nacre
Canada l.Costa Rica ',Greece l,and thc United Kingdom '.
With a viewto curtailr~ienlrrherecord, theexiract from thestaternentniadc
by the repi.esenrativtofIhc lasr metiiionedSiate orilyis recitedheie.

Sir Tercrtr.Shoit~,ittthe Fuurrh Commi!~eu otr24 ,Yirk*e:enIYrY:
"Ttcouldnoi hesaid that theGoveinment of the Uiiion ofSouthAfi-ica

' Yidp Annev A, Second Pari.should fullilitsobligations towaids the internationalcornmunity and çiue an
accnunt ol'its administration"'.
In thc ciiscsof the ieast-mention4 three States, Cuba, India and Lruguay,

these contr:ntionsiverein connici withthc statcmcnts iiiade,or attitudesadop-
ted, hy thcm in 1947.
For thc carlier statementhy the representarivcof Cuba, sec AnnexA, Second
l'arI
In Ihe case cifIndia,refcrcnccis made to paragrayh 42 (Jj, supra. Attention
isalso drawn to the repart on Palestin peragraph 44 (c), supra, and to the
written stateinentsubniittedby Indiü in thc 1950 Advisory Proceedings,whiçh

containtd the following:
"It is rfipectfully submittcdthat theonly respec it which ifiposition
haçdianged pasa resultof thedissolution vf the League]is:that ArticIc6of
theMandate and the firstportionof Article 7of the Mandate havebecorne

incapiibleof king cornplicdwith, In other respects, the righland obliya-
tims of themandatora yreexactlythesaine as they \vertbcforc. Thc rcsult
isthat the mandatory is not obligtd iusubmit an annual report under
ArticIe6 and that iimnnut rnodify the terna ofthe Mandate at aIL because
ihe pimedure by wliicli itcould have tnodilid thetcrrns of thc Mandate
has ceased to beappIicabIe '."

And. in thecaseouf Uruguay, the statcnient made hy its represeniativein 1948
runs coiinterto the contention advanced on its bçhalf in 1947 and to ils
attitude concerning the Mandate TorPalestine '.
46. Also in resptxtof othcr rcrritririesprevinuslyheld iinder Mandate, rhe
pralrticcuf Statcs upto 1948shows a cIearunderstandingthat thc Lnitcd Na-

tions ivould haverio supervisorypowersovertheadministration of a matidated
territory riut piiicccundcr trusteeship. Thus rhe trusteeship agreement for
Nauru was conctuded as lateas Nvvernber 1947, i.c., morcthn two years after
the Charter had corneinto for~ jrand the United Kingdom withdrewfrorrithe
adlriinistrationof PalestinonIy as from 15 Maq- 1948 ". Neverrhelcssno rcports
werein the iiiiteriprivd sribmitt~x lu the Unitcd Plations in respectof eirher
territory.The Soiilh Arrican Government isnotawarethat it \vaeversuggesled

by any Si;itcor organ of the United h'üions thai siichreports shouldbcsub-
mittcd eitherin respector thcsctcrrituricsoriiirespect ofanyothermandated
territnr~ejdiiring the periodüfterdissolution of the Ixagrie and prior iu"new
arrai~gerrirnls"bcing "agrwd" upon in regardto thein.

E.The Effwt ofrheEventsduring the 'I'ransifiuni ars

47. IIIChaptcr VI1 above the concIusion rcached Itiürno mandatory
coiild, by reason only of itsagreementin 1920 torcport and iiccount to,and
thus to subrnit to the sirperrision of,the Council of the Leagueof Katiairs,
suhsequently befieldobligcd to report and account tci,andsubmit rothesuper-

:Annex A. Secrind Pari.
I.C.J. PI<,adingInicrii<irinrStorrrsqf'Soi,tWcsi Afiicrrp. 148.
As to which vide Annex A. Second Part.
As towhichvidepara. 44 (cj, rirpru.
VideGA, UR, Sccond Sess..Sup. No. 10 (Al461/Rev. 1).
" Vide KK~CS~JC IRii'rSëtliporAicliiv~..ol. VI1(t948-I950) p. 9354.vÏsion of, the Unitcd Nati.311~ut 'ny of'iis organs.The cuir/eni of ihc latter
obligation ~muldbernaierisllydiflcrent, insubstanceas weH as in forrifrom
tliat agrcedto in 1920by Ihe mandatories,and for this rearon donc it folIuws
that 3 mandatory could only have beçonie bound to such an obligritionby
frcsh cigmrnenr and conseittthereio.

'I'hepurposeof the rcvicwof relevant histnricalFdctsin theearlierparrs uf
thischapter, was accordin!:lylo serveas basis for an enquirywhethcr South
Alrica fiad,byany bindiiijuristiact,conseniedto anobligationto reportand
account to, andsubmit tu thesupervisionof, anyargan of theUnired Kaiions.
48. Although the enquir,fas tliusposedesseiitialy wncerirs SOL I Africa's
conscnt to an obIigation aspostulatcd, it mustof nw~ssitjralso have rekrence
to another aspect, viz.. wiIIwhnm South AFricaagrwd to siibinit to suc11ari
obligation if any.(The maj~rity Advjsory Opinion of 1950dos no1 exprcssly

rcfcr rttliiaspect of thequestion.)
11 seen-ievident that th(:internationalpcrsons. othcr than the mandatory,
who rvere intended toderivt:righlsor Icgiiinterestfrvm theinandateswcrc the
Lcaguc of Nations and the Mcmkrs of the Lcagiie '.One wnuId therefore
primaracie expect the Leap~e andior itsMembers toheparties tran agreerrient,
iTany, renderinga mandatory obligcd tu report and account to anew super-
visory ar~thorityAnd ifth;itiiew supervisoryauthoriiy wcrc to be an organ of
the Liiited Nations. it seenisthat the United Nations, andior ils Members

wciiildirecessarilhavivhad tobc partics tosuchan agreemcni.
49. For al1 practical ptirposes the enquii'y istherefo1.cdirected towards
ilscerlainingwhetherSouthAfrica atany rime bound itselfby agreement, cithcr
wiih thc Mernbers of the Lxague at the tiincf itsdissolution (directlyor via
the League as rcprcscnting Iheiri),or withtheUiiited Nations arid,'oits Mem-
bers, or ivitli boththesepraiipsto an obligation asposlulated.Such an agrcc-
ment çould con~~ivably hide been eithcrpart and parccl ofgenerrzfniultipartite
conventinnsconcerning the ror~~~atioonftlieUnited Kationsandjorthedisso-
Iiiiionof the Ixague, or y~c'cinlas bzlween Sntith Africa and thc icthhcn: ho

couId conuiivably hiive b~-n partics thcrcto as aforcstated.

if.The Unirrd surions C:hur~ri

50.Thcrc couId bc no warrantfor ilnysuggestioil that the provisionof the
Charterof the United Natisns by themselves renderedSouth Africa obligd to
the United Nationsor theathcr Mcmbcrs thcreoflo report aridaccouni to,or
to bc subjccrtu thc supcrvi>ionof,any orgriiof theUnited Nations with regard

to perfornianceof its functionsiinder the Mandare €orSouth West Africn.In
[his respect there appears tu have bwn gcneralagreernerii in thc Advisoror?.
Opinivn of 1950. The rnnjc,ritopinion particularlyemphasized that:
". . . the Charrerhascontcmplatcd andrcgulaied only ü singlesysiem, the

InternationalTrustccship Systeni. It did not contemplate or regulate a
CO-existinp Mandates :iysrcm "'.
The whole of the porrion of ihe Opinion in wtiich thisslatemcnr riccurred
{answci.to question (hj)wiis concuritd iiibyJudgeMcNair and ludge Kead

IntlieSuiifb FVrs~ifrictcasesJudgnien~of 18July 1966. liemajorityand thc
niinoriiy srem tohave liecnud idem asFar as thibroad proposition isconcerncd.
It~t~r.natioStnritofS<'uiliWesl Afr/COAdvisory Opitiion. 1.C.J. Kets1950,
p. t40. .
Ihid.. pp. 14and 163 rcspr~tivcly. "It has ho~ve\,erbccn saupht to cal1 it [Le., Article 80 CI)] inaid as
frillows:theArticle,irissaid,'conserved' therightsof States:onc ofthc-se
rightswiiç that stateidn Article 7of the Mandntc instrument; thecefore
thc rights survived th-: Leaguc dissulution untilthe ieinandatedtei-rirory

was broughtunder trujtccship.
The argumcni is no:only inherently unsound, it ignora the words of
Article 80(1). 'I'hiA1,ticteis clcarlan inteipretationclause,çornmonly
caIlcd a savingclause, ofa type frcquentIyto beround in Iegislative or
ri-eatinstrumen(s, desigriedto preilenStatutc or Treatyprovisionsking
iiirerprefrdsas to operalebcyond theirintendnient.
Such a clause does not, except in ü luose and quite indefinitesense,
'conserv an'y rights. [t prcvents the operation oftheStatute orTrcaIy
fruriafecting them (whatever thcy arc:undwhatever theircontent) exŒpt
as provideciby the Stafuteor 'Treaty.Article 80(1) does notmaintain or

stabiIizerightas they:ycxistcadthe dateof theChartcr coniing into opera-
tion,nor does it insure the confinuancr of thoçe right osr increas oer
diminishthem. It Icave; thcm unirffectedbyChaptcrXII of ihe Charter.
Whaf Article 80 (1) ducs not say isas irnporrantar what it doessay. Tt
diiesnrisay thulright:-shalt continue.Itdaes notprovidethaf theserights
shall not thereaftcr,until trustccshipagreeineiitshave bcen concludcd,
lx subjocllu tlieoperationof law, or that they shaII not terminate or
be extinguishcd by efiluxionof tirne. failure nf purpose, impo~sibiIity
orperforiiianceor for any other rcason. Ttdoes not ssiythese rrightshaIl

not bcaIteredor k sukljecttoalterationevenbynormalIegal prmsses.
Itisevident thatthepurposeof Article 80 (11was quitcdilyrrentto what
has been contended and diiesnot lcnd itselfby any rationalniethud of
interpre~ationio support ihecontention advan~~d.The sole purpose of
the ~trticl\i;iito preventrrny provision of Chaptcr XIIof the Charter
king construedso asto aIterexisiing rightv pritoa certa in eni'."

In ihe oral proceedings on the Merits of the SoutIi WPSI Africa cases, the
Applicants'counsel exprwed his regretfor the incomplcten efhi5 presenta-
tivn iithePrziiminary Objt:crionsphax regarding Article80,paragmph 1,and
cxprewlyassocintedhimsell'with the above-quoted views of Judges Spenderand
Fitzmauricc 2.Hc stilladded liowever: "The languago cf theCourt[in the 1950
Opinio~i]might .. .imply a.differcnt vicw3".This conession that the Court
mighl well haveheen rnisrükcnin its interprelation ofArticle80. paragraph1,
in 1950will bc furtherdeaItwith when the 1950 Opinion isconsidered '.

52. These resoIutionsand iheir history, üs dealt with abovc 5,in the first
place clcüriydcmonstra~e (3attheUnited Nation sidnot conside irselftobc
an auiomaticsuccessorin Iriwto any Lpaguc functions,and consequcntlythat

! Suurh W't~1Africa, PrtiitninarUbjecriotis, Jrrrtb~in1.C.J. Reports 1962,
p.5 16.footnotc 1. Vid~also ,lisscntingopiniun (if JudgeWj0k iipp. 615erscq..
and separate opinionof Judl;e vanWyk inSouih West Afrira,.YeconriPhclseJudf
Ineirt1.C.I. Reports1966,PI)9.3-95.
1-T..!. PleudiiiSoird 1YesrAfricu, Vol. VIII, pp.223-226.
Ihid., p. 226.
VideLhap. lx. iirfia.
' Videparas. G er seq.srqlrrr.634 XAMIB14 (SOU-~H WEST ;\FRI<:A)

in its contmiplalion ~hc assumptioii andcontiniiation of uny Lcüguc function
by ii wouldhüvc to he a matrerof activearrangement. Xndeed in coiitrast wirh
assets, wli.icliwere to be "triinsfcrrcd" in terins of the niiiruallyadopted
"ccininion plan '", the earlier idea of a "transter"of certaifn unctions and
üctivitics xas ahandoned in iavour of one of "assuinption" by ihc Unitcd

Nations oi.gansof certainfunctions and pciwers '.
53.The sc:cçcindfcature of importarice is tkat in rcsoluiinn XIV as finalIy
adoptcd by the Cjenetrl Asse~nblyon 12 Fcbruary 1946 ',the slaterncntof
generul n~iIIit~grzet.~tnsurc thc continued exerciseof teagiie functions was
cartl'ully Iirnitedtufiincrions onoil-puiilictt:izaractc'.This ivouId obviously
not includc the function or supervision rcgardingmandates.The only portion
of the i.esolutioi~under wliich suchfunctioncciuld possihly MI would bc Pürt 1,
3,Ç, wtiidi readas follows:

"Ç. Fi'~tnctiunltd Powcrs ~rndcrTreatirs IirrriruiicinaConiler~?io~ts,
Agreements rrndOfher itismrrneiiiIl(witg rPviiricalCliartlrrer
îhc G~~tferr?jA~~.r~in\bi]itselfexamine, orwilf suhmit iorfieapprupriatç
organ of the United Nstions. iiny requesr from the partiesthat the United
Nations should assurnethe exerciseof functionsor powers entrustedto the

1-eague of Nations by treatiesinternaiiod conveniions. agrccmcnts and
otherinstrumciitshaving a politiwl charaçtcr3."
In other words. foithe rusumption of a supervisory L'uncIion regarding
ntandateqrheprocedure envisagedby theresciIuiionwould involve a "request
frornthc psrties" to, or iegally intercsied in,the respectiv n iandam. and a

decisionocceditg IO tlrreyiiest btheCieneral Assem blyorothtr United Nations
organ considered tobc theappropriate one.
54. However,even in soParas thesaid Part 1.3,C:of resoluiioriXIV supplied
a rnethodwherebyit miyht have beenpossible, at the initiativeofthe partiesto
the mandates ihernseli~es,to effecan iissurnpion of sup.misory functions in
rcspcct of niandates by somc Uniicd Nations organ, it is apparerit frotnits
history thii itwas no1dcsigncd forthis purposc at all-ai any rateas Br asits
proposes werc:concerned. For it wilIbc rccall chiitthe resolutiriwas based
on a rccoinmendation of ihe Unitcd Nations ISreparatoryConiniissiun,iuhich

in tum hnd considerrda prior report froni its GxecutivcCommiitec '.Thc
relevant portion of the Executive Comrnitt~~' ~ cport had stated, hiterdia,
that-
"Sinm ihc question arisiiig from thc winding up of the Mandate systern

arc dcaltwith in Part TEI,Chapter IV, no recorniiiendaiion UriIhissubject
isincluded here "."
"I'art III, Chapier IV'' asthere referred io formcd part of the historyieading
everituaIlytorcsolurion Xf, adoptcdat the sarneSessionof theGeneraiAsserribly
on 9 Fcbruary1946.The said"PartIII, (-3apierIV"uf the Exwutivc Cornmit-

tee's repoi-tdealt with thc establishitieriof thc trustccshipsystetn I.will k
recallçd that a recnrnmendarion rÿasmade thereinfor ihe esiablishnienl of ci
tcmpoinry trusieeship comniiitee,one of whose f'unctionswouldbe ro:

A Vide para. 20,siipuli.
Part 1,para. 3, A and Rtifthe resolution.
Vide para. 20, supru.
Vidr paras. 7 and 8sripra.
Doc. FC/EX:'I13:Kcv. 1, 12 No\,. t915, p1Il). ".. .advise theGeneraI Assenibly on any rniitters thniight arise witli
regard to the transfeto thc Unitcd LIüiionsofany functionsand responsi-
tiilirieshith~rtocreicisr:dunderthMandates SystetnI".

55. On iwo occasion^witilt thproposal regardinga tempomry ti-usteeship
corninittcewaç iinùerconsidcrütion,ihc prvbleniswliiçh woiildarisein respeci
or stipervision ofniandate:;after dissolution of rht:League, ivcrc pcrtincntly
riiisedInapioposa1 totheExecuiivef omrnitteeof thePreparatory Cuminissian,
dated 14October 1915. tlic UnitcdSiiitedelegation suggestedlhat "following
the diszojution of the League of Nations and of the I'crmancnt Mandatcs
Commission,thefunciiom :3reviousylperfcirrned by theMandatesCommission
incoiineçtion wilh receivingand cxümining reports submitted by Mandatory
Powerswith raîpect to suchterritoriesundermandate as have nat becn placcd

un& !he trusteesliisysterdby meansof trusteesh agpreetnents",shoutdfirst
be riiidcrtakenby the'I'ernporarTrustcmhip Conimit toc.and, afterestsbIish-
rncnt of the 'I'rusteeship Councilby the Council itself. This proposa1 was
apparentlynevcrfomally r;iiseù ?.
On 4 I)ecerntier1945siib;tantiaIly thsitmcpropusal wrisagiin raiscdby the
United Slares delegaiion (although wiih SIigIittexiualchanges) kfore the
I'reparatoryCommission it:elf. acçompanied by an explanatory mcrriorarid~rm.
The rnerriorandum poinledriutthatthe- '

".. .repori by the E>.ecutiveCornmirtee makes no provision for any
urwn orthe CnitedNations to carryout the funciionsof the Permanent
Mandates Commission".

". ..in ordcr to provide a dcgrcc ofcontinuity betwcen the Mandates
system andthetrusiwshs iysteni. to permit the mandatory powcrs to
dischar~e theirobligations,and to furiher thetransférof mandatedterri-
tories trusleesh tip,TcrnpciraryTrusteeship Cornrniiree (or süch a
mmniittee as iscstablishedtoperformits funçtions)and,iatcr,thcTrustce-
shipCauncil shouldbespecifiia~~e ~mpowered toreceivethe reports which
thcmandatory powers are now obligcd to makc to the Fernianent Man-
dates Conimission".

1.aterin the ~iiemoraiidumthe purpoçe of this prriposaIwas described as "to
bridge any possibIe gap which niight cxis~ beiween the terminati on the
mandates system and theest aIishinentof the triisteeshitisyst3". Althouph
diilyfiledand pla~d on an qynda, this proposa1was never forniallymowd or
discüssotl.
The significanceof the t..vUnited States proposaisis thatthcrcbyit was
pertinenily drawn to the attention of the Preparatory Cornmission that no

machinery would exisr for the supervision of mandates after dissolution of
the League, and that such niachinew ryuld only bc re-establisheifand when
a pariicularrnandatedterri tory wert placed under iriisleesIiip.Neverthetess
the Mernbcrsof rhePreparatar Cyommission (cunsistingofal1the then Mem-
bers of theLnited Nations) were clearlynot prcpared ramakeanyprovision at
al1Tor supervision ofmandates, either by empowering sonie iriteriiiibody, or
cvcn byaiithorisingthc'lrusteeshipCouncil ilseltouddertake itInthis connec-

-. .
'&+id.,p. 56.
Vide para. 9. ~~ipuri.
- Vide para, Il, supru.tion theattitudeof iheMandatorypowers isaIso notwi~houtsignificancc.With
thcexceptioiiofone straycommenr bythc SouthAfrican rcprcscntative',not one
of the mandatoriesshotvedany wish tn create rnachinefr or interirnsuper-
vision of rnandatcspcnding the conclusion of trustccsh agpwmenis or othcr
arrange1rit:n ts
The very recommendation regarding establishment of the Ternporary
Trusteeship Cunirnittzcwas rejecredby the Prcparaioiy Cqmrnission 3:and nu

0th piopnsal regardinginvestigation of, or machinery for, the possible
"transferio" oi' "assuniption by" the United Nations "of any functionsand
responsibiIiticshithcrto çxercisedunder thernandatcssystcrn",was substitutcd
for IIierejected proposal. ResolurionXI as adopted in effcctrncrelyurged
expoditior.in thesubmissionof proposed trusteeshipagreements hy"the States
administeringtcrritvriesnow held under Mandatc 'O.
56. In ndopting resolution XI the Assemhly knew beforehand rhat such
proposcd agreements wouId not be submitted in respectof all mandatedterri-
tories.Ex[iressrcscrvafionskad bern rriadebythc South African citprcsentaiivc:

indicating an intentionon thepart ofhis Government torefrainfromplacing
South Wcsl AFricairnderUnited Nations triisteeship and to seek recognition
for incorliriratiunthereuf in thc Union >. Frani rexn-ations madc by thc
rcprcsenis.tivof theUnited Kingdom, the futureofthePafestine Mandate wa
known to be uncertain 6. Furtherrnurc,the Pacific Blands under Japancse
Mandate #ere occupiedby the United States md no decision had been corne
triasto thr:irfuturc.
in additioii, the reprcscntativesof the United Kingdom and France haù
indiçatedthat theirGovernments'willingness ro place certainmandated terri-

tories under Unitcd Nations ~rusttxshipdepcndcd upon Iheir beitig able to
obmin sat:sfactoryterms 6.
57. Th~t the kssembly was in fact awarethata numberof Statesadrninistcr-
ingrnand:itcs had no inlention ai that timc of subrni~ting lrusteeshipagree-
ments,apgearsindeedfromthetextof rcsolution XI, especiallythefuIlowing:

"... wiflrr~.ipectn C'hoprfrs X/I nnd XII[ of rhe Chnrrer, rhe General
Asseti~biy:
3. Wclcotnc~thc declaratiom ns.e by certain Stutrs administering
terriroriesnowheldunderrnandatc,of anintention to ncgotiatctrustmhip

agrcrmenls in respwl of suirr01 thoseferriturieand, in respectof Trans-
jordan, tocstablishitsindependence.
4. tnriie.s thSroresadministeringterritoriesnow hcfd under mandate
to underiakc practicalsteps. .. forthc ir~iplernentation fArticle 79 of
theCharter 7."{ltalicsadded Save for the heading and the words "Wel-
cornes"and"Invites".)

Vide para. 10, sirpru. The runçt~onsuggestcd by hTortlic TcmporaryTru+
teesiiiCommiilee çlearlydid no1 indicatean>-contemplation thai any reports
concerning Soulh West .4frica would besubmitted-videSoiitfWe.stAfrico,Second
Pi~nsr.Judgtti~nrI.C.J.Rcyarts 1966, pp.100-101(Judge van Wyk); p. 345, Foot-
noic 1 (Jiidg Jcssup).
Videpara. 13,supra.
Vid~paras. 2 and 14,srrpro.
' Videpara. 17,.supro.
' Vid~para. 15,supru.
I/& para. 15, supru.
US doc. Al64, p.13quored inpara. 17, sripya. WKi-TT€N STATEMEA'T OF SOUTHAPRICA 637

I'hc rcfcrenceto "ceriniir Sraies" and "sotrieothose terriforicsin the firsi
partof thercsolurionmay pariially beeninspired by theabsence of Japan
(which was not a Mcmbeï OI the Uniied Nations, and not prcxnt at the
Aswrnbly) and Ihecase of rmnsjordan,tu which derence was made later in
theresolution.Neverrhelts; in view or the expressrescrvations,int~ rrlia, by
South ATrim,the resalutioiimust have ken jntendedto refer thcrctoas well.

lnaddition, the invitationextended,in thesccond part of the resohtinn,fo
"th Stuftis adminisicring" mandates, to submit trustcahip agreements,
suggcsts that the GeneratPsscmbly 1-ealizcfiil[ wcllhat iherewas a class of
mandatorics which did noi fall under the "ccrtainSkties" which Iiad made
dwlarrttioiis.buwhich the~3eneriilAsscmbly neverthelesshopedwould submit
agreements '.
58. In al1ihc circumtances, the silenceon thpart of the United Nalions in
regardio supervisionofiwaridar gorernmcnt issignificantPtsMcmbcrswere
alare that time would elapse hefore the coming into eifecof the trusreeship
systtrn,and that thercwas iioccrtaintyth[ al[ rnandaredterritoricswouldend
up as trust territories(para;. 56 a51, slipra)Ye?,despite the Unitcd States

initiative in this rega=,n+,attempt was inadeto arriveat a generalarrangc-
ment either fori~if~risupt:rvision(aRerdissolutionof thc Lcügue) regarding
mandatcdtcrriioriesuntii they should kûmc trustierriioriesorforan? super-
vision at a11inrespect or niandaied territariewhich might not becorne trust
territmies.'TheLnitcd Nations made elaborate provisionfor thc "assumption"
vrccrlain 1,eague functionsand powers, and for lransfertoitof League assets,
knowing,however,thst itsrestllutioXIV in thisregardwas not designed for
supervisory functionin s r.:spect of mandates (para. 54, supra). A speçific
proposa1 envisaging investirai andonrocornrnendalion concerning possible
"trdnsfer"of "fiinciions . ..under the ~nandatcssysIem" was rejected and
norhing substitutcd for it,and evcnmore specific proposais urging United

Nations supervision inrespect of mandatcs came io nothing. The infermm
seenis inescapabIcrhat the arnissionsweredeliberate.Itis highlyun1ikelythat
itwouId have been possiblr:tuachievcagenerul arrangement appIiwbte to al1
rnmdated territoriesinvie* of thewidely varyin~circumstancespertaining to
them and the differingintentions ofthe mandatoryPoriiers in regard to their
fiilure-with the resu1tthatthematter pcrforcehadto tielefttospecinlarrange-
ment, ifany, tu bearrîvedat ieach particularcasc.
59. IIowever that might k. thc contenlsand historyor rrsoluiions XIand
XIV dcarly show thar, atthc time oftheir aùopiion heing shortty prior 10
dissolution oftheLeague of Nations:

(a)there had been no agreement,express or implied, betwecn South Airiça
and the Unitcd Niitio~tsandloriis Members whcrcby South Africa con-
sented to United Natisns suprvision regarditigthe performance of ils
functions underthe Mandate;
(h) the nnIy provision maileon the part of the United Natioriswhereby ÇUC~

agreement could possilnIyhavecamc üboui,if atall,N7asthat containedin
PartT,3,C.of resolutioiiXIV.envisaginga requestthereforby thcintertsted
partiesand agrccnient theretoby aUnired Nations organ; and
/c} in viewof the repcatedreservariorw madebySouthAfricathe Members of

VideSuurk West Africa,.Oreiimiriarj~ObjionsJltdggiiienr1..C.J. Kcporrts1962,
pp. 537-538 (jointdissrntinjopinitin <ifJudges Si'crcSpender and Sir Gcrald
Fit7mauric~).
Vide paru. 55.SiiprU.638 SAMIB[A (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

thc Lniied Narionsmust hüvc rcalizcd that thcprospects of South Africa
beingn Party tosuch a specialrequest were reinote'.

1Iii.~ague of~VatiorisResoluiottdurit~pLlisrSessionof11sAssemhly,
H io18 April 1946

60. Thc tcxtsof thcrclcvant rcsolutiotn har wcrc adopted by the League
Aswrnbty on i8 ApriI 1946 areset outabove '.
Ar wiIl appear from the prearnbIeof ihe resolution retaiing to assurnption
by thc Ur~~tcdNations of Lcagucfunctions and powcrs arising out ofinter-
nationalagreements " [theAssenlblyof thekgue had"considered"Ihebnitcd
KationsCicneralAssembIyresolution XIV aT 12 Fcbrtiary 1846 on the same

subjcct4. 'TheLcagite rcciolutianin question, as did ihe onefoIloivingupon it
and setoutabove " sspcificaIlconfineciitselto functions.powersandaciiviiics
ol a riotr-,?uii~iiharocter, and contained provisions designeci to fricilitate
assumption of such funciinns, powers and activities by rhe Gniied Nat ionsin
termsof itsresoluiiunXI\/; ii rcmainedsilcnl inrcgard tofunctionsand powers
arising out of intemational agreements ofa polirirrzi cliaractas dwlt with
Ïn Part f, 3,Ç. of the United Narions resoliition XIV. The inference secms

clwr thaithc Lcague AsscrnbIy considcrcd that thar was a mattcrin regard ta
which ithad no roleto play, andir~hichwas to be leftto the LIJho<:treatnieni
envisaged hy ]lariI, 3,C:,or Cnifed Nations resolulion XIV. In orher words,
the Leagut Asscmbly clcarly kncwthat thc United Nations wishcd each case
involvingpoliticalfunctions tohederrltwith separately,hy way ofa requestby
the interwted partiesto the United Nations and consideralion thereof by rhe
Uniied Niiiions GeneralAssembly or othcr appropriatcorgan; and ifitcon-
templated or inicnricdtrmsfer of such functioiisto the United Nationsin any
rithermanner,ircould beexpectedto havesairlso.

SI. Thij was exactly what had bccncontcmplatcd in ihcfirsfdraft proposül
by China conc~ning mandates 6. 'I'hcsecond parügraph of the drüft invitcd
the Leagu: Assem bly to expressthe view that"the 1-eague'sCunctionof super-
vising maridated ierriroriesshouldlxrriiiisfe tortcedUninjtcd ations inorder
io avoid a period of iritprrcgniiminrhe supervision of themandatory régime".
'Ihe third paragi'aphini*iiedit ro recornmend srib~nisxioof annuui reports 6y
the nrrltzdfaroriesrhe Uni!cd It'nriotzuntilthe 'Tru~tccsC hiopncil shouId bc
constituted. Here, tllen,was a proposa[invuIving a course of action diiTering

frtim that contempIated in ParrI,3, C, of the t'nitedNalions General Assenibly
resolutivnXIV: instcüd of sepnrore cnn~ideration by Ciniied Nations organsof
scpornre requests froni parties interestedinprivticuhr itiaridc~rethe proposai
envisaged transkr to the United Nations of c~ipervisoryfunctions in resptyr

'Ii isti,be noted thaithe discussionof the eventsduriny the frirmariciof rhe

United Nations and the carlymcinths of itscxisiencein the dissentinopinion of
Judgc Jessup in 1966. pp. 341-347.was nriidirectcd ioward controvçrting thcon-
clusionsdrawn hereiri. Iisacçor<iinglapparent that nothingsratçd there disiurh
hcconclusionthat ihe hlernbrrs or the Eniiçd Naiirrnde11heratelyrel'rainefrom
niilkinaoy provision forthe supervisionOCmandaredierritoriesothcrwisc than by
tliconclusion OFtrusrccshipagrccmcnrs.For a furthcrdiscussionof this par<ifIhç
said dissentincipinicinide Chap. 1X. part.66, itifua.
Vid~ para. 24sriprrr.upra.

TVidepara.u25,suprn.ion erroiieously refersto the date as 16Febru1946.
Virlr.para. 26 (cj,sripm. WRITTES STATEMEYT OF SOIITII AFKlCA 639

of nfi niundriiedrerriroriesandsubinission to the United Nations of reports by
nliniandotories..
62. It seernsquite cIear that such a proposalcould not have otitained the
unanirtioussiipport rcquircdfor a Leag~ieAsscmbIy resoltition.Hy rcason of
the reservation staied bySouth Arricain regard to South Wcst Africa-heing.
in efkct, that iieitl-iarrn:indatessystcni nor a trustees hystern should in

futui-eapply to rhe Terriro~,--tIie Unioncould not supportrhc origiwaiChinese
proposal '.Nor docs it sccrrihatthatproposal could have receivedihesupport
of thc United Kingdo~ nvhictiin terms of thestaicrncni by itsreprcscntative,
reservedits futureintentionsin rcgard to Palestine?.I-'urtherrnorc ,hereserva-
tion by its representativcof Egypt was tu theefkt that mandates would, in
his Govcrnmcnt'svieu,.terininate with the dissoluion ofthc Lcünu-. and that
PaIestine must in any event bcconsidered tohaveoutgrown thc necd forhejng
-overnedunder mandatc o!.trusteeshit3: fh~lsilaIsaseernsmosr unlikdv ihai
Egypt could havesupportedtheoriginalChinew proposai.
63. In theIightof the absve considcraiions;thesignificance of thefact that

theoriginalChinese draft uüs droppedafterinformal discussionsand replaced
by an agrccd drdft, which was lhen unanirnausly adoptcd, isself-cvident. Il
will beobxrved that in pariigriiph3of the resoliitionas adoptcd 4,theAswm-
bly"recognizes"tharon dis:;oiiitioiiof theLcaguc iisfunctiorrswith respect to
mandated tcrri~ories iviI1crimeto an end, and it"notes" the icxxisiencin the
Charter of the United Nations of principl~ "~orrespondingto" thuse of Article
22 of thc Ixagtie Cyovenant: but it says nothing in rcgard to transfcr to ihe
United Nations of the League's runctions with respcct to mandütcs, or of
sssutnptioii or continuarioriof sitch fiinc~ionby the Lnited'Kations. ln para-

graph 4 it expressesa contemplarion of "othcr arrangements"that may be
"agrced bctrvccn lhe United Nations and ~he rmpecrivcmiindatory powers";
and asregards the ilr~cript:riod,pending s~tchaweerncrit iipon"otherarrange-
~ncnts", it"rnkras nuole"of the ''e~prprrssil/errliorisof those powcrs Ioçoii-
iinue-
". . to ndtilliinis[th: territciritK]orthe well-being and developmenrof

rliepeoples concetned inaccardanw with thc obligationscontainedin the
respectiwMandates. . ."'. (Italicsadded.)
Iii althe circumstanms. the only inference ihat can bc drawn is that the
omissions in the adopted iesolutioii, as comparedwiih the originui Chinese
draft, rvercintcntionai. The authorof rhardraft had alsocnvisaged ün iirlerirn
periud. descrihedby Dr. Liiingon 9 April 1946,as foIlows: ". .. inview of the
facrthal rhetrcisteeshipcriunciofiheLliiitedNationshad noiyer heenappointed

and kvas not likcly Io bç set up for some tirne"'. and dcscribcd in the last
paragrapli of the drafr itsela< "until thc Trustwship Council sliall have bccn
çonsIiIuted :".11wasspwrificallyinres-pct of this intcrim per~odthaiilleauthnr
of theoriginal draftwished "toavoida period of iniorernitniin ihesupervision
or ilie inandatory régime"'; and conscqücntly invited the Asscmbly (i)tu
express lhe view "that the League'sfunctioiis of supcrvising mandateci terri-

Vide para. 26 (b)(if, sig,rrr.6 (h) (id.siigra.
Vide para.26 (el. sitpru.
Vide ieitin para. 26(f;'supi-u.
' L. ofN.. O,J.. Spcc.Sup.,No. t94, p. 58;para. 26 (fj,sirpuri.
* ibid. p.75; para.26 {cl,supra.
1.of N., 2lst Assrrnhly, Ist Cun-im..2nd Meeting, provisional record; para.
26 (cj. rupra. WRITTI=.N STATFME~T OF SO~H AFRICA 64 1

66. The above condusions arcfurtherco~ifirnre dy the Factrhar noncor Oie
"expressedintentions"of ~iiündatoryStates rrferred to in paragaph 4 of the
resoltltion,includd an intmtion to reportunder thcir Maridates to the United
Nations pendiiigsuch "other arrangements": they u7ercconfined foadministra-

tioti of the icrritorjes in acmrdancewith obligations regardingprotection and
promoiionof the icll-kirtg and developrnentof thc inhubiiants, and certain
of the stütcmeritscIearly suggested that thcre ivoiild be no such repnrting
pcnditigthe'+otherarrangcnten t". Tlius:

{ri) 'Thc siaienient of the South Africrinrcpresentative pointedly referredto
the "disappearance oc ihosç organs of the League concerned with tlie
s~ipervirioof mandates,primarily ihe Mandates Commission and the
1-eagueCouncil L". as:;onlethingwhich woulJ "necessarilypreclude mm-
pletecolnpliance withthe Icttcrof iheMandate $"; and inimediately before,
he had stated an intcritionof continucd administrationby the t'nion in
accordance with the ol>iigationof the Mandate,for theadvancernentand
promotion of theinteiests of iheinhabitanis, "as she hasdane during the
past sixyears whennicctings of the MandatesConiniission corrldnot be
hefdl" {and when reportswere infact not rcnderd).

(bj The Australianrcprcçr:ntativcalsu s-ied, Nrrcrdia, that-
"-4rier the dissolutionof the Leaguc of Naiinns and ihe consequent
liquidariorof thePert.vancnr ?Munrfa~esConm~ission,it will be itnpn.rsibie
ru conrinuethe niandaressysierpin itsejitiret'."(Italicsadded.)

He further intimatecithat for thc Nifcrin~pending trusteeship,he regar-
ded Chapitr XI of the Chartera5 king applicable, including the Lirnited
obligation thcrcundcr<ive.A, rticle73ru) to supply to tliIJnited Nations.

for information purposa, certain stiitis~icaland other information of a
technical nalure '. This neccssare ixIluded contemplatian uf the more
onerous obligation ulrcporting md accounring as regards cornpliance
wiih substantive mandate obligations and ihiissubmi ttingto supcrvisiori.
{c) The United Kingdoni'sinicntion wrtsexpressed as king- -

" ... io continue to iidntinisterthese territories inaccordan ceith the
gefirralpri~~cipicof'tt;eexisting mandates"'. (ltalics added.)
An interestingIight iscast on the rneaning intended to becoilveyed by

the italicixd words iiithe above quotation, by the report of the Spe-
cialComnlitreeon PaIestinc,cxtractsfrom which arequated abvve 4.One
pasi;agerends as folIuius:
"Following th<: Second World Wai, the establishment of the Uniied
Nations in 1945 andthc dissolution olthe 1-eaguc of Nations the follow-

ing yearopened a new phase inthe historyof rhe niandarory réginie .Iie
mandatory Power, in the abscnçe of tlieLeague and itsI'errnancntMan-
dates Commission, had IIOirtrernationorni~hori~yIOn41ic.ii niki~silhnti~
rcporrs wrcl generc;livnccounr for the excrcisc or iis responsibilities in
accordance with rhc rerms of thc Mandate.Having thjf inniind, at-the
finalsesion of the Li:ague Assernbly, rhr tifiiirif Kilsgdoi-epresriilniive
derlardihal Palestine would be adminisfcrcd 'inaccordance wirh the

'L. ofN., O.J.,Spec. Suri.No. 194. p.33; para. 26 (bJ (iif. srtpra.
Ihid.p,47; para. 26 (b;(vi), srrpra.
' Ihirlp. 28;para. 26(b,) (i)sripru.
' Ylne para. 44 {cjsupra. 70. The same picture ernerges froni the ficw~y Series ofthc Unitcd Nations.
As prcviously noted. üiiy inlcrnationtlagrwnicnt {which includes a unilaierul
enpagenient wliich kas boen acceptcd) rcquircd registralion interms or Article
107 or the Charter or Ariiclf- 11ofthe Cieneral Asscmbly rcgiiIationsregardinfi
registration of trcaties'.in rcspcci of thosc activities and assets which wcrc
~ratiçferredfro~n tbc Leagua IO the United Nations. proper registwtion wa^s

cffeçred. No agreenient in respectof ihe transfer of superviwry funciions in
respect of rnandatcs çan k friundin thc Tremy Series'. Again the only possiblc
inferenct: isihat the Meiiitiers participaiiriin the activitics ofthe United
Nations in the early rnonths of itexistcncc in 1845-1916, which comprisedin
the main the sanie St;itcs ivhich ~vcrcMcmbcrs or the Lvugur at ~hcIinaI
session of the Assernblyin April 1946, did not considcr that any international
agrecmcni had ben concluded during this ~ransilional period which eflecteda
substitiition of supervisory organs inrespecrof mandated tcrritorics not placcd

tindcr trusieeship.

71.The evidence shows tltasubsequentcvcnts never led to anyagreement
whereby Sourh AFrica was ;ender& obliged ro subrnit tu.thc supervisio ofn
anyLnitcd Kations orwn.
{ri)"Other arangcmcnts", as conren-iplated hy the resolurion of'lhe 1st

League Assembly were nevege"agreed upnn betwwn thc Unitcd Nations and
South Afriça. Thc Uniied Natioris wa~ not preparedto rigrec to an arrange-
ment wherehy recognition .~oiild bc given to incorporation of South West
Africa in theUnion. not.to other gropnsals suhsequcntly madc 3.On ihc othcr
hand, South Africa. for th<:reasons explaincd above. was not prepared to
agree to trusteeshipfor the 'Ikrritory3And rhere neverwas,in ierrnsor Part1,
3, C. OFIhe United Nations GeneraI Assembly's rcsoiution XIV of 12 Fcbruary
1946, any "rcqucst frorn thc parlics" or ayrcement thereto by any Uiiited

Narions organ, as to"assunipt ion" by the llnitedNhr ions of siipenlisoryfunc-
Lionsrcgardincg ontinüed rnnndalov adniinistrarionof the'Ièrritory.
(Aj A sirrvey is given abwe of thc history of ihe South African under-
takiiig, laterwithdrawn. to sribmit statisticaand other information such as
mentioned in Article 73, paragraph !ej, of the Charter. .Articl73 (el, whcre
jt applies as a marier of Law, does not involve an obligation to subrnit to
"supervision".The whde of Article 73 con~prises a counterpart in amplified
form ofArticIc23 (5) of the J~ayue Covenant, in respectof which. as indicatcd

above. no oohligation conceriting suyiervision appli'.The sutriesituationwas
intended luappty in Article 73 of ihe Charier: aiid it istothisend that para-
grriph (c) thereof ernphüsizcs that rhctransmission is tn he "for information
purpmes j".
In tliepresent case, iherc-was a purely vuiuiirnry~rnctertakingtu Furnish
information "in accordancevith" or "on the bais of" Article73 (el couplcd
with an express denial of li;ihilirtn subrnit tn United Nirti~tlssupervision,
and with an understanding {.ha1ihe inrorniationwas not to bE dealt with as

a Vide para. 2s..supulz.
Vidr para. 29.rirpuu.
Videparas. 30 to 40.siipri..
Fide Cliap. VIL,para. 48,sliprci.
' Vide Hall,op. rir.pp. 285-2812,88-2813.
Vide paras.3i , 35and 36,sttpuu.644 N4?vliDlh (SOUTIWESJ' RFKICA)

if a trustxship ayreemeiit had, in fxt, heen concluded '.Inasmuch as rhe
United Kations neirhcr awepted nur observed rhecondirions attached to thc
undertaking, in which circunistanws the undcrtaking waç withdrawn, tl~cre
was nevcr üny consetzsu(141i&irt oragreenient, express or irnplied,evenas
rtgards tliefurnishing of information in awordance with Article 73 !el.iiiuch
lcss as regards South Africa heing ohliged to subrnit lu supxvision by the
United Nations.

VI. Fracfice of'rnies

72. D~ring the yearsinlmcdiatcly aftcresiablishmeni or theUnited Karions
and the ilissoIutionof the League, the practice of States showcd a gc~icrül
understariding rhar the Lcague's suyicrvisorypowcrs in respectof mandates
had not bccn transferredto,or assuiriedby, the United Nations.
As apliean above2, Sourh Africaexpressed itsattitude very clciirlyboth
before the Fourth Cornrnittcc and bfforc thc GcneraI Assernbly during the
perind Scptcmbcr Io November 1947, to the effect thaSouth Africliwas no1

obliged to conclude a trusrwhip agreement for Sorirh West Africa, and was
not preprircd to do so,and that in the abwnce of a trust~xshipagreenient,
the United Nationshad no "rightof cvntrol or supervision3" or "superviçory
jurisdictici" in respectof South West Africa.At thar tirn iieUnited Nations
consisted of 57 Menibers, of whicli51 had beenoriginaI Mcmbcrs. OTthe SI.
31 had ken Membersuf thc Lcague ntthc timc of ilsdissoIutionand 34 had
ken originalMemhersof the League. IIad these Statesor any of thein dis-
ügrced with the SourhAfrican conlentio tnat the supcrvisory funciions of
the League had not bccn transrerred to thc Unilcd Nations, one wouId have

expwted rhern io lia~*cçontcstedit,particularly if rhcyhad been partiesta
an agrccriicnt,express or irnpliedconcludedthe previrius ycür andproviding
for such a transfer.
73. In faci,rrpresentativcsor 41 States addressedthe sarious organs of the
United Nationson the question ofSourhWesr Africaduring 1947,brrrri/110
srug~ did ony ofihem aver the e.risrenreofar~y suchngieetnmf or sngg~~f !hnr
#lies11pervisurfunc!i~n.of thehugrgtrehciûpssed ro rhe Urtiied~Varioiron QIIY
orherIiusis5.On the contrary, atIeast14 of thc 41 Stateswho took part inihe
debales, acknowIedge cither expresslyor hy cleiar implicationtliatin the

übscncc of a trustocsliprtgrccrncnt,fhc Lnited Nations would have no super-
visory powers in respector South West Africa.These were Australia, China,
CoIombiii, Cuba, France, inùia, Iraq, rhe Netherlands. NEW Zealand, Pakis-
tan, the l'hilippineKepublic,the Soviet Union, ihe UnitedStatesof Arnerica
and Uruguay
During 1948 and 1949, 4 additional States associated thcmwlves with this
view. viz..Canada, Costa Rica. Cireeceandthc United Kingdom '.
Lp 10 1919, 18 Statesithrcfcirrexpresçedthe view that inthe abscncc of a
~rusteesh aireement, the Gnitcd Nalions wtyuld have no supcrvisory poWi:ers

ivith regard to South West Africa. If South Afrim is added, the nitinber is
increased to 19.

' Vide para. 35sirpro.
Yjcfeparas.31, 35aiid 36,sripro.
Videpara. 35.sirgtpra.
' Videpara. 42,supro.
Vide para.43, sitpra. WRITTE Y STATEMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA 645

74. Whereas thcrc hüù Occn no conti-adiction in 1947, 5 Staresadopteù a
coniriiryaltitudein 1948a~d 1949 l.They were Relgium, BraziI, Cuba, India
and Lruguiy. Cuba, India and Criiguay hüd prcviously taken up a diflerent

atritiideasindicated above; and Indiadid so again, inits writtenstatement to
thisCourt in iht:1950proceedingsrelaring to iheçratusof'-11th West Africa 2.
As wi1lbe secnfrom rhet:xtractsquotcd übovc 3,nunc ofthese States %lied
on any agreement (oiherthin Article 80 (1)of the Charter) having ken con-
cludcd during the traiisifionaperiodof 1945-1945.
75. Also in respectof otlier mandated terriiories, thpracticc of Stures up
to 1948 shows a clear understanding ihat the United Nations would have no

supervisory powcrsovcr thc administrationof a mandated ierritorynot piaced
undcr trusteesh Tihis.undlmtanding appearsfrom ihe follriwing:
(ri) The rrusteeshipagreemt:ntfor the maiidatedterritoryof Nauru wasentered

inioas laieas Noversib:r IN?, i.e., more [han two years aftcr thc Chartcr
had corneinto forcc*; and theUnited Kingdom withdrew fromtheadniin-
isrrationofPalesiineririIas from 15May 1948j. Neverthelessno reports
ivcrc in the inlerirn priod subniittcto the United Nations inrcspcct of
either'lérritory.As Far as rhe Linited Kations rccords show, and as far
as the South African C'iovernrnentis awarc, no State ever suggestedthi
such rcpurtsshuuld c:ubrnii~ed-citherin respectof the='I'erritoricsor
in respectof any other muidated territories during the periodafter dis-

soiulion of the Ixaçue and prior to "new arrangements" king "agreed"
upon in rcgiirdtu thcrn.
(hj (i) The case of Palestirteis ofparticularsignificzncc inasrnuchas itwas
investigatedand reported upon by a Gnited Nations SpeciliICornmittee,
consisting of rcpresente.tivcsof11 Members of the United Nations. RcL-
vant extractsfrom the report, dared3 September 1947,arc st.out above".
It is irnporlanttO norc that this Cornrnill~u: unaniiiiouslyexpressed the

clcar undcrstanding th2.tthc UninitedNations rtid not takeover thesupcr-
visov functions of theLeague of Nations with reswct tornandatedterri-
iorieswhiçh were nut placed under trustocshipFiiveof these lI.hqernbers
(AustraIia,Canada, India,rhcNetherlands and Uruguay)at various timcs
during therelevant periodexpressedthesameview rcgarding the Mandate
for Soulh Wesr AMca. as has been notd above. The further six were
Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Tran, Peru. Sweden and Yugoslavia.

(ii) AIsoiridcbateson thePalestineqiiestionthe same view wusexliressed.
On 18 March 1948, bclore the SecurityCouncil, ihe~presentati\~e aT the
Lnited States of America stated:
"The record seenis triusentirclyclear that the United Nations did not

lake over the Lcagiie 07 Nations Mandiitc systcrn '".

' Videpara. 45, rirpra.
' Vide LC-J. Pirrndi~tg,niernatian Slltus ofSottrh H,>.rAfiira ,. 148. Vide
alstpara. 45,supra.
' !'idepara.45.sirpro.
' l'ide GA,OR, Sworid Se:,s.Sup. No. 10(A;402/Rev. 1).
' The Mandate rerminateco,n 15 %fay 1948. The last Hriti~htroops IcRFriitn
Haif8 on 3UJunc 1948. Vidiik:c>esin'uirfrnr~orarArchiv~r, Vol. VI1(1948L950).
p. 9354,
Yide paru. 44 (c).'supru.
SC, OR, Tliird Year. Nc-S36-51.271si Meeting, 19 March 1948,p.LU. Vide
para.44 (d;, sripi-il,{rj On 7:! Novemkr 1946,the representarive of New ZcaIand cleürly expi-essed
a sirnilarundcrstiinding in rclntion to the Mandate fnr the Territory of
Westc:rn Samoa '.
(4 On 2 April 1947. a siniilarunderstanding emcrged froin statements made
by th':rcprcscntativc ofthe Union of Soviet SocialistReptlblicsin relation
to thtforiner JapüneseMandatedrslands 5

76.In the rcsuIt thcrcf~ie:

(nj Up to the year 1947, no Member of the llnited Nations voiced any cun-
tradictionio South Africa's contention that in tau:the Uniied Natio~iswas
not vested with supervisorypowen in rcspccttif the Mandate for Sourh
West Africa,although 41 took part in debates on South Wcst Africii in
ihar ;jear and New Zealand had adopied a similar iOiew in relation to

Wcstcrn Samua.
{fi) Over the years 1947 to 1949, at least 24 States Menikrs of ihc Unitcd
Nations (other than SouIh Ahica) inparticipating indebütesin the organs
of the United Nstions, or in cxprcssing views in jtsagertcies, whcther
relative to the Mandate for South West Africa or io othcr rnüiidatcs,
such as Palestine and the Japanest Mandütcd ïslands.eitlier expredy or
by clciir implicationacknowlcdgcd thar, inthe absence of a rrustecship
agreement.the llnited Nations wotild have nu supcrvisory powers over

arnarrdalcd territory. TheseStates wcre:Australia,Canada, China, Coluni-
bia,<.'ostaKica, Cuba, Czcchoslovnkia. f rance.Greeçe, Guarernala, India,
Iran, Iraq, the Netherlands, h'ew ZeaIariJ,Pakistan. Pcru. the Philippine
Republic. the Soviel Union, Sweden, the Cnited Kingdorn. ihi: United
States ofArnerica. Uruguay and YugosIavia -%.
(c) Up to IWYonIy 5 States voiced any contradiclion tu thc proposition dore-
srared.Thcsc States were Bclgium, Brazil, Cuha, India and Cr~iguay. Itl
the case of the Iaqt-rnentinned 3 States. the altirudeadopied by them in

1948 and 1949wüs in conflic1 with thcircarlicr contentions. and in the
case of India iilsowith its contentions before tliis Court in I950. Arid in
no case was the contradiction based on a suggzstcd agreement or undcr-
standing(ohr ihan .4riiclc 80 (1)of thc Chaner) arrived at during the
pcriod 1945-1 946-

77. Iti.isuhrnitted thar the understanding which crrtergtr: from the above
circumstances. and iiparticulai-the wrirlcnandoraI statcrncntsinadc onbchalf
of a large numbcr of States,Menlbcrsof the llnited Nations. in a variety of
circumstances and situations, and within a relaiivs ehIrr tirneafter the csiab
lishnient of the United 'laiions and thc dissolution of the League, when the
cvcntswere stilrcasonablyfresh in meInory, eRectiveIy refutes any suggestion
of agreement, express or implied, as between Meinbers of the Lnitcd Nations

or vther intercsicd particx.lu ~hccffwt that niandatories would besubject tn
Unitedi1;itionssupervision in respct of inandated territoriesnot placed iinder
trustees . i])

' Yi& para. 44(aj, sirpru.
Vid~para. 44 (hj. strpra.
- Vide paras.42,43 and 44: x~~pro.niIie prar1947, 1948 and 1949.the Members
ol theUniredNations toralled, respectively.57.58 and 59.During the oral pr~icmd-
ings inthc Soiiflr West Afi.icascsthc Applicantssought todispute thecorrrcrness
of thc statciiicnt ithc tcxt conccrningtlicnurnhr of States.biititis subniitfed.
xrithuutsucccss.Yi& I.C.J. PfeadingsSouth WcsrAfrinr, Vol. V111,pp. 468 Crsey.
' Sirnilarlyit is submitlrd, thestù~sçussirinçlearly rcfitrc ansugpcstion that 78. To concIude theanalysis ofevents wliich occurreddurinpthe transitional
period of thc cstablishrricn<iftheUnitedNations, thedissolutionor ihe League
of Natioiis and irnmediatcl?thcrcaftcr,there isonefinal point that should be

cmptiasized. Had South Africa intended io place South West Africa uiider
Ilnited Nritions supervision, !here were two cstablishcdprocedures that might
have been folIowed. In theiirst place, airustwship agreement riiiglihaw bicn
negvtiated under the C:harieron such terms as were rnutrlallysatisfactory.
Secondly, ifSouth Africa had preferred 10 continue the Mandate rarher [han
place the 'I'ertory undcr Trustceship. South Africa might havc submittcd an
appropriate reqiiest Ithe Llnited Nations in lerms of Part1,3, C, of resolution

XIV ro assume the cxcrcjsc offunctions pre~iousIycntrusted io the organs of
the Lcague of Nations by h.rticle22 ofthe Coileeoanr and the MandateDecla-
ration '.Itisundisputedtha t neiitteof thcsc procedureswïls fotlowed. Irthese
circumstances itis notIightryto bc prmumed thatSouth Africa, whiçhdid no[
carry 0111the prescribedformalities, though ai alltimes fullyable and entitfed
to do so, son~ehow became boiind in anothcr way 2.In thiv rcgard"it is çltar
that only a verydefinite. vcry consistent course of conduct "' on the part of
South Africacouid justifytheCourt in holding that Soiith Africa became hound

to reportand üccount to th-:General Assernbly of thc Unitcd Nations as suc-
cessor to the Council of iht:League ofSations. Far from es~ablishing such a
dciinitc and consistent course of coiiduct, rhe circurnsrance s isciisseabove
servecomplctcly to negativeany consenr by South Africa tu ~hcassurripiion
of supervisory fiinctinnsinrespect cifS~~tthWest Africa hy the United Nations
General Asscmbly.

suchan obligationarose r>iii oaierrrito bc implicd in rhcMandaitDtclaration
(~IdcChapicr VII. para. 59,supru).Iti(tiisreg~rditmus1he noted that 18ofthe 24
Statcs whiçh expressed ihe u;ew during 1947 tti1919ihai the LrnitedKations did
nui suured tcithesuper vis orFunctioiis Frhç Lraguç in respectormandat=, had
bren fourider Metnbersof tliLeague ofXalions, and 17 had bcen hlcmbcrs ai the
tiriie oirs dissoliition.
' Vide paras. 52fO Sri,supw.
VfdeNorrh Sea ~ontint'n:ui SjreIJjtif!gtn~~!.C.J. Xeporr.51969,ut pp.25-26,
qriotedin Chap. II, Tara. 12Tiiprd.6-48 NAMrBiA (SOUTH WEST ~FRICA)

Annex A

PARTICIP IANIBY MEMBER SF THE NITEU EUA-IIONS IIZDEBATE 11 THAT
ORGANIZATIO DUKING THE YEARS 1947, 1948AND 1949 CONCEKXISG THE
'*QIIESTIOOFNSOUTH WEST AFRICA"

Firs !art

index IOSinren7rtrofail.?!aiewftichPnrticipnted

(in alphabetiçalorder)

Argentina
1947

FOUR-T HOMM.IITTI;~
38th Mccting, 7Ociober 1947,Mr. Liicerop.52.

1949
FOUF-TC HOMMITTEF.

130th Meeting,tl Novcmber 1949, hfr. TvrlUriburrrp.218.
134tk ,eeting, 23 November 1949.Mr. TediirUrihrru,p.242.
139th Meetirig28 Noventber1949,MT. Tedi3L'rikur~p,277.
140thMccting, 29 Novernber 1949,Mr. Tedin Uriburup.276.

Ausilia
1947

Fou~.m COMMITFEE.
39th Meeting,8 October 1947,Mu. Evari, p. 58.

PLENARY
IWth Mccting, L November 1947, Mr.i?t.~p. 581.
?'RUSTEESIIICOUKC L I

2nd !;ession1stPart6th Meeting.1 Dccernber1947,Mu. korsyrli, 122.
2nd Session,Isr Parr, 15thMeering, 12 Uecernbcr 1947..'tff-ùrsyfh,
pp.476, 494, 506; Mrhontes, p.509.
2nd Session, 1stI'art, 18th Meeting16 Decernber 1947,Mr. Forsyth,
p.585.

1948
TR tic~rrirr~{>IINLCI
3rdSession.3ist Meeting.23July 1948,.Mr. Forsyth, P.409.
3rd Session.41srMeeting4,August IWB, Mr. Forsyfh.pp.532,536. 538.

3rdScssion, 42nd Mccting, Augus~ 1918,;Mr.k>r.~-vpp.510, 542. 545,
546,547, 548,544.551,552.
1949

FOURTH COMMIT~EE
134th Meeting, 23 Novembcr1949, Mr. Iluudp. 238.
/Y49

TRUSTEESH CIPNCIL
5thSession,25tli Meeting, 20 Ju1944,itlrIfood,pp.310, 312. WKlTTES STATEMLSTOF SOUTH AFHlCA

Belgium
1947
FOURTH ~OM~~ITTEE

33rdMeeting, 27 Septernber1947,Mr. Ryckmnns. p.17.
38thMeeting 7Ociolwr 1947. ,W.Ryckrnans, p.52.
441hMeeting, 14Octrbbcr1947,Mr. Ryckinairs, p. 90.
45th Mccting, 15 Octckr 1947, 1%. Ryckmnns, pp. 94, 96.

.I'RIISTEESHCIPCSCII.
2ndSession, 1st Part, 41hMeeting, 1 December 1947, Afr-R-vcktnaits,
pp. L74, 125,126, 128.
2nd Session,1stPiirt. 15thMeeting, 12Deceniber 1947,rVr.Rycknttlm,
pp.473,482, MY. 497. 501.
2ndScssion, 1stPart, 18thhleeting,16Dcwmber 1947, AriR-vcknion.~,

pp. 576,577, 580,595.a.
1948
FOUR-rC-nOMMITTEE
79th Mwling, 12 Novmber 1948, Mr. Rycki?iatis,p. 324.

82nd Mocting, 17 'loi-einber 1948,iMRyckntnns, p. 362.
83id Meeting1 .8Novernber 1948 , r. Ryckinairp.,372.
84th Mc~ting, 19Nov-mbcr 1948,Mr. Ryrknirms, p. 375.
T~us~ees~rr tou~ctr-

3rd Session,31stMeeting,23 July IY48,iMr.Kycktrrons,pp. 406,410,412.
3rd Session, 41st Meeting,4August 1948,illrRycktnaiis, pp. 531,535,
536.
3rd Session,42ndMeeting, 4 August 1948,iMr. Ryckniaris, p540, 542,
543, 544, 545, 547, 54549, 550,551.

1949
For:nr1C~!-l~lî-l'k~
129thMccting, 18Noveniher 1949.M. dc Bruync,p. 211.
I32nd Meeting. 22 Novernber 1949,Mr. de CIrrtynp. 227.
134th Meeting,23 Novernber L949,.W. de Brtryripp. 238:242.
137thMecting, 25 Novenlber 1944 , r.Fcmux, p.257.

139t h eeting, 28Novembcr 1949, Mr. F~miix, p.277.
140th Meeting,29 Novcmbcr 1949, ilfrFenaux, pp.280;282.
PLENARY
269thMeeting, 5 Dwnrber 1949. Mr. f-fheu~p. 533.

TRUWEFSHC IOUNCIL
5th Session,1st Meeting, 15June1849. Mv. R}~L'X.mrili2...
' 5thÇcssion,25thMeeting,20July 1949,ilfr.R~cA-nintis,pp.3IO,312.

Boiivia
947
FOIJRTHC'<)M~IITTEE

401hMeeting. YOctoher 1947, ,MT.Aforelru,p. 51.
BraziI
15347

' Fou~t-nCOMMI-I-I.EE
33rdMering, 27 Septcmbcr 1947,'iZfPe~tlrudu,p. 15.
3YtliMeeting,8Octolier 1847,Mr. Pcnleado.p. 55.650 NAMIBIA (soin'~WET AFRICA)

1948
FOLR-TC H'OMMITTEE
78th luleering1I Koiiember 1948.Mr. iwai~, p. 318.

1949
FULU- HICOMMI-1-I-FE
13 1stMeeling, 21 Novcmbcr 1949, rWr.d'Aqrri~10pp. 219,220,222, 223.
132nd Meeting, 22Noveinher 1949, Mr.d'Ayiiinnp. 223.
135th Meeting. 24 November 1949,Mr. cr'Ayrrim,p.143.
136th Mceting, 15 h'ovcmber1949.Mr. d'Aqilino,p.353.

I37ihMeeting, 75 November 1949, :Wr.Jnfiim, p. 256.
139th Meeting,28 Novelnber1949,Ilfr. fobim,p. 269.
140th Mceting,29 November 1949, Mr. Juhiripp. 274,278, 281.
PLENP.RY
269th Meeling, 6 Demrnber 1949,Mr. d'riyiiitio, p. 759.

Bunna
1948 .
Foü1i.1-CCIMMITTEE

82nd Mccting, 17 Noven-iber 1948,LiSo #yuri,p. 363.
ByeIornssirrnovietSocialistRcpubIic
1947

FOIIKTI CIAMMITTEE
32nd Meetiiig25 Septem ber 1947.iWr.Sliniibrov,p12.
41th Meeling, 9 Ot-tobcr1847,Mr. KiseIeb'pp. M, 66.
Canada

1947
FOUR VHCCIMM~ITEE
38ih Mccting, 8 October 1947,Mr. Braderre,p. 56.
47ih Meeting, 73 Octokr 1947. :W. Dr(;~Jctf..106.

1949
FOUKM COMMT I-1
132nd Meeting, 22N ovembcr 1949, :\.Iajor-GenerafBrtrns,229.
136th Mocting. 25Nnvember 1949, Mr. Bluis, p. 250.
138thMeeting, 26 Novemkr 1949, Mr. Bhis, p.267.
139thMeeting. 28 November 1949. Mr. £Vais,p.268.

ai le
1947
fou^ rH COMMI-1-I.EE

401hM~~ting,9 October 1947, Mr. Solo.ri6I.
1949
FOUHTI I:#MMITTF.F.
134thMceting.23 November 1949. Mr. Vulrnr~rr/a,p237.

139th Meeting,28 Novembcr 1949,Mr. Va/eniire/ap. 272.
China
1947
FOLK-r rrC'I)M~~ITTF.F,

31stMeeting, 25 Septeinber1947,Mr. LiiiClridi, p. 6.
38th Meeting.7 October 1947,Mr. LilrCl~iclr,p. 51.
40th Mccting, 9 Octokr 1947, ,+fr. LC'hi&, pp.61. 65. WRIïTEN STATE51ENTOF SOUTH AFRICA

45th Meeting, 15Oct ober 1947,Mr. Liu Chirh,p. 95.

PLENAKY
105th Meeting, 1No~rernber 1947,Mu. Chirh. p.598.
TRUSEESHIC POU'ICII.

2nd Scssion, [SIPar..,6th Meeting, 1 December 1947, Mr. Liu Chieri,
pp.121, 123, 125. 12+, 131133.
2ndSession, 1st Part, 15th hfccting12 Dcocmbcr 1947, MT. Liu L%iek,
pp.473, 478.485, 48ii498, 501,502. 503, 504. 505,507,510,5 11.
2ndSession. stPart, 18thMeeting. 16Decenlber 1947, Mr.ti,iMoiislieng,
pp. 575, 577, 578, 58Air. Liir Cfrich,p. 601.

1948
FOURT~ COMMITTEE
761hMeeting, 9 Novcmber 1948, 1Wr.Liu Chiejr,p. 394.

77th Meeliiig,IO Noveiiiber 1948,Mr. LiriCkirk.p. 299.
T~usrk~snirCOUNCII.
3rdSession, 31stMeeting. 23 JuIy 1948, Mr. Liu Chkh,pp. 411, 414.
3rd Session, 4IstMeeting, 4 August 1948, ,tirLiu Cl~ich,pp. 532.535
(President),536.

3rd Sessiun, 42nd Mceting, 4 August 1948, hfr.Liu Chieh,pp. 540, 541
(Pra~ident), 542 (Prcuidcnt),54(I'resident,48,548(Prcsidenr),S5I1551
(President).
1949

FOU KI FICDM>~IT~EE
128thMeeiing, 18 N~ivernbcr 1949,dur.Lki,p. 208.
134thMeeting, 23 Kc~vcrnber 1448,,Ur.Liu,p. 237.
I39thMeeting, 28 h'rivembcr 1949, ,Mr. TuIIp. 771.
140thMecring,29 Kclvernber 1949,Mr. Lilipp. 277. 280.

TRU.FTEESI HOPUNCII.
5th Session,27th Meeting. 21July 1949, Mr. Litip. 334.
Culwnbia

1947
FOURTH C~MMITTEF:

33rd Meering, 27 Septembcr 1947,:Mi-. Yepes,p14.
40th Mecting. 9 October 1447.itfr. Sotirdis,64.
PI.F.NARY

105ih Meeting,1 Novernbcr1947.Mr. Yrprs. p.602.
Costa Rica
1947

FOURTL HOMMITTEE
40th Mcciing, 9 OctoSer 1947,Afr. Fournier,p.53.
TRIISTEES > I OUNCII

2nd Session,1st Part,15th Meeting, 12 Dccernkr 1947, Mr. ~~eorales,
pp. 476,488. 499. 5!W.
1948

Fnrl~~irC0h4>11~1EE
83nd Meeting, 17Nw~enîbcr1948, Mr. Cnrrrisp. 365.
84th Mccting, 19 No1,crnber 1948,Mr. Cinros,p. 374.052 XhMIBlA(SOLTH WEST AFRICA)

TRUSTEES HOIUKCII,
3rd Session42nd ,Veeting,4 August 1948,rLlrCR RU pS.341, 546,548.

1949
TKGSI EESHIPCOWCIL
5thSesdon, 1siMccting, 15JurieIMY, Mr. Cam, p. 3.

Cuba
1947
FOURT iCOM MI~ E E

32nd luiccting25Scpiember 1947,hfr. .tfeyepr,9.
39th Meeting,8 October 1947,Mr. M~yer, p.55.
47th Meeting, 23Iktaber 1947,hr. :Wcyer,p.105.
1948

FOURTH COMMI~EE
82nd Iviceing, 1Yovcmber 1948, Mr. PérezCis~reros,pp. 353GG.
84th Meeting, 19Novernkr 1948, Itfr. PiriCisiieros. p. 373.
1949
FOUR-:H COMVIITFI:

130th Meeting, 21November 1949, Mr. Pkei Chieros,pp. 216, 217.
I3Ist Mceting,21 November 1949,Mr. PérezCisneros,pp.219,221, 222.
134th Meeting,23 Novcnibcr 1949 , r.Iipez. p. 236.
136th Meeting,25Noveinber 1949,Mr. fipez, p.251.
139th Meeting, 28 November 1949, Mr. Lfipcz, 271.
I40th Meeting,29 Novcmbcr 1949,Mr. Gpe:, p. 280.

CrkchosIo\'akia
1947
FOUR 'HCOMMITTEE

45th Mccting,15 Octuber 1947,:Ur. Hyka, p.95.
1948
FUU K'THCOMM TEE
80th Mcciing,13 November 1948,Dr. Ci~ylep.335.

I)efimark
1947
FOURTH COMMLTTEE

31si Meeting,25Septembei 1947,iMr, Larinwtgp.8.
33rd Meeting, 27 September1947, Mr. La~tnutig,p. 17.
38th Meeting, 7October 1947,Mr. L(innung,p.46.
40th Meetmg.9 October 1947,Mr. Lannurg, p.63.
45th Meetrng,15 October 1947,Mr. I~irnit~ipp.93,95.
47th Meeting, 23 October1947,,%gr.t~nuitg,p.106.

PLENARY
104th Meeting1 'lovernber 1947Afr.Lartrzungp.574.
1948

Fou~~rnCOMM I.ïEE
8 1stMeeling,16 November 1948, Mr. Lnnnutg, p.348.
82ndMccting, 17Yovcrnbcr 1948,Pfr.Lunirurtp.355.
PLENARY

IMth Meeting,26 November 1948.Mr. Lcinrrung,p. 577. WR1T)'ENSTATUENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

1949

PI.ENAKY
269thMceting. 5 DeceinberiY.19,Mr. Latirrrrrp.529.
hrninimn Rcpublic

1948
FMJRTH COMMITTEE
82nd Mccting,17 November 1948, :W. de !Ffarc.hetf.,361.
1949

FOURTH COMMITTE~
130th Meeting.21 Nciveinber1949,Mr. de Marckerui,pp. 217214.
I31st M~~ling,21 I\jovernbcr1949IW~.de Murcheiia, pp.220, 222, 223.
132nd Meeting, 22 N.3venlbe1949,Mr. de Marchenn,pp. 223, 229.
135th Meeting, 24 Ncivember1949,>MT .e .Wdrchciia,p247. CI
137thMeeting, 25 Nrivernbcr1949,:Wr .e ~Warchen~ t.257.

139th Meeting,28 Nrivember 1949,Mr. de .%farclre~a.277.
140th Meeting, 29 Nrwember 1949,Mr. de Marchena,pp. 274, 276.
Egypt '
1947

FOURTH COM~IITTEE
32nd Meeting, 26 Septernkr 1947TII~CEIl-ScfyedBey Nnsr, p. 13.
38th Meeting, 7 Octobcr1947, TuhoEi-Sayed Bey Nosr, p. 51.
1949

Fov~~ci COSIMI~EE
I37thM~~tin~25Nc~vember1~49,~Mr.Farrag,pp.257. ,258.
France

1947
FO~JH.C III ~IMI'CTEE
32nd Mccting, 26 September 1947, Mr.Mayer, p. 11.
39th Meeting,8 Octo:xr 1947,tMr. hfayr, p. 53.
40th Metitifi9 OctoTxr 1947,,Ur. ~I/fay~, . 66.

45th Mccting, 15Octiikr 1947, Mr.~Ma.vcrp,.95.
Tavs~r-.~st~~* L'SCIL
2nd Session,st Part,ijrhMeeting1Decernber 1947,Mr. Carreau,pp.126,
130, 132.
2nd Scssiun. 1stPari, 15th Meeting, 12Decernber 1941,iMr. Carreau,
pp. 471, 472. 480, 484, 5508, 510,511.

2ndSession, 1stPart, 18th Meeting,16 Ueccrnber 1947, Mr. Gnrreai~,
pp. 578,579,580,594 597,MK), 6û3.
1948
Frirr~~riCVMM~TCEE

79th Meeting,12 No%ember 1948,ith.Garreou, p.322.
TRUSTEES~C IOPCNCIX.
3rd Saion, 3lst Meeting, 23 July1948,Mr. Gurreau,pu. 407, 49, 415,
416.
3rdSession,41st Mectiny,4 A~igust1948,Mr. Garrecinpp. 533,535,537,
538,538.

3rdSession,42nd.Ma:ting,4 August 1948,Mr. Gr~rreai,p. 542,544 .47,
549. 654 KAMtBIh {SOUTH WEST AE'RICA)

IY4Y
FOUKT CH'C~MMITTTT.

130th:Meeting, 21Novembcr 1849,Mr. Gnrrrarr,pp.215, 217,219.
13Ist Meeting21 Novemher 1949.;Mr.Cnrrenu, pp.720,221, 212.
I33rrMeeting, 23 Novcmber 1949,Mr. G~ctrreau1,230.
134thMeet inç. 23 Novemher 1949,iWr.Gnrreuu.pp. 240, 241.
I36th Meeting,25November 1949,!Wr.Gorvearr.pp. 252, 254.
137thMeeting, 25November 1949,Mi-. G~rreuu.pp.255, 256. 257.
138th Mccting, 26 Koveinkr 1949,Mr. Garrenu, p.267.
139tlMeeting, 18Noveniber 1949, Mr.Gnrr~au, pp.269, 271.
140th Meeting, 29Noveinber 1949,Mr. Garreciu,pp. 274,279,281.

Tnus~its~rr Cou~cr~
5thSasion, 25tli Meeting, 20 July 1949,>%L.rir~titi~,311.
P 5thSession.27thMoering. 21July 1949,!Mr.Gorreo~~p,p.330 {President),
331(President)332 (l'residcnt).

Grecce
1947
FOIJRT- CIOMMITTEE
33rd Meeting.27 Septeniber 1947. .+IDia~~ianropor~lups.,14.

1948
FOURTH COMMITEL
791h Meeting: I2 Yovcmbcr 1948, Mr. Trrino.7p.320.

82ndMceting, 17 Novemkr 1948,Alr. Tr~nos,p. 353.
1949
FOCRI'H COMMITTEE
131stMeeting, 21November 1949,Mr. I.&, p.219.
133rdMceting, 23 h'ovemkr 1949,Mr. Lely, p.232.

1Wth Meeting, 23 Novcmbcr 1349, Mr. LeLv, p.138.
135thMeeting, 24 November 1949,Mr. f~ly,p. 242.
137th Mwring. 25 November 1949, :W. LeS: pp.256, 257, 258.
PI.EKARY
269th Mecting, 6 Dccernkr 1949.:W. Lei): p.530.

Guakmala
1947
FOLWH C'OMM~TTEE

71stMeeting.25Septcnibc 1947,Mr. :l4~tirbzup.8.
40thMt~ting. YOctober 1947,Mr. Mendoza, p. 63.
1'~tsnnu
105th Meeting,I h'ovemkr 1947,114~~.lfendotap.604.

1949
FOURTH COMMITTEE
I30th Meeting, 21Navernher 1949, .W.Merrclozu,pp. 217,218.
l3lst Mccting, 2Novernbcr 1949,Mr. Mirndoza,p. 223.
l3Znd Meeting,27 Novembcr 1949.,Wr.M~ndoin, pp. 276,129.
133rd Meering,23 Kovemkr 1949, IW. Afetiduzri.p231.

1341h Meeting,23 Novetn ber 1949,!Mr Wendozn. pp. 776, 241.
135thMeeting,24 November 1949, MY. meti id op..244.
135th Meeting,25 November 1949, Mr. ~Ifendozupp. 252,753.
1371hMeeting, 25 'lovember 1949, :Wr.M>t~doza,pp. 254,255,257,258. wnrrtrN STATE,MEKTOF SOUTH AFRICA 655

139th Meeting, 78NrivemberI949, Mr. ;llendozapp. 268.270,271.
140th Mocting, 29 Ncivcmber1949.Mr. Mrndota. pp. 273, 274,279.
141s Meeting.1 Deccmber 1949,Mr. !IIendozap. 282.
PLENAKY

269thMeeting, II3ecemkr IW9, Mr. I%fet~doza p,533.
Iqaiti
1947

Foun-r~COMMITTFE
3tnd Meerinç,76Sepremkr 1947,Mr. Dnrsirri~il.. 17.
41th Meeting,9 Ociokr 1947,Mr. Dor.sirivip. 59.
PLENARY

105th Meeting, 1Noi'ernber 1947.~lfrVierrxp. 606.
1948
Fuu~rn COMMITTEE
79th Meeting, 12Navernber 1948,Mr. Apoiloiip.371.

1949
FOURT H OMMIT-I.EE
13lstMccting,21 Nc.vember 1949, Mr. Alexispp. 720, 221.
132ndMeeting. 22 Novernher 1949,:W. Aie.risp.228.

133ràMeeting, 23 Novernber 1W, Mr. Alcxî~,p.234.
134thMeeting, 23 h'civember1949,Mr. AIexis. pp. 738740.
136ih Meeting. 25Noveaber 1949,Mr. Afexis, p. 254.
137thMcering, 25 Noveriihr 1949,Mr. Alexis,pp.255,256.
138th Meeting,26 h'rlvcrnber1949Mr. Ale-risp.265.
1391hMeeting, 28 Nrwerriber 1949,Mr. Alexis, pp268, 270, 271.
140ihMccting,29 Novernbcr1949,Mr. Afexis, pp. 274278.

Honduras
1947
FUEN-I-C HOMMIITEE

33rd Meeting, 27 September1947, Mr. ACrurudn 'I'rociwï,p. 18.
India
1947

FOUni n COMHITTEE
31st Meeting,25 Sepi.ember1947,Rajuii SirMnharuj Singk,p.4.
32nd Meeting,26 Septeinber1947,R&h Sir MuharajSit~h, p.4.
33rd Meeting, 27Scptcmber 1947,Rnjnh Sir MaharcrjSirigli,p.18.
38rhMeeting, 7Clcto ber 1947,RujriSir dtfuharajSirigh,45.
. 40th Mccting, 9Oçtober 1947, RajahSir Mafirirr~j.Ting/?62.
45th Meeting, 15Ocrobcr 1947,Rajah SirMnharnj Sitigip. 93-

PL~SARY
1IMth Meeting, Noscrnbei 947, RajahSir Malraruj Sind, p.573.
105ih Meeting, I Nw~erribe1947, Mrs. Pandirp.596.
105thMeeting, 1 Noienihr 1947,RaBh Sir :Wrih~~rrtjSit~~:h,22,Mg.
1448

FOURT H OMMITTEE
77th Meeting, INo-tcrnber1948,Mrs. Paridil, p.300.
8 st hleeing, 6 Knvernkr 1948, Mrs. Panciip. 351.
87nd Mccting,17 Ne-vernbcr1948,,W. ShiW Rno, p. 358.650 NAMIBIA(SOVI'H WESTAI:RTCA)

83rd hleeiing, 18Novernber1948,Mr. .Thirho, pp. 369370-
84th Meeting,19 November 1948,Mr. Shiva Ruo,pp. 373376.
PLENARY
164th Msrting,16 Nowtnkr 1948,Mrs. Pandit,p. 582.

1949
FOURTH COMWITTFE
129th Meeting,18 Novernber 1949,,W. Shiva Xao,p. 210.
I3Ist lilceti21Novcmbcr 1949,Mr. Shiw Rcw,pp. 220,221.

I32nd Meeting, 22 November 1949,Mr. Shivaho, pp. 224,226.
134th Mceting,23 Novemtier 1949,Mr. Shim Run, p.235.
136th Meeting,25 Navernber 1949, Mr.Shtm Rao, pp.251,253. +
137Lh ifeeting25Novernber1949 ,4r. Chaiidhiri,p. 255.
138th Meeting,26Èiovcmber 1949M.F. Chatldhüri,p267.
339th Meeting, 78h'ovemkr 1949,hfr.Chaudhitripp.268,269.
340th Meeting,29 h'oveniber19-4 9r. ChuurlRurip.277.
I'LENAI~Y

269th Meeting,6 Wmber 1949,Mt..C;kaitdhurpp. 530,535.
Iraq
1947

FOURTH &MMUTT.E
32nd EiIeeting,26 Septen~bI947, .WrKlurCidy, IO.
33rdMeeting, 27 September 1947,Mr. Kliaiidy, 17.
40th Meeting,9 Octohr 1947, Mr. Khaiidpp. 60,65.

PLENAHY
105th Meeting,1 Novemkr 1947, Mr. Jarriafi, p. 631.
TRUSTEESI CIP uhcL

2nd Session1stPart,6thMwling, i Decemkr 1947,]Ur.Khalidy, pp- 121,
126,128, 131,132.
2nd Session,1st Part,15th Meeting, 12Ik~ecember1947, Mr. Khalidy.
pp. 482,492,493,494,496,500, 506:508,509, 512.
2nd Session, 1stPart,18th Meeting, 16 December 1947, Mr. Kkalidy,
pp. 578, 579, 580, 595W, MU.
tY#

FOURT HOY MI'I-TEE
79th Meeting, 12November 1948,Mr. Khdidy, p.322.
82nd Meeting, 17Novcrnber 1948.Mr. KfiuIidyp. 364.

TRUSTEESH CPUXCIL
3rd Session, 42ndMeeting, 4 August 1948,Mr. Khaliriypp.540, 541,
544,546, 548, 550.
1949

TRCSTIIESH CIPUNCt I
' 5thSession,25th Meeting, 70July 1949Mr. KhaIidy,p.3L2.
5th Sesion, 27rh Meeting21July 1949,Mr. Khaiidy,p.334.

Israel
1949
FOURTH COMMIT~~L

132nd Meeting,22 Kovei~iber 1949M. Mrrmaii, p.229. WRLI'IENSTATEMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA

Liberia
1947

FOURTH COMM~ET:
33rd Meeting, 27 Scpteniher 194.MT .emis, p-17,
40th Lfccting,9 Octobe1947.Mr. den nip.,61.
f949

FOURTH Coht~rrn~
132nd Meeting,22 Novemher 1949,Mr. KoTetikyp.288.
134thMeeting, 23 NovemberI944, Mr.Kirig, p242.
136th Meeting,25 Sovcrnbcr 1949,Mr. Kim, p. 251.
139th Meeting, 28 Novemher 1949,1MrKing, p.249.
14th hieting, 29 Noverriber1949,Mr. Cooper,p.280.
PLENA~~Y

269th Meeting,6 Demmber 1949,Mr. Couper, p.531.
Mexico

1947
FOURTH COMMIT-~EE
33rd Meeting, 27 Septernbe1947,.W.Padifia Nrw, p.16.
39th Meeling,8 Octc-bt1947,Mr. PudiffaNervo,p.54.
PLENARY

105th Meeting, 1 No-irembe1947,Mr. PudifinXervu, p591.
TKUSTEES CHOC'NCIJ.

2nd Session,1stPart ,th Mcctiny,1Deceinber1947,Mr. Padiiiu .%'ervo,
p. 129.
2nd Scssion,1st Part, 15th Meeting12 Doccrnkr 1947, Mr. Noriega,
pp.475,483 492, 49'1,499509.
2nd Session,1st Part, 18thmeeting,16 December 1947.Mr. Nvriegu,
pp. 573,593,594,596,597,548, 599,604.005.
1948

Fou~rtrCOMMITTEE
79th Meeting, 12 No~ember1948,Mr. Nuriegu, p.326.
82nd Meeting,17 Nc.vember 1948,Mr. hloriega, p. 36û.
84thMeeting, 19Nwernber I948,iMr. Noriefa, p.377.
TRUS~EESHC IOUNCII,

3rd Session,1stMei:ting, 23 JuIy 1948,iMr.PadiNerva, pp. 408,414.
3rdSession,41s Meeting,4 August 1948,Mr. ,Voriegapp.533,535,538.
3rdSession4, 7ndMeeting,4 Augusi1948,Mr. Noriega. pp541, 543544,
545, 546548, 549.
1949

FOURT CHOMMI~E
130ihMeeling, 71 November 1949,:Wr.Aroriega,pp217,218.
131stMeeting,21 Nrlvernber1949,Mr. Nvriegu, pp219. 221.
134th Meeting23 Noveniber1949, iWr.Noriega, pp. 23238.
136ih Meeting,25N.li>vcmbe1r949, MrXoriera, p.251.
137thMeeting, 25Niivember 1949,Mr. Noriegu,pp.256,257.
139th Meeting,28 Niiveniber 194,W. I\'oriega,pp. 26270.
140th Mceting, 29 N~vember1948, Mr. l\roriegpp.173,277, 280,281,
282.658 SAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFK~CA)

TRL'S~ESH LPOUNCIL
5th Session,1stMeeting ,5 .lune 1949, ,MPudifia~Vervopp. 2, 3.
5thSession, 15thMcctinp. 20 JuIy1949, Mr. Noviegu, pp.310. 312.
5th Session27th Meeting, 21July 1949. ,Wricgn+pp. 331, 335.

Nethwlandl
1947

FOUR-rn Cohihirrr~ri
31st Mecting.25 September1947, Air. Ktirt~Icup,.8.
38th Meeting. 7October 1947, Mr. Kernkainp,p. 5.
45th klceting.15Octohr 1947,Mr. Kertzklr?ip. 93.
47th Meeting,23 October 1947,iMr. Krrnkatiipp. 1M.
PLENA'IY

105th I+l~etirtgNovcmbcr 1947,~Ifr.Kertzknnip,p. 605.
1949
F~URTI I ~IMMITEE

136th Meeting, 25 Novernber 1949, Mr.Spils,p.251.
Xew Zwila~d
1947

FOURTH CL~MM Et-1-1
33rd Meeting,27 September1947,Sir Car! Bereiickerl,p17.
- TRUSTI~ESH COIPLSCIL

2nd Session,1st Part, 6th MeetingI Decenibcr 1947,SirCdrl Rereiiristiii,
pp. 123, 126,127,132.
2ndSc3sion, 1stPari, 15tMeeting. 17I>ecenib 194r7,Sir CariBercnd~en,
pp.47.3.508.
1948

TKUST~;ESH COII~IKCIL
3rdSeisinn, 31sMeeting, 23 JiiI1948,:'IliReid, pp. 409413.
3rd Session,42ndMccting, 4August 1948,;1.fReid: pp. 545,550,51,552.

1949
TKWST~<ES CHoi?ict~
5th Session,25th Meeting,20 July 1949,SirCari Berer~d~ret., 311.
5th Session:27th Mccting, 2l Jury 1949Sir Car[ Berendse~p. 334.

Niiraragua
1947
FOURTHCOMMI~EE

38th Meeting. 7Dctokr 1947,Mr. Sniisori-Terair,p.57.
Norway
1949

FOLKTIC IU~IMITTE~
129th Moeting, 18November 1949, Mr. Wurm-Muller, p. 212.
134th.Meeting,23 November 1949,hfr. Worrn-MuIIer,p. 241.
Pakistan

1947
FOURT IICOMM!T~EE
39th mcting, 8 Octnher IW7, Mr. Pirtadu!p. 54. WRITI'ES STATEkIENTOF SOWTHAFRICA

P1.fSARY
105th Mccting, Nor-crnbcr1947 .r. Piricldp. 617.
1948

FOURTH COMMITTFE
78th Meeting, I1 No\emlier1948, !W. Chu~rcihury. .314.
1949

~UK-I H COMMI'TTEE
135thMeeting, 24 Ncveniber 1949, IM~.Shhban, p. 243.
Paiiama

1947
FOURTH COMMITTEF,
33rd Meering.27 Sepiember 1947,Mr. Ifhiccrrp.16.
401h Mccting,9 Octokr 1947,Mr. iWoraIcs,p.61.
45rhMeeting, 15October 1947,,Ur. flfricp.94.

Peru
1947

F<:ciriurOMMI'IIFE
39th Meeting,8 Oçtolxr 1947,Afr. Laharikep. 56.
1949

FOUKTH COMM~TEE
136th Meeting,25 Nrvemkr 1939 ,Wr. ARmio Currm, p. 252.
PhilippineRepublic

1947
FOURTH COMM~ET,
31%Meeting, 25 Sept.itnhr1947.Griirrul Roinuin, 7.
391h Mceting, 8 Octoller 194G~rtcrniRotnulop.57.

'I'~i:sm~sn~COUNCIL
2ndScssion, 1stPart, 6thMeeting, I Dc~rnbcr 1947, itlitg/4s,p. 127.
2nd Session,1sPart,iSth Mcetiiig, December 1947, Mr. Ingik., p472,
475,495.
2ndSession, 1stPart,!8lh Mecting, 1Dcccrnber 1947,Mr. Ingjésp. 600.
1948

Folin~rrCOMMITTEE
78ih Meeting,11 Novcrnbcr 1448,Mr. Lripeï,p. 316.
79th Meeting, 12Kovernhei 1948,Mr. Lope:, p.326.
82ndMeeting, 17Nosernber 1948, iMr.Lbper,p. 361.

THUSI~ESH COPLNCIL
3rd Session,31stMwing, 23 Jiily 198.Mr. Cr~rpin. p408, 413,415.
3rdSession,42ndMei:ting, 4 August 1948.Afr.Carpio, pp.547,550,552.
!Y49

FC>L'R ICI<)M~II~EE
128th Meeting,18 November 1949,iMr.I~~IC:. F,203.
129thMeeting, J8 November 1949,hfr.Cnrpio,p.212.
133rdMccting,23 Novcmkr 1949, 114r.I~tflks,p, 231.
138th Meeting,75 November 1949,.Wr,iq~iP.~-,267.
139h Meeting,28 November1949,:Mr.Cnrpio, p.268.

140th Mecting,29 Novcmber 1949,Mr. Crtrpio, pp.274278, 280. TRUSTEFSH CIPL'NCII.
5th Se:;sioii,25Meeting, 20July 1449,Afr.irgks, pp.309, 311.
5th Session27th Meeting, 21 Jul1949,lMr. Iqfés, pp329, 330,333,335.
PoIand

1947
FOURTH COMMITTEE
31st M-eeting25 September 1947,Ilfi-.Drufwjuwskip.6.
38th Meeting, 7Uctobcr 1947.Mr. Drohojowski, p.49.
45th Meeting, 15October 1947, Mr. Bramson, p.94.

471hMeeting. 23 October 1947, ,W. llrumstrnp.106.
PLENARV
104thMeeting, 1Novernber 1947,hlr. Z~1irnn:~kp..589.

1948
FCIUR IIC~MMITTEE

1Mth Meeting, 26Novernkr 1948,Mr. Zebrowski,p. 590.
1949

R)UR~,I CIOMMI'I-TEE
134th Meeting. 23 Novcrnbcr 1949, hfrZetiroivski,p240.
135th Meeting,24Novernber1949, Mr. Zebruwski, p.248.
139thMecring, 28 Novernber1949, Mr. Zebron,ski, p271.

Founl H COMM~EE
82ndMeeting, 17 Novemkr t948,Mi-.Bergïall,p.357.

FOURT H OMM~E
32nd Meeting, 26Septemkr 1947, Entir Rdd ArsIun,p. 11.

43th Meeting. 15October1947, Mr. Zeineddin,p.W.

105thMeeting ,Navernkr 1947,;W.Zein~ddin.p. 61fi,

F<)IJR ICIOMMITTEE
130th Meeting, 21 November 1949, Mr.Mi~fihirp.214.
13Ist Meeting2I Novenikr I949, :Wr.rtltgkir, 223.
140th MeeIing, 29 November 1949,Mr. rWtighirp. 279, ,

ThaiIand
1949
FOURTH COMM~EE
128thMeeting, 18 Ir;overnkr1949.Prim Wun Wai!huyuknn, p.208.

I33rdMeeting,23 Novernber 1949,Prince Wan Wairhayakon, p. 232.
134th Meeting,28 Novernber1944,Prince WUIPWaiihnyakon,p.271.
I401h Meeting,29 November 1949, Prince Wor~M;aiihu~~(&on p,p. 275,
279, 282. PLENARY
269th Meeting, 6Decmtbc 949,Prince Wu~iWuirfr~~~vc~pE.5r,4.
LkrsiinianSwief SocialisRcpubIic

1947
FOUKTH COMMITTEE
32nJ Meeting,26 Septemtier1947,iMr. Voim, p.13.
40th Moeting, 9 Octollc1947,.W. Vuintip.59.

Union ofSonth Africa
1947
FOUR-IH ~MMITTEE

3Ist Meeting, 25 Sepicniber 1941,Mr. Lnwrcrrcc,p. 3.
32nd Mccting, 26 September1947,Mr. Lawrr~c~,p. 9.
33rd Meeting,27Seprernh e447,Mr. Lawrence,p. 15.
38th Mreling, 7 Octolxr 1947iWr.Lowrenre, p.47.
40ih Meeting,9 Octol~r 1947,ML Lnwrence,p. M.
47th Meeting,23 Octrikr 1947,MP.Andrews, p. 106.
PLENAKY

105th Meeting,1 Nwember 1947,Mr. Lawrence, pp526,649.
1948
Founrn CO~~MITTEE

76th Meeting,9 Novemkr 1948,kir.Louw, pp.287,796.
77th Meeting,IO Novcrnbcr 1948,Mr. Louw,p. 297.:
78th Meeting,11 November 1948,,Mr.Loifwp. 307'
81stMeeting, 16Nonimber 1948, Mt-toitw, pp.340, 343,344.
82nd Meeling, 17Natlernbcr1948 , r. Luuw,p.366.
83rd Meeting, 18Novernher 1948,Mr. Louw, pp.357,370.
84th Meeting,19Kovernber1'148, Mr. Louw,pp. 3?h;377.
PLENARY

164th Meeting. 26 Kovember1948, Mi-Lotiw, p.585. .
1949
FOURTH COMMITTEE
'
128th Meeting 18Novemkr 1949,Mr. Joostep. 199. -
129rhMeeting, 18Nuvcrnkr 1949.iMr. Jonstep.212.
130th Meeting,21 November 1949,hfr. Joosfepp. 213, 217,2I8.
131~1Meeting,21 No-fernber1949,t;Mr.oosfe,pp.220,222.
l32nd Meeting,22 Nrwcrnbcr 1949 , r.JOCIS~p p,224, 726.
134th Mccting,23 Novernkr 1949,Mr. Joosre,pp. 239,241.
135thMeeting,24 Kovernber1449,Mr. Joosfe, p. 242.
136th Meeting,25 Kovernbcr1949,Mr. Joasre.pp. 249, 250253.
137th Meeting,25 Novernkr 1949,,Mr. Jmre,pp.254, 258.
I38th Meeting,26 November 1949,Mr. Wace, p.267.

139th Meeting.28Novernkr 1949,Mr. Jooste,p.270.
PLENAHY
269th Meeting,6Dsci:mber 1949,!Mr.Jnosre,pp.523,536,537.

Union ofSoviefSocidfst Republics
1947
Frirr~~nCOMMI~E
32nd Meeting, 26 Sepemher 1947,Mr. Stein, p9.662 KA~~IBIA(SOII-1.11 WEST AFKICA)

33rd Meeting, 27Septernber 1847,.Mr. Tsur(~pkin. .18.
38thMeeiing, 7 Octolxr 1947.Afr. S~cirp. 52.
40th Meeting, 9 October 1947, Mr. Stein, p. 65.

45th Meeting, 15 Octoher 1947,Afr. Stein, p. 95.
PLEKARY
105thMecting, 1 Navember 1947, Mr. Srein, p511.

1948
I-'OUK'ICOM> II1EE
80rh Meeting, 13 November 1948,!Mr. Tsarnpkiii, 337.
81si hfocting, IGNovcrnbcr 1948, air.fiurapkiti, p346.
82nd Meeting, 17h'ovemhei 1448,Mr. Tsurnpkitz,p.351.

TRUSTEESH CIPUKCIL
3rdSession, 31st Mccting. 23 July1948, I\nrapkilipp. 406,408, 40,
417.

3rd Session41st Meeting. 4 August 1948, :W. Tsarapkin,pp. 537, 538.
3rd Scssion, 42nd Mccting.4 Auçust 1948, Mr. Xrnrapkin,pp. 541, 551.
1949
Four--H CDMMITTEE

134111Meeting, 13November 1949, ,Wr.Zrrritbip.240.
135th Mccting, 24 Novembcr 1949.:Wr.ZuruIin, p. 242.
I37rh Meeting, 25Novemher 1849, hfr. Zlirfibp.~258.
139thMccting, 28 Novcmber 1949,Mr. Zurt~hin,p.271.

THL:S-I'E~SHCOUNCIL
5rhGssion, 25th Meeting,70 Jiily1949,Mr. Solriarov,p. 311.
5th Srssion. 27thMcciing,2 1July 1949: Xfr.Soldaroibpp. 331, 332, 333,
335.

UnitcdKingdomof GreatRritainnmi Nurîhernlreid
1947
Foun-!n COMMI i-I EE

33rd Meeting. 27Sepiemkr 1947, :Wr.Llortoriricy,14.
47th Mocting, 23 October 1947,Mr. Dovirs, p. 105.
-~RIISI FF-TI~IPCOIIN~II.

2nd Session, 1stParr, Srh Meeting, 1 Deceinber I947, Sir Ainn Burns.
p. 125.
2nd Session,1st f'ari15th Meeting. 12 D~errikr IW7, Sir Alun Burrts,
p.507.
1948

Fou~xi iCOMMITTEE
77th Mccting, 10Novcmbcr 1948, :Mu. C;nrdonIYuLCerp. 298.
'IIJST-EFSHIC:OI:N LCI

3rd Session. 41srhl~yting.4 August 1948,Sir Alnn Burais, pp53 1, 535.
3rd Scssion, 42nd Meeting,4 August 1948.Sir Aiun Riirns, pp. 549 547.
548,551. 551.
1949

FOIIRT+ CI~MMIITFE
131stMeeting,2 1Novernber 1943,Sir Teretice Shotiep.222.
133rd Meeting. 23 Novemkr 1949 .irTcrcriccShone, p.233.
134th Mcct Îng.23 Novembcr 1949, SirTirence Shoiie, p240. WRI-TlliN STATEMFhTOF SOIJTII AFRICh 663

135th Meering, 24 No.;crnbe1949.Sir Trrrrire Shi>lp.246.
137thMeeting. 25 No:cmbcr 1949,MF. Fferchrr-Cookr,p. 257.
i3Pih Meeting,28 No;cmkr 1949,Sir 7kretrcSkoiie,pp.269, 272.
140th Meering,29 No';crnbcr 19.1, ir Teraice Sliutie276.
PLEKARY

269th Meeting,6 Decrmmkr 1949,Sir TeretireShoii~. p534.
TRUSTEFSH COUNCIL
5th Session. 27th Mee!inp.?I Jul1949.Sir Alnii Burnspp, 331332.

UnitedStates of Arnwica
f947
FOU KTH COMM~TTEE

3151Mecliny. 25 Sepicmber 1947, Mr.Dulies,p. 5.
33rd Meeting,27 Sept,:mher 1947, :MrL>irIie, . 18.
38th Meeting,7 Octokrr 1947.,Wr. Dulf~sp. 50,
40th Mccting,9 Ociotor 1947,Mr. Sayrc, p.65.
45th Meeting.15 Octcber 1957, &Ir. Sriyve,94.

PLENARY
104th M~~ting.1 Nor:mher 1947..Mr .qre. p. 577.
TRIJSTEESII IOUNCIL

2nd Session,1stI'art, 6tMeeiirig, 1Decembei 1947,MT. Gerig, p.130.
2nd Scssion. st Part,5th Mccting,12 December 1947,Mr. Sayre {Prcs-
ident), p470.
2nd Session, Isi Par.:, I5th Meeting. 12 Deceniber 1947, Mr.Gurig,
pp. 481,482. 489, 4%)495.497, 499, 501.503.505.
2nd Session,1st Pari.. 18thMeeting. IG Dcccmbcr 1947,Mr. Gcrig,
pp. 576, 580. MIL

1948
FOLI IL COMMITTEE
81st Mectirig, 16Novcrnber 1948,hfr. S~iyrp.350.
871idMeeting, 17 No~ember1948, Mr. Sayr~ p,.363.

TRUSTFES IIIUNCIL
3rdSession, 31stMeering. 23 July1948,Mr. Soyre,p. 410.
3rd Session,41st;Mee;:ing,4 August 1948, MrSayre,p. 534.
3rd Session, 42ndMe:iing, 4 Augusi I948 Mr. Suyrr,pp. 539, 540,54I,
541, 543' 544, 546, 54', 5549.

1949
FOURTH C'OMMI~FE
131st Meeting. 21No~rernber1944,Mr. Fuky.p.221.
133rù Meeting, 23 Novcnlbcr 1949, ,tiFah-vp. 231.
134thMccting, 23 Nuïemkr 1449, Mr. Fah.,pp. 238,740.

137th Meeting.25Nodember 1949, ,%II'.Fol'y, pp. 255, 256.
139th Meeting, 28 Ko~cmhr 1949 ,r. Fuhy.pp. 268,269.
140th Mcctiiig29 Noh7einber1949, Mr. Fdy, pp. 276, 782.
~'LENAKY

269th Meeting,6 &cc-rnkr 1949.Mr. Frihy,p.533.
TRUSTEFSH CIPUNCII.
5th Session,1stMeeti,lg,15Junc 1949, iWrSayre, pp.2, 3.
5th Session, 25th hlccting, 20 July 1iMr.Soyrc, pp.309, 311.6a NAMIBIA(SOWH WEST AFHICA)

5th Session,77th Mectiny, 21JuIy 194itfrSayr~,p.332.
Uruguay
1947

Fom'm CD~~MITTEF.
33rd Meeting,27 September 1947iMr.Arrosa, p. 13.
40th Meeting,9 Octoher1947,kir.Arrosa, p60.
P~.F.N>.Rs

105th Meeting,1Novernber 1947,Mr. Arro.rnp.614.
1948
Fou~m COMMITTEE

38th Mwting, 11Noveniber 1948,,W. Gerona,p. 310.
82nd Meeting,17 Novcn~ber 1948,Mr.Jiménez,p. 359.
PLENP.RY
164th Mccting, 76Navcmbcr 1948,)Ir.Geronn, p.579.

1949
FOURTH WMITTEE
131stMccting,21 Novernbe 1949,Mr. AlacF~ctienp.222.

136th Meeting, 25Novernkr 1949, :W.MacEarhen, p. 254.
139thMeeting,28 Novernber1949, :W. ikfctaclienp. 272.
140th~tleeting,2November 1949,A4r:r%cEucheri, p.280.
VmuueIa
1947

Fomm COMMITTEE
3rd Iifccccti2,7Septeniber1947, Mr. Lovera. 16.
1948

FOUR'CH CDMMIITEE
80th Meeting, 13NoveiribeI948 M,r.i.ui:erp. 337.
82ndMeeting. 17November 1948,Mr. Lovera, p.357.
1949

FOÜRT HOMMITTEE
130th Meeting, 1 Nnvemkr 1949,:Wr.:Stofk, p2.18,219.
139thMeeting,28 Novernber 1949,MF. Moriurer,p.272.
YugosImia

1947
FOURTH COMM~I- LE
3Ist Mccting,25Scptcmbcr 1347,Mr. Riblrikur,p. 7.
45th Meeting,15Octohei 1947,Mr. Ribnikar,p.94.

1948
Fcirr~~tCOMMI~.E
82nd Mecring,17 Novcmbcr 1948,hfr.Vifin,p.3M.
1949

FOLK-rk CUHMIITEE
131stMeeting,21November 1949,iMr. Viffip. 221.
134thMeeiing,23 Novcmbcr 1949.Mi-. Vjffi~n.p.235.
140ih Meeting, 29 November 1949MF. ïrebinjacp. 175. WRITTIN STATEMENT (IF SUWI'AFRICA

SecundPari .

Lr~racrsfrom >:ratenterby Represenlulit'es Cerfaifi
SIales
(inalphabeticalaider)
1947

AustraIia
FOURT CHOMVITTCTEE
Mr. Evrrrt:"Although the GeneraIAsxmbly was entitleto recomniend
that a trusteeshipagn:emcnt lxsubmitted, the countries represcntedat
San Franciscohad ncwr intendedit tobe a Iegalobligaiioto placeany
territoryunder trusteeship.Theobligationto submit information under
Chapter XI for territcriesnoi undertrusteeshipran paralrolthe pro-
visionsof Chapter XrI." (GA, OR, Second Srss.,Fourth Cornni., 39th

Meeting, 8 October1947, p. 58.)
PI.F.KARY
Mr. Ewa: "Thrrefore, thercisnogap intheCharterof theUniledNations.
Ifthe Union ofSouthrifri~;doesnot bring ils TerritoryundtheTrustce-
ship Sysleinitisstillin my view, a Non-Sdf-GoverningTerritos.. The
Union Governrncntvrill have to give,voluntari lyportsfor the in-
formation of the Sccrt:tary-Genera.he Secretary-Crec nerdal ashe
chmses witll this infrirmatinn(G.4,OR, Sccond Sess.,Vol. 1. 1Mth
PIenaryMeeting, I Nrivembcr1947. p.588.)

TRIISTELSH CIPUKCIL
Mr. Fors).vb"The reports onTrust Terrirnries are submitted not merely
to infornttheTrustcedip CounciI but tuenable theTrusteeshipCouneil
to exercisit s ainfurciionthe supernisioof administrationInthecase
of South Wcst Africa,which is no[ a Trust Territory,the Trusteeship
Council dws not have the function of supcrirising administraiion.The
adn-iinistratiof SoiitWcst Africahas bee~resentedbytheGovcrnment
of the Union of Snuth Africa aitsown coneern, andrhatGovernment,
not hahringplaod ttieterritory undernisteeshi d~cs ncirecognie the
power of theTrusteeshipCbuncilto supervis tsadiniiiistration.'Th:rs,
therefore,a fundamerita[differencebet~veenthe purpose for whichthe

report on South West Africa is submirredand the purpusr for whicli
reports on Trust Terriruriesare submittcd." (TC, OH, Second Scss.,
FirsrPart, 15thMwtittg,12 Decernber 1947,p.477.)
China
FOURTH COMMITTEE
Afr.Liu Chieh:"The caly çhoicrla) betweentrustteshipandthesrant of
independence.Arricle80, paragriiph2, of the Charter further provcd the

obligatory charactecbrthe [the trusteeship]syste....If theCnion of
Souih Africaplaced South WestAfrica under trustccshipiwouldnot he
deprivedof theadministrationof thc tcrritoand theonIy changc would
k the placingrifthal adniinistrationunder international supervision."
(GA, OR, SecoiidSess.,FuurthComm.. 31stMeeting, 25Septernkr 1947,
P. 6.3
PLENAXY
iWr, Chieii"We are tc-ItdattheUnion of South Africawould sdrninistcr
the Territoryor SoutliWcst Africa in ~hespiriof the Mandatc ofthe

League ofNations. 1 do not doubt thesinceritof this statcmentunthe part of the Union of South ATrica,but we a11 know that the mandüres
systcrn has ccascd to cxist and thatthe trustecshipsystein has been es-
tablished. Would itiint be inore desirablto adniinisterthe Territoryin
questioniinder a Iivingsyslern[hanunderthe shaduw of a ghost svstcm?"
(CA, OR, Sccond ses^.,Vol.1, 105th1'len;iryMeeting, I Novemher 1947,
p.601 .)
Columbia

fou^ i'HCUMMI Et
,!Ur. J'cpes"If the Mandatewerc to bc continued, on whosebehalf wouId
it be exercised?'The Leaçueof Nations \vas defunct. In internationalas
weII iisin civiIiiw,ihc Mandatory Po~vcrcuuId not continuc to hold a
mandate after the institutionto which itwas responsible hadceasedto
exist."(GA, OR,SecondScss., FourlhComm.,33rdMeetiny,77 Septcrnber
1947,p. 14.)

I'LEXARY
iMr. Yepes: "... on whose heliatfwould themandate of theold League of
Nations t> exercised?
It c:oulJ wrtainly not bc thc Lcaguc of Nations. for ithas ccased to
exist,and the mandate could not >t exercisedon klialf of a dead in-
stitution. In civlaw, as we a11know, power OSattorney ceaxs tipon lhe

dealhof the principaIThc sarnc idcacxtcnds. by anaIogy,to intcmational
law. 1% 'ccncoiiclude that,since thLeagrieof Rations is dead, niandates
exercisedunder ilauthorilyhave aIsolapsed,and ihe rerritoriesconcerntd
must faIIunder thc Trustecsh Systcm csiablishcd by Articlc 77 of thc
Charter.''(GA. OR,Second Sess.,Vol. 1105thPienary Meeting, 1Novem-
ber1!)37,p.602.)
Cuba

FOURTH COMMI E1-1
(ilMi. Meyer: "... rhcinfurrnaiirmsubmittcd bythc Govcrnrncntof the
Union of South Africa with regardto South West Africa could not be
examined sinceSouth West Ai'rica was neithtra Trusi Territorynor
a Kun-%If-Govcrn~ngTerritory." (GA, OH, Second Sess..Fourth
Crimin.,32nd Meeting,26 Sepleinber1947. p. [O.)
(ii) Mr.itfeyer:"... disputed the contenrioi~of the Govcrnment of thc
Lnion nfSouth .4friw rhat ir had no alternative to retaining the

srri/usyuu,nor did herccugnizc ihat South Wcst Africaconstiiuted a
utcgory szlgcrzcris. 'I'he Charter wavery clear in recognizingonly
threecaregories:TrustTerrilories,Ihe Won-Self-GovrrningTerritories
and indcpcndcnt Statcs." (GA, OR. Sccond Scss., Fourth Comrn..
39th Mecting,8 Octoher 1447, p.55.)
France
..
1RI:SC~TSH~PCOUNCIL
,Wr. Garrerru:"That text[ofthe Cieneral Assembly Resolurion]rvas very
mrefrillydrartedafterlengthy discussibo ccausc hcAsscmbIy, in referring
the reportof the Govemment of the Union ofSouth Africato the Trustee-
ship IZaunciI,wanted ahove al1 to rake ttiefirsstep in the direction of
interrrationalsu~rvisicin ovcr rht:former rnandaicdTcrriiory uf South
West Africa, pcnding reconsiderationof the tlssernblyresolution by the
Govcrnment of theIlnion of South Afijca anda decision ofthat Govcrn-
ment in that connectioti...

Indeed,in the abscnwof a trusteeshipagreement,theCounçil-and the WR~~TEV STATEMENT OF SOUTH AFR~CA
667
samc would have ken trtieorthe FourthComrni ttcc+uuId exarriineIhe
reportof rhe South African Government only forinformation."{TC,OR,

Sccond Sss., First Part, 15th Moeting, 12 Decerrib1947, p.480.1
1ndia
FOIIRTI I:~IMITTI~E
India suhrnittea draftresolutionwhich in paragraph 5 thcrcafcontaincd

the following siatemeni:
" LVkerccisthe ttrritoq ol South West Africa, though not =If-
gouernjng, isat prrsent outsidc thc cuntrciand supervisionof the
United Nations." {GA, OR, Second Sess.,FoiirthComm.,Annex 3h,

p.197.)
Iraq
FOURTH CO.MMITTF-.F.
Mr. Xhalidy ". .. poiiited outthat the irusteeship systemofthc Unitcd
Nations had replaced tltemandales system....

Thcmüntiatcs sytcrn Iwdwased to funciion. The Union ofSou ttAfrica
hadiiotacceptedthe triistceshipsystem, towhich there \vano altcrnaiive.
The trusieeshipsystem #ifferaitheunIylegalrightto adii~inistarterritory
fvrrncrIy under 1nand;ite.''(GA, OR, Second Sess., Foiirrh Comm.,
32nd Meeting. 26 Septr mtier 1947.p. IO.)
PLENAR Y
!\fi.atainli: "Novitht:League of Nations is dead, but the prinçiples

undcrlyingthe mandate are notdeüd.Chapter XII of theChartercertainIy
replaces Article22 oftIicCo\~nant. ...
There ij no obligatioa[IOplaw a rnandaied territoryundertlie trustce-
ship system]:but thescincmbcrs of theGeneral AssernbIy who worked an
thetrusteestiipChapterof theCharter alSan Francisco wiIlrciiicnibcrtht,
although there was nti obligation on thc miindatory power to put a
territoryunder the trust-hip system,it N7asirnplicdthat the mandatory
Pofieerwoiildeitherput suc1a territoryiinder ~rusreesihnidue coiirscor
docIarc itsindependenci.. . . There is no Furthcralternative. . . .
I heIieve that the rt:tentionof the Territory of South West Africn,

neither undeithe triisteeshisysrem noras an independent terriiory,isa
retrograde stcp. Tis coiitrar10the spiriof thcCharicr,and itis a denial
of therightof the United Nations to supervisethe rvelfaand freedom nf
al1 peoples al1 overth: world." (GA, OR. Second Sess.,Voi. T. 105th
PIenary Meeting, 1 No~~ernber 1947,pp. 621-622.)
TKUSI.EESH CIPUNCIL
:Wr.Klirrlidy:"1hadocc:asiun 10 çriat thetime [ithe Fourth C:ornmittce]

that South West Africi isncithera colony, a mandatcd territory nor a
Trust Terrirory. Ir iniita mandatcd terrj~ory, 1 said,and 1sliilsay sa
kausc the LcciyueufI.laiicinsfromwhich the mandatederived legally. is
dead." (TC, OR, SecomlSess., FirsrPriur, 15tMccting. I2 Decenlber1947,
p. 482.)

Nc~hcrbnds
FOIIRT~ CIOMMITTEE
Mr. Kcniknnrp: '-He fcltthat the refusa of South Africa to phce thc
territory under the iiiternatioiul irusteship system was regrettable
beçaux since independence had nntbeengrantcd 10 the territory its
withdrawül fron? any :;ystcmof interiiatinnalsupervisivn was a retro- gressiv etcp." (GA, OR. Second Sess.,Fourth Comm., 38th Meeting,
7 October1947,p. 52.)

Mr. Kernknmp: "Thcmandatessysteni now does not operate.Asthere is
no longera supervising authority, thcrc is no longera mandates system.
The voluntarytransmissionof information, merely for thc sakc of infor-
mation, by the Union of South Africa to theTrusteeshipCouncil does iiot
givc ihz Council the same jurisdictionas the PermanentCommission on
Mandateshad....
.. .vjeconsider thatthe prcscnt situation ccinsti~uastep backward, inso

far as a terriioryonce underinternationaI supervision is nuw under no
super-intendence.. ."(GA, OR, Second Sess.,Vol.I,105th PIenary Meeting
I Nc~vember 1947, p.fi05.)
KewZealand
Forrini COMMITTEE

Sir Car! Breirdseii: "Speaking as the representativeof New Zealand, hc
favaareci the international supervision of al1 backward peoples, hut
maintained that there was nu legal obligation onany Mandatory Power to
plam a mandate under tlttrustwhip system.The Comrnittcc could not
thecefore accuse the Unionof South Africa of fairingin its duty." (CA,
OR. Second Sm., Fourth Comrn., 33rd Mcctinp, 27 %pteml>er I947,
p. 17.)
TRUXTEESH CIPUKCIL

Sir C'arlBrrerrds~~nT: hi[South West Africa]isnoi a Trust TerritoryWC
deriveno pnwers from the Chartcr. Our only powers arederivedfroin the
resolution of the GeneraI Assernbly, and outpuwcrsare limited by that
resolution.., .But we are not entitled-aiid i regreitverymuch indeed-
we areclearly not entitledta send a visiting mission. WCan: clearlynot
entifled 10 acccptpciifions.We are clearly not entitled thear oral r+
prescntation." (TC, OR, Second Scss., First Part, 15th Meeting, 12
Dwrnber. 1947, pp. 478-479.)

Mr. Pirrridu:"A siiiipleconrparison ofthe relevant articles in Chapttrs XI
and XIIof the Charter wilIshowclearlytlteadvanrages ofone system ovcr
the other. 'I'hefirsr advantagethat I wuuId strcss is thirt, under the present
mandatts system, only one couiitryis responsibleforthe properadminis-
tration and the developmenl of political and other institutionswithin thc

Territory. Itisthe conscienccof anc Statc which wiIl & guiding iaII the
time 10follow the provisions laid dowm in Chapter XI of the Charter.
On the other hand, iTitcornesiinder the international trusteesh syptcrn,
it wiIIbe the conscience of al1thc Cnitd Nations, as representedin the
Trusteeship Council, which will he guiding the administration of the
Territory and which, therefore,has agreater chancerif heing dircctcd in
the intercsts of thpcoplc of thai Tcrritory.
The secondadvantage wwhicthhe trusteeshipsystem kasover the ordinary
administration iinder Chapter XI is thar international supervision is
providcd undcr thc intcrnativnal lrustteship system,accordingto Artic75
of the Charter. As against that.under Chapter XI of the Charler,which
reIates[O the adminisrration of Non-Self-Governing Territories -to whicii
clasr this Territoryof South West Afric;i wilI haveio belong if itisnot WRTTTT.:;TATEMENTOF SOUTH AFKICA
669
brought under thc truiteeship system-there isno provision for inter-
nationalsupervision,ar,d theonlysupcrvisiunthatexisttakestheformof
supplying information on nun-politicaimattersfor the considerationof

the United Nations: ir,other words, econornic,social,and other mal-
ters. ..
There are twosystcrnsundcr the Charterof the United Nations, namely
thc administrationof Non-Self-GoverningTerritories,and the adminiç-
traticinof tcrriturunder ihe trusteeshisystcm.This would bea third
syslein-adiniiiistehg in thespiritof the inandate-which the Charter
doesnot recognize and whichtheCharterseems LoabolishaIrngether....
'Thereforc, by refusiltg to plathis Ierritory under the tiusteeship
system, the Union OF Soiith Africa is goinç back on boih prinçiples
recognifid by theCovcnant of the League of Nations: firsttrusfeeship
ofan internationüI body;secund. supervisorycontroI oran international
body."(GA,OR,Secoiid Sess.VoI. T,105thPlenaryMeeting,1Novcrnbr
1947,pp. 618-619.)

PhiIippineRepnblic .. .
UR-1.n COMMI~TEE
fi)Gent.rni Rnnizrf"Thc Union of Suiilh Africa had contcnded that it
had oblained its.powrersfrom the Lcagur of Nations, but ittiad
forgotten the ncw obligations it had assurnociunder the Chartcr.
Chapter XI ofthe Charicrcontained a declaratinnwhich applirdtoal1
the Non-Sdf-Governing Tcrritories,whether mandatedor not.That
declaration ernbodicd obligations which farexceeded rhose of thc
mandates system.Tlte resolutioiiotheUniunParliamentimpIid that

theseobIigationswould befuIfilIeby the submissionof information."
(GA, OR, Second S:ss., Fourth Criinrn31st Meeting, 25 September
1947,p. 7.)
(ii) CeiterRoinuIo: "VIhiiesupportingthe draftrewlution submittedby
therepresenlaiiveoi India,me] could notsubscrbi e tthe firthpara-
graph of that propcisaltothc cffrct that South West Africawas 'at
present autsjde the conirol andsupervision of theUnilcd Nations'.
Chapler XI of tlieCharter applied to a11the Non-Self-Governing
Temtories . . .
Accrirding to ArticIc 103 of the Charter, obligations under the
presentCharter su~ersedcdot her internaionaIobligations, and that
meant in eflect thathe Union of South Africa was bound to fuifi1
its obligations undrr ChapterXI as long as South West Africa re-
maiired outside tht:trusteesh system." (GA, OR, Second Scss.,
Foiirih Cornm., 39th Mecting, 8 October 1947p. 57.)

Uniunof SouthAfrica
FOURT H OMMII-TEE
Ci):Mr.fxivrence:"Inres~ct of irsadininisrrationoSouth WEYL Africa,
thirtGovernment[of thc IJiiionof South Africaj would niaintainthe
sfaiu~qzm iithespiritof thMandate. IrwuuIdnot subrnitatrustecship
agreernenl, but woliId transmit iiiforniation annually. InTonnation
rdating 10 1946was now in the hands of theSecretary-General."(CA,
OR,Second Sess.,Iburth Cornm., 31 st Mccling, 25 Septenilier 1947,
P. 4.)
(ii)iMr.Lawrence: -'lrcply tothe requestmade by thc Danishreprwn-

tativeatthe thirty-firsmeetin gegardingctarifrntionof documenl
Aj334, Mr. Lawrencestatcd thattheMaiidare gave m'tain puwerriand jrnposedcertainobliçations.The Governinent OS the Union of South

P.fricahiid fupuwcrs of adrninistriitiovcrSouth Wcst Africa,and it
proposed to continue to exercisetlieiii, juas itwould contiriue 10
f~iliilits obIigations undcr the Mandateto pronlotc the moral and
niaierialwell-beingof the populaiian andta advancesocial progress.
7heUriionof South Africa didrlotclairrithat SoutWcst Africa was a
colony. but itkvaswilIingto submitaniiual reportslike tliose required
forthe Non-Self-GoveiningTerri toriesunder Ar1 ide73 c [sic].
The rightiopetiticihad wilstultucxisl withthcdisappcarancc of thc
Leügueof Nation?, theauthorityto whichpeti tianscould beaddic~ed.
11the absence of a t~usteeshipagreement.the Uniled Nations had no

jiirisdiction ovcr South Wesr Afriu ad tthcrcforcno right to roccivc
petirions."(GA, OR. Second Sess., Fourth Coinrn., 33rd Meeting,
27 September 1947, pp. 15-16.)
PLEKAKY
Mr. Lnwrcjice: "In addition, the Ciovernrnent of the Union of Sourh

Afrira has expressrd ifs readinestu submil annud rcportsfor the infor-
mat ion ofthe UnitcdNations.Tliat undertaking stands.
Althoughthesereports,if accepieci,wiIlberenderedon the basischatthe
UnitedNations hasno supcrvisoryjurisdictioninrcspcct of thisTrrritory,
they wjllservetokecptheL'n iedNations iriforinedin much the sarneway
as theywilI bekept inforntedin relatio10Non-Self-GoverningTerritories
underArticle 73 eof Ihc Chiirtcr.(GA, OR, Sccond Scss., Vol. 1,105th
PlenaryMeeting, 1 Novemher 1947,pp. 632-633.)

Cnion of Soviet Socialist Republics
PLEYA~<Y

Mr. S~ein:"Tt isalsoknowii thatthe SouthAfricaiiGoveriimentrefusedto
comply wirh this recommendation [io submil a trusreeshipagrern~rnt]
and set upan absurd juridicalstatus For SouthWest hfricü which con-
sistcdin theadininistrationofSouth West Aîrica beingcariiedout 'in the
sp~ritof rhe I~agiie of Naijons Mandait'. 1 say rhat this is an absurd
juridicd stiituss~nccnow, in 1947, after the Leagueaf Nations and fhc
mandates system haveceased to exist,and referenceismade to thissystem
in order ro concea the actiial annexationoF South West Africri." (GA,
OR, Second Scss.. Vol. T: 105rhPlenary Meeting. 1 Kovcrnbcr 1747,
. p.61 2.)

The Lnited Strtes ofAmerica
FOURTH COMMITTEE

:Vr. D!tl/es: "ThUnion of South Africa had no legü1title lo the terr~iory
at preseni, brcoux itsonly titIcwas a Mandatory itndcr thc Lcagut or
Xations."(GA, OR, Secon dess..Fourth Comm., 3Rth Meeting, 7 October
1947,p. 50.)
TKUS~~EYH IIOUNCIL

Mr. Gcrig; "Itwas said herecarlierthis afternoon,and1 didnot hcar any
mcmberobject. that while we ailhope-rny delegation as much as any
delegatiankels rhal way-thal the wilIbe a trusreeshipagreement for.
thjs (erriturWC do notl inthe absence of a trusteeshai grecmcnt, have
suprvisory functions over this territoryTherdore, 1 do not think we
ouglitto imply hat we do have supcrvisoryfunctions to ensure rhat the
Union Govcrnment discharges its dutits under the present mandatc, WRrrrErt SI'ATLUENT OF SOUTH AFRICA 671

admittingthat itcxists."(TC, OR,Second Scss.First Pari,15th Mccting,
12Deceinber 1947,p.505.)

Cnrguay
FOURTH COMHITTEE
(i) Mr. Arrosa: "Thediity to subrnitrustoesh aigreements was not only
anioi-aone. Article80, paragraph2, of the Cfiarterperinittno dclay
onthe parr ofthcMandatory Pomers.At a timewhen onIy two cIasçes

nfdepcndcnttcrritor-iesremainedin existence,the Kon-Self-Govcrning
TerritoriesaiidtheTi'ustTerritnries, SoutWest Africa's positiohad
çlearly becoiiitinornalous." (GA,OR, Second Scss., Fourth Conim.,
33rd Meeting, 27 Seplember 1947 ,.14.)
(ii},2fr. Arrn."His delegcitinn \vasaf ropinion that since thmandatcs
systern\vasdefrinct 2nSouih West Afrim was nJther inde~nden tnar
acolony, thc Union of South Africa was underan obligation tuplace
it underthe internatonal trusteeshisystern."(GA. OR, Second Scss.,
Fourtti Cornni.,4011Mceting, 9 Octoùer 1947,p. a.)

PLENARY
Mr. Arrosn:"'ik rriaintainonccmorcthat it isimpossibleto conceiveof a
mandaie continuing,even ont? in spirit,nowthüt the body which granid
itritLeague of Nation j,haseased toexist.There isiiereaclearanomaly,
for thcTcrrirory in questionis neithcrindcpcndentnor a colony.
The internationaIsyslem riow in foi-cetakesa~ount of two cIasss of
dcpcndcnt rerriloriesonIy: thuse called by Chaptcr XI of theCl~liarter

'non-self-governing',atid chose placed undcr thc trusteeship systetn in
accordance with ChaptcrsXI1 and XIII. Tliere isno thiid category or
cIsss of dcpcndcnr teri-itories.(CA, OR, Second Scss.. Voi. 1,105th
Plenary Meeting, 1'loilember 1947, p. 615.)
1948

BeIgium
FOURTH COMMI.I?EF
hlr. Rycknimjs:"Uiider rbenlartdatessystem, Souih West Afrjcahad ben
adrninisterediinder a 'C' Mandale, and it tiad aIw,aysbeen undcrsloud

thiitthc Tc~ritorwoulrl exre.eiitubeincorporat iethc Union of South
Africa.
On the other hanrl, {;le] felt botoddrawthe attention of thcSouih
Afriw rcprexniaiiveandtheCornmittee tolhe ternior Articie80,which
providedthat nothing iitChapter XII of theChartcr shoiiIdbe 'conrrrued
in orof itselfto alter any manner therightswhatsoever of any Staiesor
anypcoplcs ...'.That included the people of South West Africa,who,
havinghad the hnefit of internat~onalsupervision under Ihc niandates
suleni,could not he dcyirivcdof tharighi." (GA, OR.Third Scss.,Par1 1.
Fourth Comm., 79th Meeting,13November 19-18.pp.325-326.)

China
Fouwr-HCOMM I-1-tt.

iMr. Liic C.'hiefr:wa: truc thüt,as rio trusteeshiagreerncnt had been
conduded TorSouih WZS~ Africa. the United NarionswuId not interverle
or exerciseils power ofsupervision inrcgard tu that Territop. Bu1
paragaph 2 of ArticIt: 80 iniposed an ohli~~tion io cowlude such an
agreement rvithoutdeIay."(GA. OR,Third Sess., ?"art 1,Fourth Conim.,
76th Meeting, 9 h-uverriber1948, p.296.)Costa Rica
Fo:ou*irrOMW ~ E E
,W. Canus:"Tl-ieLnited Ya!iorishouI dot acras though its hands were

tied by the Mandate.It hadnot bccn a partyto thc mandaieagreement.
and could not ihcrcforbe obligedto actinaccordancewithits provisions.
Indccd,theUnion of SouthAfricaiiselfdidnot wnsider that the Mandate
was still iexistence,sinceit had statcd that iwould iidrninistçthe
Territory ofSouth Wcst Africa iithe 'spirit'of the Maiidate.Aa lcgal
contraci betweeiithe Union of South Africaand rht:League of Nations,
the 'Mandatehad disapwared with the kagague, and thcrc hadken no
provision wherehyrhe Unitcd Nation secainea partyto the Mandate."
(GA. OR, Third Sess.,Part1,Fourth Comm., 8Snd Meeting, 17Novenlher
IY48,'p365.)

Cuba
FOU ITtCOMMTTTEE
Mr. PérezCimerus: "ln tiisopinionhowever, thercvisedjointresolurion
did iiotmake itcIcartharthe United Nations hadassumed the Lcaguc of
Nations' responsihilityin rclütiontu SoutliWAfrica,tlieonly mandated
territory notyct placed under the trustccs hiscm. .. .II shouIdbe

clearlystatedalsothattliereportsweresent tothe UnitedNations so that
the Organizati onuldexerciseiirsfunciions ofcontroand supervision,
inth: same manncras wouldhaveken dom bythe Leaguc of Nations.. ."
{GA. OR,Third Sess.,PartT,Fourth Comnt.. S2ndMeeting, 17 Novembcr
1948,p. 356.)
France
FOU i'1.COMM~EE

Mr.Gurreou: "Thc Frenchdelegation hadfrcqüentlyhad occasiontarmll
rhatthe trusteashipsysternhad bctn substitutedforhemandatcs cysttm.
Oncc the Leagtieof Nations had cciiseto cxist, shadthe iiistitutions
which functioncd underits aegis.When the Uiiited Wations was setup,
thert:remainednothing of the Covemnt ofthe League ofNations cxcept
itsmoralinltiienceThe niandatessystcm wds rcconstitutedasthe trustee-
ship systcrwith certaincharacteristicdifierenc...
TheSoütli AfricanGovernrnenr had or1scrveralmcasions expressedits
dcsire to administethe'Iérritory South Wcst Africainthe spiriofthe
Covennnt. Ttacccptcd ihe moralobligationofensuringthe well-king and

the ~ievelopiiieiitof populaiipn,Ieadingit indue coursc to autonoiny
and ulrirnatelyto independencc.''(GA, UR, ThirdSess..Part 1, Fourth
Comrn., 79th Mccting. 12Kovemher 1945.pp.322. 324.)
India
FOURTH COMMITTF.E

Mrs. Pmdii: "The provisionsof Articlc 80ofthc Charter,safeguarding
the existinrightsof thcpcople of South West Africa untia triisteeship
agrermenthad been coiicluded,had Io k recognized.Ilneofthox rights.
under the mandates system,had ken thc cxaniination,by the Permanent
MandatesC:rimniission ,fannualreportssubittittedby theLnion Govern-
rncnt on the administrationof the Territory ofSouth West Africa.A
reprc5entat oivtehe Lnion Government had ben personafly present for
inter-rogation.That righcould not be extinguishedinerelykcause the
Pernianen MiatidateCommissio hnadc~iisedtu exist.(GA, OR,Third674 KAMIBIA (SOUTH WFST AFRICA)

Ai,ticIe80 of the Lnited Nations Charier provideinconncxiunwiththe
trus:eeshai greements,that... .
lia1 provisionof theCharierclearlysafrguardcdtherightsofindigcnous
popirlationsand irnposedon the AdrninisteringAuthorities the duty of
reportingprrigressand of commtinicatingto the internationalcornrnunity
how ihey wen: ruliillingrheiobligations.

It could bemaintaincd that since theoi-gan u~hich \\;ato receivethat
information, nanlely theCounciIof theLeague of Nations, was no longer
in cristcn~~, the Mandatory Powcrwas auiornaiicalIy rclicvcdof its
oh1il:itatino report progress.The CciunciIhiid studied thereports in its
capacity as an organ of the internaiionalcoiiiniunity;ilacted as a ço-
ordiiiatingccntrc for thc othcr States conmrncd, i.e., menibers of the
civitizedand orgrtnizedinteriiationacollectivityThe dissolution of the
Lea::ueof Nations rneanrthe disappearance of only the cornnion CO-
ordiiiating ccntrc. Butthaco-ordinütiiiccntrcwüsoncc morc in existence:
itw;is the IJnited Nations. andittas tlirough the organizationthat the
Unirrn or South Africa shoiiId fulfil its obligations towards the inint-

nationalcornrnunity andgive an account of its administration.(GA, OR,
Third Sa., Part1,FourthComm., 78lh Meeting. 11Noveniber1948,pp.
31 1-312.)

Mr. d'Aquino: "Souih West Africa, ho~~ever, was no1 a sovereignSiate,
buta tcrritoryplacd undcrthe mandatcs systcm of thc Leaguc ofNations
and,consequent y, \vas undeithesupervisionof thecornmunityof Natioiis,
narn~ly, rheGeneralAssembly." {GA, OR, Fourth Sess., Fourth Comm.,
132nd Meeting, 22 h'overnkr 1949, pp.223-224.)

Canada
FOURTH COMMITTEE
Mr. Blois: "The Canadia nelegationwas subrnitiing fhar amendment
rEx;xliressersegrethat the Govemment of theIlnion ofSouth Africa has

not coniinud ... io subrnit rcports un i~s adrsiinistrationof the
Terriiory of South WestAfrim for the informationof theUnited h'ations']
hmuw the use of theword 'repudiated'itthe Indian texigave theirnprcs-
sion that ihc Union Govcrnrncntwas under a IegaIobligationto subniit
inrormation,which was not the case." (GA. OR, Fourth Sess.,Fourlh
Cnmm., 139th Meeting 28 November 1949.p. 268.)
Cuba

Mr. PCrcr 'isiieros"The prestigeof the United Nations was at stakcjust
as [ha1uf theLeaguc of Nations might have ben insirnilacircumstances:
thc iighiand duties ofthe United Nations were the wmc as thoseof ihe
Lea~ue of Nat ions fut both orgiiriizaiionsrepresentedthe iiiternariona1
coniniunity. The substane of the qitesticiwas clear: althoiigh therenias

no I'rusteeshiAgreement in reswct of South WestAfricil,thcrcrcrnained
the old Mandatewhich provided for o çeriaiti nuniber of oliligations.
Those had tobe obscnocdand the Powcr concerned could not denounoe
thenthyunilateralaction. Under the terns of theMündatc, thcUnion of
Sout.hAfrica had ken requircd tutransmitinformationto the League of WRLTTEN STATEMENT OF SOI:TII AFRICA 675

Nations, becauseit wasthe inlernatioiuI çommuniry'sduty to be inforn~ed
how the territorles t:ntrustedto the üdniinistraion of somc countrics
tvcrcking govcrncd.I'ht ii~fnrinatiowas to liavebeenexaniined hy the
internationalcoinmuiiity;the populationsconwrncd had had the rjghi to
wnd petitions; Furtherinorc,the rightof petitiohnad beenrecognizcdas
'ancsscntialhumanrighi' hy the Gei~eraIAssetribly at ilhird c;ession.. .
as aresultofa proposal made bythe Ciiban andFrench rielegations....
No rrusteeshipagreeriicnt hadinfactheenconcludedin respectof South-

West Africa. Attentiorrshould be dmwn. however, iciArticlç 80 of the
Charterwhich explicitI:i stat. . .wat thereforecleür thüt thesiiuarion
which haù prevailed under themandates system shouldnot be changed in
thecase underdiscussion. The righisor ihtpeople cunccrned were clearly
cornprornisedwheii the internationalcorninuniv ceasedto receive infor-
mation on houu they wc:rcking administered.and whtn the penpIe them-
selves cnuld no longer excrcix thcirright ofpctition." (CA, OR, Fourth
Sess., FourthCorrini.,130thMeeting,31 Novemher 1949. p.216.)

PI.F.NARY
Mr. Lely: "He recalled ~haiar the third sessionof theCeneral Asxrnbly

the represcntativcof th: Unioriof Souih Afrim tiadsiatcd ihat. whenthe
C;overiimentof tlie Ijnion of South Africhiad gi~cnan assurance that it
would scnd information on the '1-erritnry,thad made a speciftcrcscr-
vationthat the sendingol such informariun would irnpIyno minmitment
forthe futureatidwould not be indicativeof accountübilitto the United
Nations.
[He]feltthat thatsraietnentspoke foritseT lfh.sending of information
was a ~~oluiitayct on the partof theUnion Govcrnrnent.If tliat waso,
and he IxIieved[ha1 itwasthen theUnion Ciovernmenthadnor rcpuJiated

any prcvious assurance." (GA. OR, Fourth Sess.,2591IIPienaof Meeting,
6Decernkr 1949. ji5:iO.)
UnitedKingdom

Sir Ter~~tceSliot~e"It couldnul br:saidthai theGovcrnrnent of the Lnion
orSouih Arrica hadrepudiatedits previousassurancesiilce ithad çom-
plete libertyto decidev:hetheror not to transmitinTormarion." {(;A,OR,
Fourth Sess..Fnurth C:omrn.. 135th Mccting. 74Novcmbcr 1949, p. 247.) THE EARLIEROPINIOYS AND JUDGMKKTS CONCEHNING
SUPERVISION OF SOUTH WWC AFRICA

1.In ChaprersVIi and VI11 above, theSouth AfricanGoirernment hasgiven

its reasorts for çontending that its obliga~ion to report and accourt! to thc
Council of the Lertgucof Nat ionslapsed on thcdissolurionof that organi7ation.
This conttnlion runs cnuntcr to thc decisionof the ~nyjorityof theCourtin rhe
1950Ad\isory Opinion '.The 1950Opinion was the subjecr oftwo later intcr-
pretative Opinions in 1955 and IY56 3.'I'hequestion whcthcr the General
Assemblqof the United Nations hsd succeeded to the supervisriryfunclions
previouslyvesfcd in thc Council of the League (as was held by the majority in

1950)wa; again dehated in both phasesof tlte Sourk IVe.?tAfrica cases. Al-
thoughthe Court itself (as distinctfrom individualMcmbers thereof)madeno
explicitpronounccmcnt on thisissueeither in 1962 or in19M5, rhere ismuch
of rclcirancethereto in bnth sets of Juùgmentsand in some of thc separate
opinions (both conctirring anddissenting). This Chapter wiil bedewted to an
anaIysis ~f the 1950 majority opinion and to a reilsoned statcmcnt of the
grounds iipon which itissubmittedthe Court shouIdin thepresent cüsc depart

the~thni.
2. The general ruIe as to thc cffeci and weigitt of advisory opinion wsas
statcd as followsby JudgeWiiiiarskiin thePrncv Treniies aqe:

"Opinions are not formalty binding on Staies nor on the organ ivhich
rcqu:sls thein.tIiey do not have the aiirhoriiyof rrs .iiidicnfn; but the
Cou.:tmust. in viewof its high mission, aitribute!Othcm greattegaivaIiie
and a moral authority 6.'+

The exteni of the"tegrrlvalue and moral aiithoriry"of advisory opinions is
not, howevcr. a constant I'actorbut depend! cin circurnstiinces.In this regard,
EdvardtIambro statcd :

". ..Advisury Opinions, even more than the judgmcnts of theCourt, wiil
k jiidged on thcir intrinsicmerits.A judgrnent of the Court,even if it is
not pcrftxtand eveii if the reasoningcan becriticjsed,can serve a usefril
purpose becauscit will put an end to a dispute betivccn two or more
States.An Advisory Opin~on,on ihe othzr Iiand, dot? not serve lhispur-

-. . . -.-. .
l InirriiufinnulSruiits oj-Souili Ajkirri, Adi:isuOpinion, C.J. Heporis1950, .
p. 128.
VuringProcedurson Questions rebiirzg tRcyortx rindPciirions conctr~ing the
ter rit oof^SottrhWest Afrira,Arfvisory Opinioc, 1.C.J. Rrpurf955, p. 67.
Ad?njssibifi~yfHearing.~ofPetilioners&v fliComtiiittce on SnirrLt'esrAfrica,
AdvisaryOpinion. I.C.J. Reports 1956,p.23.
+ Sorirh W~SI Africu,Pruii~rinntyObjectioff~,Jud~rnent,I.C.J. Repor~s 1962,
p. 319.
SurrllWPS~Africa, Secoird Phase, Judpneni,I.C.J. Reapas 1966,p. 6.
"nt~rprciarion of l'puce T~eorie siiliBulgaria, Hzingary and finrania. tYr:it
Pknsc, Arfi,isory OpinioI.C.J. Reports1950,p. 65. pose. Itsrands or faIlswith theIcgaI arguments that can he deduced from
the reasoning of the majority. .,'"

3. It folloivsfroin tllprincipleswl out inthe abovepasssgcs ihat,although
the Court wvuuldnot liglitl:;dcpart from a previous opinion, itwould do so if
good rezqonsexisted. Ttw<itild be impossibIe to define in exact terms th<:cir-

cumstanRs wIiichwoiild induce a Couri Io adopt siich a coursc. A distinction
wnuId hrivcto bc made between an opinion on a purc point of law asagaiiist
one invafvingfacrualclcnients as well.On questions of facta Coiirt's findings
arc nmss'drily govet-ned by the evicienccknawn to it,and, whcrc resjrrdicata
isnot appIicable. a Courtdoes not regard it as a derogation fiom its aiithority
if in subsequentproceedinp it cornes lu a differentconclusion in the Iightof
a fuIIerprcscntütion ol tht:facts.Pure yuestions of law are on a somewhat

different footing, although even in that reswct, itis submitted, the Court
wuulù not fuIlow a previous opinion clcarly basedupon faiiItyrcasoning. The
existence OFdisscnting upiiiions might wcakcn rhc aulhority ofan advisriry
opinion', as rnighi inmnsi!.tentfindingç byJudges in subsequtnt prowedings,
oi criticalcommenrs of eminent autharit icson internalionalIaw.
4. The various featurcç ineniioned in the precediiig paragraph as affecting

thc authority of an advisoryopinion, art: ai1 relevanto thc prcsent case I.n
thecotrrscof the yearssincz 1950 a grcat mass of facts. not placcd kfure the
Courr in rhat year,have be:n uncoveredhynewrescarch,and the correctness
of the majority opinion reiwding transfer of Ihe Ixaguc's supervisoty func-
tions has kn debated witA a thnrriughncssanddcpth out of al[ proportion
tothat involved in the praedings leadingup to that Opinion '.in the resuIt
therc isnow available a gn:at deaIorfactuaImaterial,whularIy and judiciai

comment, and othc reaiurt:~such asthc coursc of the proccedinIg esdingup

"Thc Authorjty ofthc Adcisory Opinion of the InternationaCourtof Justicc".
Itrrcr'iiorionlnd Compurafiw Las Quar~~r/y, Vol. 3 (I954)p. 21.
=This pciintwas stressedboy Hnmhrri,Inrernotionliand Coir~pnrûrii~eLuw Qurir-
rerfy,V(11 3.CI954). p. 21.
In hisstparate opinion iri 19%Judge Jessup said (arpp. 350-351):

"IFit bethought that inadvisoryprocccdings thc Court does nor rcccivcar
fiialstatcrncntor argunientas is prcscntcdincvnieniious procecdings.ilmay
benotcd ~hiiin 1'150fhcvolurnc of PlendingsOrui Rrgumefi1.sotrd Dormenn
on the qiiesrioof the 1t;teunnfionSraritsofS(~it!hWcst Africa, ciintains 350
pages. Tnthecourseof the presçnIu~icirDr. Steyn, reprewntative of the Union
nTSouth AFrica,spoke a1 four sçparatesessiom ofthc Court.''

It isintercsting to notthattdhereasthe volumc uf Pleadit~gs,Oral Arfu~nenIs und
Docu~ricnn (which incltidcs Dr.Stcyn's oral siiiterntnt) the I950 pr<icceding~
rclatcs ici alt the iss~henYxforcthc Court, and inçludes priwly fcirnianiairer,
the vt>lt~rnesofPlrudin.rs, Ur4Arguitienfs anDucüinrnrs in the 1966 cootentious
prmrrdings on the meritsji.c.. exçludiihr PrelimiiiaryObjectioliphase) contain
over 700pages of facrs andnrgunletitsrelatiiito the qirestion oadminisrrativc
supervisionalonc. If thctreainientOCtliisissue in 195iverrisolatedfrom niattcrs
notdirect lyconccrncd thcreoitIi, tlratio bctween the attention givcn therelci in
1963 to 1906as against thntgivenin 1950musr he OFthe orderofsixtirseven Ioone
(and ~hç treatmrniin ihe prcsmt prwee<Iingsmight be even longersiil!).TheSouth
Afriçan Clovernrrienldcieno: of coiirse çtintçnd thatquantiiaiivecornparison of
thistype isriianÿ pzrticularsignifimncr in iirelf-indced this aspect is rnentioned
Iiereoiilybecause Judge Jtssrip seerm IOhaveartachcdsome inipoi-tance t hereto.
What is iinportant isa qualitati\lanalyssioofmatcrial or which th?Court WQS
unawarc, or to which ii<[idnot advcrt, or which was (lien not?et in exislçnce.
This ivilbe essaymi hbelliw.578 SAMtBIA {SOLTH WEST AFRICA}

to the 1365Judgiiientand opinions, whicli in the siibiiiissbit of tlie South
African Govcrnment do not only rendernecessary a rr-appraisal of the cor-
rectness ofthe 1950 majoriiy opinion, but would lead thisCourt to a diKcrcnt
cunclusiori.
The facts,and thc conclusions 10 be drriwn from thcm, have already been
considererl in Chapters VH and \.:IIIIn the prewnt Chüptcr rcfcrcncc wilI
bc madc to thun unly to indicatetheir karing on thcprevious frndingsof the

court.
As regardr schalarly writings, thc prcsent <-IhapterwiIl contain a nurnbcr
of extrsctj frorn conirnenis on the 1450 majority opinion. As witl be noted
they are ~nifornilycriricoa flihr findirigof thc Cuurt concerning transkr or
supervisory powers. Indeed, the South Arrican Governmeni isnot awiirc of
anyacadcmic aritiny wliictlcontains a rcasoncd support of or wricurrence
wiih the ~aid fiiiding othcnvisc than by applying a teIeological principlof
"ftIlingthe gap" '. As has been ntited, such a principle has ken rejecredhy
this Couri and by thc ovcrwhclrning weight of contcrnporiiry Icgülopinion'.

Finally, the South AfricanGovernmentdealsin this Chapter with the judi-
cial pronounwmentssine 195Ih In this respectalso. il wilbc submitted, the
effect of iuch prnnounccnicnts kas on the whole heen to dcmonstratc ihc
untcnabitityof the reasoningofthe majority iti1950.

B. AwIysis of,and Commenton, the1950 Adviwry
Opinion

5. The rnajority of the Mcnibcrs uf the I-:ourtin 1950 came to thc con-

clusion:
". ..Ihat the Cieneral Assernblyof the Urtited Nations islegallyqusIified
to cxcrcisc thesupervisory functions prcvir~uslyehercisedby the Leigue
of N~itioriswith regard to ihe adrniilistrationof the Territory,and Ihat

rheUnion of South Africais undcran obIigationto suhmit to suyiervision
andmntrol of thc Gcn-rot Assernbiy andto rcndcriinnuülrcports toit'".
At thene:itpage cf theOpinionfoliowed a coiiseqi~cicnti alonclusi roegarding
peririons,viz.:

".. , In view of the resultat whiçh ihe Court lias arrivcdwith respect to
the exerciçe or the supervisoryfunctionç by IIteUnited Nations and the
obligation of thc Uniun Govcrnment ta submit tosuch supervision, and

haviiigregard to tlie factthat the dispatch and exai~~inatioi-oif petitions
form a part ol'thal supervision,the Couri is or theopinion that petitions
are IO bc transmiiicd by that Governnicnt to thc Gcncral Asscrribly of
the United Nations. whichis legally qualifiedto deaIwith ihem
6. The Court's reasoning in support OFils above main conclusion, is set

out at pagcs 136 to 137 of ihe Opiniutl.Tt ctinirncnccswiih a rocopnition of
". . the fact thalthe supervisory functicns ofthe irIeagciwith regard to
mandatcd tcrritorics no1 placcd undcrthc ncw Trustccship Systcm were

1 Vide,r.g.,DaliiiiCi..Vdk~rrerb~ (1958), Vol. 1, 565.

Vid~ Clinp. IIslrpr-a.
"~ttrrcarionni Srnrrof Sourh Wusi Ajiira, Arfuisor.vOpiniI.C.J.R~pnrrs IPSO.
p. 137.
' Ihid.p. 138. WRITT1.NSTATESltST OF SOUTH At-KiCA 679

ncitherespressly rransl'crrcto thc Unitcd Nations nor expressIyassumed
by thatarganization '".

't-hcnfolIow what in theC:oiirt'swosds"Nevertheless,... seem to bedecisivc
reawrl~"Tor iircunclusion. These can bricflbc surnrnari?edas ivllows:
(i) The obligatioritoacwlit "intcrnatiunalsupcrvjsion" and tosubmiireports
is anitripnrrnnrpartof the MandatesSystein~otisidered by theautliors

of the Covenant IO b: rrrpir~d .forrfl2rfiueperfornlmice of tliesacicd
trust,and sitnilarlrcgurdcd by the auihors ofthe Charrer relative tthe
international trustccshisysteiiiTlte "necr.s.si!yjviirsriperi:icannor be
üdrnitted to havedjsappcared"merely becausethe supervisoryorgan has
ceasedio exist".whcn !Iic United Ndtions kas annther internationalorgan
pcrforming similar.though nul idcntical, supervisoryfunctions.
(ii) "These gerteralconsirleraticins"are confirmed by Article 80 II)of ~he
Charter,which cannui "effectively safcguürd" the righis ol the peoples
of rnandatedtcrritori~swithoul internationalsupcrvision or a duty Io

renderreports toa süpervisoryorgan.
(iii) In ilsrcsolutionof 18April 1946,concernjn gandates. the Assemhlyof
the Lcague of Nations gave expression tu o "corr~spoiidi)g view". Inthe
Court's view "This rr.roiiifijirestrppows zkrr ihc sripmr.isnry ji~t~criom
rxercise0 by fhc Lraf:ce krorrfdfiernketi over hv rhr llnifr*r:\'nfior=".
(TtaIicadded.)
(ivj The tieneralAswnibty of the United Nritionsis renderedcorripctenttu
exercisc suchsupcrvisinnand 10 receive and cxaniine such reports hy
Article IOof the Charter.

7. it seemsevidenl lhat the Court could not have rneant that exh cf thc
abovc four "rcasons", or titagesin the reasoning, was to bc regardcd as in
itselfafording fui1justificaiionfor thc conclusion arrivcdai.
Sn, For insiance. s~rigc ljv)isconccrncd merely witli [lie deterrninaliun
witJtiithe UtiiiediVariottof an organwhich wouId he compcient to undcrtüke

the suprvisioii :but this wi-iuldhavc rio relevanw:in ihccnquiry unless there
shotild be an obligation to subrnitto Cnited Nations supervision.Siage (iv)
c1irIy prococds on the ba;is that such an obligation has been affirmütively
estabiished by tlie first tlis~üycs.
8. The firsl stagein the i'easoniiiisdescrikd in the OpinioriitseI as crn-
bodying "gcncralconsidemtions". As nored abovt, rhey relate to "effective
performance'' of the "sacrvd rru~tof çivilization"At the out sethe Iearned
Judges sraiein etfecrthat tlie autliorsothe Covenant consideredthat inter-
notiuniit supervision of ni;iridatoryadniinistration was ncccssary for such

effectiveperforrnaiice; that thc authors ofihc Charter had in tnind the same
necessirt eiariveto the trurteesliipsystem; and that such necessitycontinues
toesisi dcspitc disappearaiice of the sirpervisoryorgan iinder thc mandates
systcm. Tlresestateiiients arc clcar, and wcrc iipparcntly mçant tn suppIy a
hasisTor possible application of the principle of effeciivenzssin the xnsc
ihüi thcrccan bcsaid rnbe a p~sumption or general likclihoodtkit the inter-
cstcd partieswould haveinicndcd to kccp alivcaftcr dissolutionofthe League,
an obliçarion on ihe part of mandatories to sribmit to internationalsuper-
vision rcgardingmandator)administrarion.Inothcr rvords,the consideration
ofetrectivenesswas invokcclas a factorin reaçoning tawards a passihie impli-

cation of racit ayrcement. 9. The riextgcneralconsiderat iithe existencewithinthe United Nations
of an organ prforrning supervisory functions-for which reason ircanot be
"adrnittcd" ihr thç obligiiun tosubmit tosupcrvision has diuppcarcd niercly
hecause tf:e bague supervisoryorgans have ceased to exist. 'Thesuggestion
swrns to be that, in the light of the consideration or effectivene= alreüdy
stüted. thr intcrcstcd partics rnight wcIi (or would probably) have intended
that supervision of mandates should be continüedby this iiew orgin. Again
this is reasoningby inFerence relative ttacilinlent.

IO. CIcnirlythe "gcncral considcrations" wcre not considered conclusive.
If theyshrruld bereadas purportiiigto befult-justifiwtiori.by theinselves, for
rhe Court's conclusion in question.they woiild hüve ZObe interpretcd as mean-
ing in cffca that bccausc international supervision isdcsiriible,thereforethe
Court Iiolds that jtmust exist; and, rhat becausethe Uiiited .la:jons basan
organ perhrming supcrvisory funclions under atrristeeship system, whiçh are
siniiIarto,though not idcnticaI with, the supervision previously exercised hy
the League organs in respect of niondztes, thcrefvrethe Court IioIds that a
mandatorypreviousIy obliged to submit IO League supervision miist now be
obligcd to submit, in rcspect of its mandate, to supervision of the United
Nations organ (despitethe fact tliatthe rnanctatory isnot obliged and may

not bewiIIing to submit to the trusteeshipsystem). Ifthiswcre what the Court
intended tosignify,itivould mean thar rhe Court ineffectforsook its funcrion
of decidingin accordance with Iaw and assumcd ihc rote of a legislaior. is
submitted ihat such an intcrpretarionof the Court's reasoning cannot be
jiistified. The Court could hardIyhave ignored the universa1 principIe of law
and logictliata party which consenls toan obligation of a ccriiiincontent,
cannot, merely for rhatreason, and without freshconseno tr agreement on
its part, be heId liableto an ohIigarion of a substantially differencontent1.
1I. Nos dw itseem that the Court cuuld havc intcndcd io iipplythe prin-
ciplc that an obligation is not cxtinguishedby impossibility of performance

rvhen the impmsihiIity affects only one of two or niore equivalent rnethod~
or cotnp1i;incetherewitIi. That principlc clcürly cannot find application inthc
present case,for the very reason that the ohligition was not one to suhmit to
"internatinna1 supervision" but IO the specificsupenlisionOCparticiilarLeague
organs. Sribniission to United Nuiions supcrvision would thus bc a diircrent
obligationin substanceas welIas iiifornr,and not a inere equivalent method
of comptying with the same obligation. That thert:were certain inherent and
unavoiclabieditrerences, appcars tohave bccnacknowledgcd by thc majority
of the Court in the 1955 Advisvry Opinion. particularly in the following
passage:

"Thc voting systemis related to theconlposition and functions of the
organ. It forms oneof the charactcristics othe cunsliiution of thorgan.
Taking dccisiuns by a two-thirds rnajorityvote or by a simple niüjority
vote is one ofthe dginguishing featuresof the tienei'alAsseiiibly, while
tlie unanimity rulewas oneof the disringuishing featurts of the Conndl

of !hr Lrayuc of Nations. These two systernsare characteristic ofdiffcrcnt
organs and one systeni cannot be subçtitirtedfor the otlier without con-
stituliona1amendment. To transplant uponthe Gcncral Assembl y rhe
uniinimiiy rulc of the Council of the League would not he simply rhc

' Vide Chap. VIl,paras. 49-51,siipm,xs to thematerial differencin form and
substance bctwccn an obligation io subniit ro1-eaguesupervision in respeco tf
mandaies :ind onetu submit to Unitcd Nations supervision. WBCI-I'ENSIA'IFMES'~OF SOU'FH AFRICA 68f

introduction of a prozedüre, but would amouni to a disregardof oneof
tlie characteristicsof [he Gtncral AswmbIy. Consequently the question
of conforntiiy of thc voting systcrn ofthe General Assernblywilh that
of thc Councij of th,: League of Natioiis prcsentsinsurmountüble diR-
culties of a juridical rratun.'."

In thc rcsuIt isceniselridenttliat the firsstage inthcreasoning shoulb de
interpreted as not having 1xen intendcd tobe concliisivein itself butrnerelas
affording indicationsof prnhability which, togethcr with othcrrclcvantfactors,
could justifyan inferene of tuçi agreement rcnderingmandatoriesobliged tri
subinit to United Nations supervision.
12. Thesecond stage in thereaîoning refers to Articlc 80(1) of the Chartcr,
and hcildthatthegerieralconsiderations are "confirined" by thisclause"as .. .

interpreted above". 'rhesc Iastwords relate to an earlierpassagewhich dis-
tingujshcsthe açtual conir:nt of the clausefrom somcthing "prcsuppuscd" by
it,namely that the rightstifSraicsand peoplcv regardiirgmandateswould not
lapx tiutomaticallyon dis:dut ionof the League 2;ihe carliepassage proceeds
that "itotivioirs~was the inrutriuntrsareguard thc rightsof Statesand pcoples
iinder al1 circumstançcs iind in al1 respects, untiI each ierriiory sliould lx
plüccd undcrthc trirsteeshipsystein3".(ItaIics addcd.)Thereasonir negarding
supervision ' then proceerisby stating rhat the ""purpose tmi.rhve heeiito
provide a real prorwtion for thosc rjghts;but no such rights of the people5

couId bc cfictive5E.suf~guarw dithout iiiternationalsupervisionand a dury
tn render reports to a supervisoryorgan (Italics added.) Again, thercfore,
the prrsitgpnsirinnthc ob~ious it~te~and prirp0.wrelèrredto unexpreçsed .eV,
tacit intcnt, and the tffecrirsidegiiardingwas employed as a factorof prob-
abilityin reasoniiigtowards an implicationrcpa~dingsuchintent.
In the Sninh WP.SA I fiircases the Applican tsat onc stagc xcrned lo rely
hcavily on ArticIc80 (1)butaftertheJudginent and Opinions on thePreIirninary
Objections(and partiçulai.Iythe discussi inothe joint dissentingopinion of
JiidgesSpender and Fiurnauriceonthe effectof Article80 (1))thc AppIicants

concedecl that this Article could not havc had aiiy positive effectto enable
supervisioiiin respen of r,~andate so survive tltdissolulion of rhe 1-eague 7.
Thcy, haicret.va,pparentl:,stiI1attribi~tea diffcrcni (andthcrCforc, in iheir
view errrincous)attitude tcitIieCour1 in the 1950Opinion '. Ifthey wereright
in tlieir interpretaiiuof hc 1950Opinioii. the Court, itis subrriitied,clearly
erred in rhisvitalrespect, and this initseIfwoulddiminishif nui dcstroy any
persuasive value wtiich tht!Opinion mighi othcrwisehave had.
13. Tlie ihird stage in thc reasoning mncerns Ihc 1st League AssembIy
remlurion regarding mandates Y At'tergiving the contents of its !hird and
fourth paragraphs, the Opinionsiai~y:thc conclusion : ''This resolution pre-

supposes thai thesuperviscry functioiisexercised by the Leaguewould be taken

' Yoring Procedur oe Qwsfions rdotingio Kcport.sundPcIirion~-concer~ing tke
Territo ofySortth W~J-rfricri..ld~-isor~OpNiion, I.C.I. Rrpv1955, p.75.
= InrernafionalSulus uf5011thWsl Africa.Arfvisur,Opinion, I.C.J. Rcpor1950,
pp. 133-135.
Ibid.,p. 134.
' Jbid.,p. 136.
Ibid.,pp.136-137.
Erhiopin und I.il.eriu v. Thr RepirhO/South Af~ica.
Yi& Chap. VII1, para.SI, stzgiu.
' For ifstexI,videChap. VIII, para.26 (f) ,upro. over by the United Nations '".(Italicsadded.) Oncc more ihe rcfcrence is

cIearlyto an inferred.tacit inten;the word "presiipposes" renders this cIear.
as also the racl that theresoiulion itsclf made iiomeriticinof any trander or
taking over of supcrvisoryfunctiom.
14.To stim iip, theCourt was apparently ârgiring front what itconsidered
10 bc probabili~iesinhercnlin objective fcaturcsrcfcrrcdtoby itin thetirs!two
stages of its iAeeasoninag,d seeking to draw from these probribilitiesan iii-
ferenceof iacit agreement hetwcen the parties10 the Charter of the United
Nations to ,:hccffccthat rnandiltories\vouIdbc obligcd tosubrnit to ~hcljnitcd
Nations supwision, pznding trustccshipor other agreementwith thc Litited
Nations. And, in the third staz of ilsrcasoning. it soughtto draw a siinilar

inferencc oi'ücorrcsponding tacilagreement on thc partof the Mcmbcrsof the
Leagueof Vations at the time ofits dissoIiition.Iiscoiitended that neitherof
' Lheseinferences isjustitied,parricularlyinrheliglrt of matcrial now avaiIable
which was not bcforc thc Court in 1950, or tnwhich the Court did not then
advert.
Tnhis jiidgnient in the GW oi. Re.rv. Blom. Jiidgc Waterrntyer, a South
African Jutige of Appcül iind Istcr <:hier Jusrice of the Union. stütcd as
follows:

"ln xasnning by inference there are two cardinal rules of logicwhich
cannoi Lxilpioredi
(1) Ttiinference souglitto k drawnmus1beconsistentwith al[ iheproved

facis. Ifitis not. Ihe inferencecannot bedrawn.
(2)Thr: proved facts should be such tbt ihey exclüde every reasonable
infr:rmcefrom them save ihe onc souyht io bt:drwn. IFthey do noi
cxcltideolherreasonableinferences,then theremustbeadoiibtwhelhtr
the inferencesought to bedrawn iscorrect '.-'

These rulesof logic arecItartrIoyf grncraapplication. In pariicularthey are
appIicd by courts of civiIizcdStatesIO the qu~stion whether a tacitagreement,
or a taciierniin an express agreement, c;rnjustifiablybe intèrred ar implied in
a given case.
When regardis had IO ihcçc prinçiplesand Iogical coiisidcrütions,iris self-
evidentthat in theabsence of knnwledgeof cerr:iin relevant facts,aconclusion
arriveclaiin rasuning by inference rriaybevitallydiffcrcnt from what irwvuld
bc if al1ihc factswcre knownand considered.14number offacts which were
eiiher not hefore the (-:clurtin1950 or were not considered in the rnajority
opinion and are of pariicularimportance in khi5rcgürd,arc dealt with in the
ncxt succecdip naragriiphs.

15.'I'hetnajnrityconclusinn aî to the presuppc>sirinninvrilvedin the last
I.eague resoIuiicinon rriandar6 *, was an intcgral part, if notthe crux, of its
reasoning in concIudiiigthat thc kague's supen7isory functions had by tacit
agreement been transferred to or assu~nedby the United Nations. But the in-
troduction of hefucts cuncernifigtheori~iriaChinese pruposti/',whichLere not
beforc thc Court in 1950,puts a compleieIy diff'erentcomplexionon 1he tacit
inteniions of the Leagtie Menihers at thelast Scssion. It shows rhat what thc

Rrx v. ,Yiolu1939 A.D. t88,aipp. 202-203.
Vid~Ci-ap.1VIII,paras. 60-07s,rq~rclnd earlieparagraphs tuwh~çh derence
islkere macle. WR~,N STATEMEW OF SOUTHAFRICA 683

Court cnnsidcrcd to bc a prn:suyipositioiirtacitunderstanding Iiad ken sought

tobe achievedhy express rtsoIuIion.bur that rheproposa1 rothvtcnd could not
k prmeerteùwith kcause ithcarnc plain that ccrtainof the partieswould no1
agree thereto '.Morcovcr, the attention of the Court N7asno1 draivn to the
con tcntsof thi:reportof th,:Board of Liquidarionin reipect olmandatestvhich
reflectea conwption thiit rhmandates systenihad '-bzcn brought to tçlusc"
ncr to rhe absence of any relèrenceto mandatesin Voluine 1 of the United
Nations Treaty Series. in iiiarkcdcontrast to other maltersin respectof which
agreementsfor United Narionssuccessirinor üssumption had been wncludcd 3.

Allihese featurescanfirm tbcabsence ofatiy tact agreerneiitorpresupposition
conccrning iiIranskr of supenijsorylunctionsfrom the Lerigue ro ihe Lnited
Nations.
15. The mmbined effect or the above-inentiutied features not only destroys
al1 poss~biliiof iindiriginiavourof siich a presupposilion: iraIso throws such
light on other aspects of the finalhgue prnceedings4as tu rendercIear a
conlrary understandingon rhe pari OC ~heLeague Meinbers,viz.r, hat there

wouId bc no rcporting, ücrountiiigor supervisionpcndin" gagreerneni"iipon
"other arrangements" as between each mandato- and the United Ntiiions.
In tiirn,thiscontmrytin&r:;tandingin itsclf cffwtivrly rebuts theprcsurnptions
or prribabiiiticsrcgardiny~ffecti\~eness,s reliedon in them3jority's reasoning
concerniiigthe "genenl ccnsiderations" and the "purpow" of Articlc 80 (1)
of the Charter For Ihe majority ofthc Lciiguc Mcmbcrs, including nII nian-
dataries except lapan, had been invoived inthe es~ahlishmmlOFthe United

Nationsand theagreeinen t iiponilsCharter.Consequent ly theirundcrstünding
üt that time could hardIy have bcen the cippositc from what itwas shortly
afterwards at the dissolution of the Ixague.
17. The lasi-itientionedf.ictor, bearing on the tacil intent of thc foundcrs of
ihc United Narions, is enhinced by the second sct of façts nulfullyprcsented
to the Court in 1950 and appaiently not wnsidered hy itai all, i.e., thepowers
and funciions sciught iobe grantcd in respcçt olmandaies ta thc Tcmporary

Trusteeship Cornmitteean-3 the Trusteeship Council itselfThe two United
States prciprisalsdesign& t>empciwerthe TeiiiporaryTmsteeship Cornmittee
and, alter itsesiabtishment. the TrustccshipCouncil, "to receivcand cxnniinc
reportssubn~ittedby mandatory powers with respecttn such territoriesunder
mandate s have not ben placcdundcr the trusiecshipsysieni"wereabandoned

It isinstrttctita notc tlreclusesiniilarity betwethc wording of rhcprcsup-
pos~tionor tacit itndcrstandingfound by the Court. and the express tcrms of thc
firstChinrse clraft propusal. The t950 rnajority opinistated thatthc rfsolutiun
preiupposrd hal:

"... flre sup~rvi~oryfinion.?~x~rcisetr y~ILPU~II PouiibPtuken river&y rhr
Uiiired Nnrions". {Italicr added(Intrrnof ionai Siaiof Sotilh IVcsr~fiicu,
Advi.~ot.Opinion. I.C.J. Rt>purf1950,p. 137.1
The Chinew draft prriposalhad considcrcd:

".. .ihur the LPU~IIP jSinciion of superrisinnru~~ri<rirerdrrifnrsfiuitlb~
irnns/erred io thL:nircd,Xuiiorrs.." {Iialicadded.) (Vide Cliap. VllI, para.
26 jr), srrpra.)

a Vide Chap. VJII. para. 69sirproand carlicr parasraphs icwhich rcfcrençe is
theremade.
Vidc Chap. V [II, para'.' Orpra and çarliçr paragrapliiowhich refrreiicc is
rhcrcmade.
' As dcaltwithin Chap. vIII, sec.C. supru.
Vide para. 12.rtipra.by thejrpioposers, clcarlybecausethey did not prove acceptableto the other
Meinbers of the bnited Nations '.The Courtdid nciteven advcri to the fact
that thereu1asancxprcss proposal ihaithe sugated Tempoiary Trrrsteeship
Cfimniittcr:was to be ernpowered to "advise the General Asxmbly on any
malters tliimightariçewirhregardto thetransfcr to thc United Nations any
functionsend respomibiliticshithcrtexercisedunder the inandatessysten2"-

which proposal lapseduponthe rejectionof the suggestion of a Temporary
Trusteeshi Coinmittee,withoul the substitutionofanythingregardjn possible
transferto, or assumptionby, thc Unitcd Nalionsof any "functionsunder the
mandates :iystcm".
18. Fin;illy, conccrning rhetacit ittof thefoundcrsof the Lnited Nations
as wellas sfLeagueMembcrs at its dissolution,regard must behad to a tl~ird
set of fact:;nohfore theCourt in 1450,Le..tliepraclicr:oStates diirinythe
years 1946to 1449 and reflectedNrrrulin,in writtenand oral statementsmade
on behatfofalarge numher of Stütcsina varieiyofcircurnstanccsandsituations
and withina relativc sIoyrttimeaftertheestüblishment of the United Nations

and the dissolutionof tbe bague of ' arians,when the evcnrswere stiIIrea-
sonabl irsh in memory. Thcsc stiitcments show unrnistaliabla general
iinderswndingamungst Mem bersof the Unitcd Nat ions rhatno supervisory
functions~cgilrdingmandates (notmnverted into trusteeshipshad ken taken
over,and ihusrefuteanysuggestionof sgcncraltacilintention tothe contrary.
Had ail the ahovefsiciken known to the Courtin1950,md the iesignificance
of thcir ccirnbined effect appmçiared, it seems inconceivahle that the Court
could havr:arrivcdat its concIusicinregordinan obligation on SouthATrica's
pari tosuliniitto United Nationssupervision.

C. Dissentfrumthe 1950AdvisoryOpinionmncerning
Supervision

1. Minuriiy Opinions

19.Evenon rhcbasisof the facts More thc Courtin 1950,tivoof itsMeni-
bers,Sir Arnold McYair and Judge Read, wei-enot preparcd to suhscribe tu
the findiniihatSouth Africa was vbligcd 10stibmitto a supervisorypoweron
thepart of the United Nations, and they gavc ful Ieasons for thcir disse-'.
As far asthe South African Governmentisaware, theserasons and the con-

cIusions drawn front thenihaveinvitcd no adverse criticismfrom writers on
internatioiialaw.Onthe contrary, they findcoiisidcrablesupporin thc critiuI
comments of such writers-as wi1Iappear from paragrdpks20 to 27 below.
Furthcrrntire, the additionai materia1now brought into consideration con-
firnisthe correctnesof the re~ultarrived ain thcsc rninority opinions.

-- ..-
VideClhap.VIII, para. 55, supra. acarlierparagraphsto which referenccis
thereniadc.
'.Dm. I'C/EXjll3jR evp. 56. &'id?Chap.VI11 ,arsi55, sirproand carlier
parrigraphsto whichreference is [Iiei-emadc.
IntnrnrriiSnr~uis oJSuuthM'es;Afii.cAdvisory OpitiioI.C.J. R~eports1950.
pp. 159-162,166-1?3.
Vide paras. 15 r18,supra,and carlier para~raphto which referencis rhcre
made. WR~TTEN SI-ATF.MF.NTI>F SCIU‘IH AFKICA 685
II.Opitliotiuf Wrifms

20. Even before the 1950 Advisory Opinion, Hall, indealing witttiecffcct
of thedissolution ofihcLeague upon Mandates, stated,itiieniin:
". ..the supervisoryfuncrions ofthe League had corneto an end bcforc
the supervisory functionsofthe United Kalions could begin ro opcrate,
cspwially sincethe plan for a tempararytrustccship cornmitteehad been
rejectedin the Preparîtory Cornmissionof the L'nitcdNations'".

Inreferringto thcoriginadrafi rcsoIutionraisedbythe Chinescddcgate at the
last scssioofthe League hsscrnhly,which was not proeeded with, he quoted
theChinese delcgateas saying ihal.the Charter"made no provision for as-
siimptionhy the Unitcd Niitionof theLeague'sfunctions" undcrthc miindates
syslcr 2.
Aiid hecommented finally iregard to the League Asxmbly resolution of
18 April1946:

"The sipiifimce c.fthis reçolulion of tlie Leagiie Assembly becomcs
clearer whcn it reaIizedchat for many months the mast claboratedis-
cussionshad beentak:ingplace between thc governments as to the exact
procedure tobe adopled in makingthe iransitionktwcen the Leagueand
the United Nations. Itwas tliefunctionof the Preparatory Conimission
andthc wmmimittea suxeeding ittamake recommcndations on the trans-
feroffunctio ncriviliwand asuctsof theLeagüe. AI1 the asselof thc
Leaguehad heen careftAlytabulated.AIlitsrightsandobligatio th tcould

be hqucarhcd tothe UnitedNations and whichthc Iatiedesired totake
overwere provicieùfor inthc agrccmcnts ihatwere made.But in the cax
ofmandates,the Leaguc dicdwithout a testament ?'"
2 1.In January195 1,ve;yshortIy afterthe 1950 AdvisoryOpinion, Manley
O. Hudson wrote as foIIov~s:

"To support itsadditionalconcIusionthat the Unionof South Africais
obligedto submit to ihe supervision ofand to renderannual reportsto,
rhe United Nations. i.heCourt reliedupon a resotution adoptcd by the
final Asscmbly of theLeague ofNarions an Apnl 18, 1945, which was
said topresuppvse thiithe 'supcrvisoryfunctionexercixdby Ihe Leligue
would k takenover b:,the United Nations'.This is hardIybornc out by
the tcxtof the resol iui.however. Nor isthe succ~ssionor the General
Assembly a nocessaryconsequcncc of itscornpetence undcr Article 10of
the Charter towhichi.hcCourt refers'".

"The Court sccms to have plaoedcrnphasis on the compclcnce of the
General Assentbly to exercisesuprvision and toreceiveand examinc:
reports.Such wntpeb:ncecan hardly bedoubted. Yet is doesnot folbw
from the conclusion thai the GeneraIAssembIy 'is IegalIy qualified to
exercisethe suprvisory functionspreviaasly cxcrcisedby the Leagueof

Hall,op. ritp.272.
Ibid.pp.272-273.
' Ibid .,273.
' Hudson, M. O., "Thc Twcnty-ninth Year ul the World Court". A.J.I.I..,
Vol. 45(January19511,pp.1 -36:iip. 17. Nalio~s', thiitthc Union of South Afrim is undcr anobligation tosübniit
to supt:rvisionand control by tlie GeiteraAssembly, ortliat iisobligated
to rentierannualreports ro the General Assembly '."
Rcparding thc icapfilicabiIiand effcct of Article 80 (1) of the Charter hc
reniarked :

"Arriclc80(1) ofthe Charter seems to bethe principal basisoftheCourt's
concluiion tliat the Uiiion of South ATrica niust report ~o the General
Assembly. This arridc providcd tht, until the conciusionof Triistecship
Agreements, nothinç in Chapter XI-1 ofthe Charter should 'lxconstrued

in ur (i isru tucilteritcttfnirinilethe iighrsii~lrnrsoerrf an)]stntesor
nny pcopks or the rerms of existing internatiunalinstruments' (itaiics
supplit:df.'Thetex!clearlyshowsan intentionrhatChaprer Xi1 should not
efyect:.nyalterationof righlsor terrns.This inicntiowas 'entirelynegatiilc
in charaçter*T. he provisionservedan obvious purposewhenChapter XII
nfthe Charter was drawn up: the Mandareivas stilin forcaet rhattime;
as ihe 1,eagueof Nations had not rhcn kcn diusolwd. ttny uLtetaticor the
existing situationwüs a mattcr for itsconsideratA ioticle80 (1) was a
precaiitionary provision designedto negative the accompIishment OFany
change in tl-teexistinsituativn by rcason tiChaptcr XII 'inor of itsclf'.
Itisncirsiirprisinthat JudgeMcNair found it +dificulttsecthe rclcvancc

of this article'.
Yet theCourt gahre an affirmativctïecl(o Article 80(11 ,urning iinto a
positive 'çafeguardfor nlaintaining the rights ofstatesand the rights of
thepeoples of themandated territory. Thjs is the more norable because at
a laier stagethe totirtslrcsçed the Tniirelyncgaiitivccharaclccor Article
80(3, dcclining tosay tliatthe Latteimposed a positiveobligation on the
mandatory even IOnegotiate with a view IOthe conclusionof a Triisteeship
Agreement .
No attention was paid by theCourt to thefact that certaiStates,which
as Memhers of the former 1-eague of Nations ma); have 'rights' under

Article22 of ihe Covcnant and undcr thc hlandatc itxlf, had no respon-
sibility fothe Charter and have never beconie hleinhers of the United
%atiotis.For example, Pinland, Ireland and Portuçal. which were re-
prexnted ai ~hçfinal scssion ofthe AsscmbIyofthc Lcaguc of Narionsin
1946.:irein thiscategory. Iftheirrightsare 'maintained' by Article 80 (Il
of the Charter, theyhave no voicein rhesupervision to be exercisedhy the
GeneriiIAssernbIy 2."

22. In Aitgust 1951,followed anarticle hyJoseph Nisot 3.TheIcarned author
statcd,jnlepdia :
"Kciw, what, inactuality, were tlirights derived by pcoptes from the
Mandiitcand from Article 22 of theC:ovenantnT ?hey werenot rights tthc

henefiiof absrractçupcrvisit>nandcuntrol. Thcy consisted of the rightto
have the administration supen~isedand coiitrolled by the CorrnciI of fh~
Leagice of AJatio~isand, in partici~lar,rhc right to ensure that annual
reports were rendered hy thc rnanh~ory Po\i,cr to tlie C..orrncifthe

' Hudson. on. ci,.'.14.
IbiO.,Pi i.4-1.
Sisor. S."The Advi>rorvOninion of the International CourtorJusticeon the
pp. 274-285. StatusOF iioul6 W~SLAfrica", S.A.L.J.Vol.68, Part 3 (August1951). WKIT~ENSTATEMEN'C OP SOUTH AFRICA 587

Leuaite offVufiilio,~sitwas, and the iightto send petitions tothc Secre-
tarin1ofthe L~IJ~I~ ,Rf~Vatinns.Whal hs becofneof thex rights?They
have neccssari diyappeared a3 a resuItof thedisappeüranm of theorgns
of the League (Cour~cil, Permanent Mandates Conirnission, Sccrctariat).

The Coiirt coiildmitcorrectlyconclude rhat such rightshadIieeitmain-
rained by Articlc 80, except by contcnding at the urne iinie ~hatfor the
purposes of the Mandate for South West Africa, 'thcsaid urgans had
survived the dissolution of rhe Gaguc. ... Being unable, and for good
reasons, sa tocontcrid, the Court createsriew rights. To theCourt, the
rightsof peoples ,niaiittaineby ArficleHOislinked tn the Ut~itcdi\'atiorrs
~rgunisafio~t...
According to its tlicsiitis because Article 80 'müiniains'the rights
of proples thai these. thoughIinked to theI.eague, muu now lxJwined

linkedto the United Nations!To infcr thisfrom a texiworded asisArticle
80 amotints to assuiriing that,witti respectto the mandarcssysiern t.e
Unitcd Xaiions stands as thelegalsuceessor of the League,an as~umption
inconsistentwirh the djscirssionsof SanFranciscoand with the very frict
thal~heCimirer prniides forthe conclusionof trustmsh~p agreements '."

Regarding thc rmolution of 18April 1846, ol the League Assembiy, hc cvn-
tinued:
". .. onc failsto see how ttiistatcmcntcanprovide anysupport for a
suggestion thatit was the Assembly's opinion that a mündaiory Power,

though not bound h:ra trusteeship agreement.was underan obligation
tosubm~t to supervisionand controI by the United Nations.
This was no more theopinion of the Assembly of thc Lcagueof Nations
rhan thar or the General AssembIy of ihe United Nations, which, by ils
resolution of 9th Fr:bruary, 1946, urged the conclusion of trusteeship
agreements, irnyilyin~:thatno implementation of thc principlesof rhe
Iriisteeshipsystem-therefore, no supervisionor control-\vas possible in
rhe ahentn. ofsuch ayrccrnenis"'.

In the fina[portion of rhis part of the article, Niwt refcrrcto ~hefailure of
the authors of the Charter4-

".. .to provide for internationalsupervision with respccttu theobliya-
tions incumbent on iiniandatory Statc, shouId il elect notto constude
such an agreement"{i,c., TrusteeshipAgreement).

He concluded:
"?-hi5Iack of forecightha5 resulted iittltpi-eese~situation, which the
Court altempis itself to redress,stepping outof its rnle asintcrprclerof

thelaw to asurne th;rof legiçlator3."

". ..the World Court was faced with ihe i~ue of wheiher the United
Nalions had becorni:responsjblc for ihe discliarge of the supervisory
function which ihr:LeagueIiadforrncrIyexerçisedin relation to thc only
stilsurvivinginandaie. In support of a positiveanswcr,the Court could
neither rely on any f,eneraprincipIe of successionbetwcen internaiionaI person; nor my relevant transactionbetween the two collecliveiYs-
tems....ThestiIIniissinglink~4ththe United Kations rvasprovided by the
C0urt':iinterpretationof Article80 of the Charter ofthe United Natiuriç.
Itwas -admitted in the müjorityOpinion that 'this provision only says
that ncthing in ChapterXII-shalIbecanstnied to alterthe rightsafStates
or wq>les or the ierrnsofexisting internationalinstruments'.SiiII,wilh

theassistanc efa somewhat debatable presuppositionand 'obvious'inten-
tions,~heIast gap was bridged. Tt isnnt surprising that JudgeMcNair
should have found it'difiiciilttseethe relevanceof thisAtiicIe'.
Having filIeù ihe legal void which scparated the supervisory fiinctions
of the League of Nations frrir fnose of the United Nations, the Court
proceeciedwith itsseIf-imposedtask of 'judiciallegislaiion"".

24. Professor R. Y. Jennings in a paper on "The International Court's
Advisory Opinion on the Vriting Prowdure on Questions concerning South
West Airica2" said, with reîerence to the 1955 separate opinion of Judge
Lauterpacht:

"This aitcmpt by Judgc hutcr:rpacht tuexplore thc 1cgalno-man's-land
between the Covenantand Charter takcs lis,1 think,to the nubof the
dificulty in thiscase: the virtual irnpossibiliof tîndin agnysafe legril
bridge ktween thc League CounciI and ihe Gcncral AsscmbIy of the
United Nations in respect of the suliervisoryfunctions. Tliis isevidently
feIt by Judge Lauterpacht rvhenhe says thal'there may be an element of
artificiitt'in sumc of fhc voting proccdurcs suggcstcd'Înasrnuchas they
must of necessityIeaveout ofacwunt the differences inthe coinposition
of theGeneralAssernbIyandthe CoiinciIof the bague' [VotinP groc~dure
on Qwsrions rciating #OReporrs undPetirions ronc~rningthe Terrif0r.vof
-
SoutirWest Africa. AdE'i~or ypiniotr1.C.J. Rfj~orisIYSS,p. 671.
Ttwill be remenibered thal in the 1950 Opinion there were powerful
disscnts from Judgcs McNair and Rad on this vcry point.Judgc McNair
said:
'1mot find anylcgal ground on which the Court would be justificd

inreplacingthe CounciI of the kgue hy the United,Nations for the
piirposs of exercising the administrativesupervision of rhc Mandate
and thc rccciptand examination ofreports. Ttwould amountto inipos-
ing anew obIigation upon the Union Governmentandtvould he a piece
of jiidicial iegisIalionsaying this, 1do not overIookthe cornpetence
ofthc GcncrsI Assembly of the United Nations, undcr Articlc 10 of
the<:harter ,o discussttie Mandate forSouth-WestAfricaandto make
recoinmendationscunwrnjng itbut thatiwmperenct:depends no[ itpon
ang t.hmryof implied siiccexqianhutüpon theprovisions ofthe Charter'
[irilermrionolSiallisof South West Afiicu, Adi~isory Opirrioi, fC.J.

R~p~~irr1s950, pp.161-1621.
Thc ail.crnptof thc 1955Judges to discover tht 'IcgaIgound' andthcn
to compare interms of degree. supervision by two bodies utterly dis-
simiIar in kind. seems ro l>eonIy ru dcmoristratethe soündnew and the
wisdoni of thc 1950 dissenis3."

Schwarzcnbergcr,G., Inleunario~iafLa(3rd cd.), VoI1.pp. 101-102.
PubIishedin the TransactionO/'theGr0tiu.Sociery, Vol. 42(1956),pp. 85-97.
Vbid., pp. 96-93. 25. Writingon "Succenion in InternationalOrganizationsl",HungdahChiu
analysedthe Coiirt'smajority opinion in 1950and stated:

"It wt>uIdappear. . .that theCourt'sfindingswould support the theory
that tlie transfcof I'unctionsbciween internalio orraanisationsneed
not be expreswd; but, under sonie conditions, can k &iplied. For the
convenicnw of preseritation, this thcory wibe Iiereinafterrcferred to as
Ihe'iitipliedtransfer~heory'~."

ln discusçingthemeritsof the"impIied transferthmry"hcsaid the following:
"The theory of impljedtransfer is open to severalcriricisms.First,it

lacks supporl in the prücticro:r internationalorganisation succession.
Except in the cax of IntrrtiationnStaiusof South-West-dfricn, thcrehas
ken no otherinstanuiof the functionsof anredcceaor or~anisationkin~
implied1ytransferred to thcsucwssor organisation. ~econdl~, the predeI
cessor oraaniwtion riiidthe sumssor organisation are the ~raducl of
multi[iite&ltreaties, ihc parties to whicare iiot identicals8 thatihey
arelegzllytwo separsiteanddistinct entities.Iistruethat legalconiinuity
belween the two cntities can lie achievedb,ut itmusi be brtsed on an
exprcss agreement, In façt, one of the fundainenta1po1icy rearons for
creatinga newinternationalorganisation to replacethe one alrcadyestab-
lished and serving siniilaror identicalpurposes io achieve a freshstart
witha new organisatil)n,havingno lcgal connection with theone currently
functioning. Under s1~chcircurnsianccs,the runcctionscan be transferred
onIy hyexprcssagreement betwcen thetwoorgaganisation s.caseof douht,
it mustbe presumcd thal no transferisintendedforthe same policyras011
stüted aboic.Thirdly,if ishighlydoubtful that this theorywould rvorkin
practice.Soon iifiethe case of internationaStarus of SouiJiWest Ajiica

in 1950 he UN Gcncrd AssembIy faced the question as ta how such
imp1icdlyrransferredfunction was to beexercised; and in 1955, ithad to
requestanother opinign from the ICJ.Again in 1956,the Ciencra1Assem-
bly had to ask the ihrt for an opinion on the scope of the function
intpIiedIytransferredThus, in a.sinpIecaseivhere this theory has been
applied,itsapplicaticninçurred aseriesof resrirts to internationaljudiciaI
promdures.Consequ?ntly.in addition to itstheoreticalshortcomings, it
would appear fhaf thistheop is not convenientin practice 3".
26. David A. Rice,in o~mmenting on the 1962 Judgment un thePreliminary

Objections in the SuutfiWest Africo cases4, consitlered,i~r.fernliai,hevalidity
of the "succession theory" which "postuIates that the United Nations is the
successor lo the mandatc powcrs ofthe kague of Nations5"; inotherwords,
the thcory whicli "was a:oepted by the Court inthe 1950 Advisory Opinion
on the Statusof Soiith-WestAfrica6".
In Ihis regard he wrotc as folIows:
"The dcliberationr :f theLeague Assembly. the United KationsCon-

Inkrnaliomi and Conir.araric-ehw QurirterIy, Vol. 14(19651,pp. 83-120.
' IIiid.,pp105-1116.
" Ibid.pp. 108-109.
"Partiesin Interest", iToiumbiuJournaof~rdisn11#ionffiLaw, Vol. 4No. 47
(''6ifid., gp80.81.
Vlid., footnotc 58,p. 80. ferenccon International Organization, anci the United Naiions GeneraI
.4sscmbIy Icnd no crcdence to the successito henor). The resolution of
the League Assernbly,passedin its final session in 1946, caIledattentioii
tothe expressionsof intent by the mandatories to adntinisierthcniandated
tcrritorics iaccordance with the mandates, and to the truteeship provi-
sionsof the United 'latiotis Charter. It isquite clear, however, rhat the
reso1ii:ionconwrning the niandates containedno provision whichexpressly
d~Icgüted supervisoiy powersto the Cnited Narions.
TIie Spender-Fitzrnauricc disxnt quotcs frrim a mysrerious 'Chinese
drafr' resuliition conorming tlie post-1-eague stulus of the Mandates
Systeni. '1-his'Chinese draft' resolution does not appear in the Ofliciai

Journzilof the karuc.Howcvcr, itseems sianificant ihat rhe Chinese
delegate exiresxd friappreciation in the ~:irs<~ornmilicc,follk\ving the
riassageof the recordeciresolution which is comnared witli the 'Chincsc
drartaby thc joint-disxnters, forthe acceptance of the Chineseresolution
concerni nle future of the Mandnles Sysicni. The jointdissenters çon-
clude [rom their cornpiirison rhat the Leitgue Assernbly ccirisidcrcd an
express dilcgiition ofthe supervisory powers to the United Kations as
provided in .the'Chinesedraft' and rcjcctctl this courseof action. Such a
Iegislacivehistory, could it bshow, would niakeit quitc clcar that suc-
musion wss not intendai. 1-lowever, itis submitted that otlier evidcnce
m&es itequally clear.

The action takcn bs the United Nations confirms tiie conclusivn that
çucccsuion pu se was not mnternplated by the Lcague Assernbly. The
GeneniItlssemblv wassed a rewluiion on Fcbruarv 9. 1946. which took
note of rheexpre;sedintentions of the Mandrttorie;, incliidiny ihc Union
of Soutli Airica, and cülIcd upon them ro stibniit propoxd trusteeship
agrn'nicnts 'not later than during the second part of the firn session of
the Cieneral Assembly'. The implication of this resolution coririnns thc
expressÎonsin Ariiclcs 77 and 79, hoth noting rhat mandatcd territories
PaII'withinthe scope of the trüsieeship prtivisions and thai the tnethods
of dealing with each case are ü matter of subsquenl agreement arnong
the parlies conccrncd'."

And his uitimate concIrision was that-

"... a docision restingon the theory ofsuccession is precluded by the
h~itaiicy and refusal of ihc Lcague and tlte linited Nalions IV provide
forthe Lnited h'aiions' üssumption of the Ixague's role inthc Mandates
Systcrn2".

27. Judgt Sir GeraldFitrmauricc.in a paper entitled "JiidiciaI Innovaiion
-1Es Uses andits Perils '" discussed ,iitcraiin, thc 1950 majority opinion,
whiçh, hc considered, afforded-

"... aiiinstanw ol a nlatter in which although, in thc prcscnt wriier's
vicw, ihc Court reached a niistaken conclusion on a certain question as
such t neverthetesshiid an opportunity-but failedto rakeit-of makiny
an innovatory clürification of the Iaw relatiny 10 international organisa-
tionsIIIa manner that would have pointed to soine interesing and irnpor-

"Partiesin Interest",Co/uirrbiJournal of Tran.s~~~i!io~faw, VtiI.4, No. 47
(1965),pp. 81-82.
Ibid..p.85.
' Cunrhridge Essoy n Initrnaiiunulhi w (1965). pp24-47. WKITrE\: STA~l~F:MESO'F SOUTH ARICA 69 k

tantdcvclopments.rnstead,the Court gavea decisiclnwhich.inthe opinion
of Lord Mch'air, arnounred to a picccofjudiciaI Icgisiation"."

.4fter discirssingthe naLurof ilie ptohlem with which rhe Court kvas füccd,
and stating thc mannçr iiiwhich thc two dissentingjudgcs Iiad deaitwith it,
the Iearncd author contin?iedas follorvs:

"What, in ihe Iighofall thiswas the acinal basisaftheCourlysfinding
thatthc niandatory was accountable to rhe Lnited Nations? It was in
cnéct this:thatsincc the cxcrcix ufsupervision, and the performance of
the rtporting obIigation lere essentiatclements of thc systcm-so tliat
the obligation reinaiircd intact despirethe disappearanceof the original
supcrvisory organ-:ind sinw thcrc cxistcd another entiry, the United
Nations, willing to mercise suliervisory functions and not disquaIifiecl
from doiny so under ils own Charter, rkeiefire rhe~iiandatorywas iinder
a tegaiobligarion IOfurnish rcportslo iheapproprialeorganof the United

Nations.
This was of course, IogÏcaiIy,a iioe-sequirtiand amoüntcd. as Lord
Mc'lair said,'ru iniftosinga ncw obligation' on the rnandarory: for an
this particutarbüsis the latterwould have been undcr an obIigation to
report to cuiy entitywhich happened ro be willing to act and was nor
debeired by ils con!;tituiion frorrrso doing. Tlie esscniiat Iogicallink
between an obligatioii, in the abstracr, tu report, and an obligationdo
so io s particularerdity, \\*am$issing frrirnthc argument; and the Sali
wzrs not bridgcd by ?hc willingncss or capacityof that entityio act, ur

even by the fact (a gc~d dealstressedby the Court) that inthe analogous
field of United Yaticns rrusteeship,this entitywa5 exercisingon its own
amount functions of a broadlysjrnÏlarkind. Eiipeciallmight this he said
to be the case seeing that ail the evidence \riera show thai IIie failure
to make any cxpres! provision for the possihiiity ihat sorne rnandated
terniciriesmightnot (as ihe hope and cxpcctaiiun was) bc trarisferredto
the truslcestiipsysktri,was no oversight but dcliberate, probabIy pre-
cisey hecauscof ihai hope and expoctalion; biitobviuusIythe mere non-
realisation of theliojiand expectatio conuld not thenilself be regarded
as a legal groiind on which theUnited Nations could proceed to cxcrcise

the deliberately non-iissumed functions.
In support of itsfinding, the Court confined itselfto rclying on argu-
ments wfiich Lord Mch'üirand Judge Readdeinolished wirhrcIlinyea.,
naniely a clearly incorrector question-bcgginginterprclaiionof ArticIes
IOand 80 of the Chirier,and a vers dubious inierpretrttion of thfinai
1-eague of Narions ~csolution of April 18, 1946, in which thc Lcagiie
recognjsed thatits functions with respectIo rriandatcd icrritories wereal
an cnd. MereIyto go on. as this resolution did, to 'noie' that certain
articlcsof the Unitcd Kat[unsCharter'etnbodiedprinciplescarrcsponding
to' those of~hcrnaiiiiatcssystcm,and thal the varivus mandatories had

dcclared their intentionof continuing tr,administer the rerriiories'for
the well-being and di:vcIopmcni or the people3 concerneciin accordance
with the obligations containe id the respective Mandates*,and 'untiI
other arrangenients {raveken agreed hefwecn the ieIlnitcdNations and
the respwtive Mandatory Puwcrs', was neitheractually to makc anysuch
arrangements, nor to traiisferthe Leaguc'sown functions to tlreUnited Natiuns. Indeed the Ianguageuscd virtually negative ady such transfcr.
As Lotd McNair said, this resolutiocould nul bc construcd 'as hsving
created a legal obligation'forthe mandatory 'to make annual reports
trthe Unitcd Nations' or 'tu transfer to that Organisation the prc-war
supervisionof itsMandate by the Lieague'.'At the most-, Lord McNair
mntim.4, theresolution 'wuId impose an obliga~ion to pcrform thosc
obligations ofthe Mandate ... which did not involve the activity othe
Lcagric'.'"

D. AdvisoryOpinionsof1955and 1956

28. I>n 7 June 1955,and I June 1956, this Cnurt gave Advisory Opinions
intcrpreiingtlie 1951) pinion. The 1955Opinion conoerned voting procedures
on questionsrelating toreporls and pctitions rcgardingthe Terrilory of South
Wesr ~frica~. 'I'he 1955 Opinion related ta the adniissibilityof hearings of
pet~tioncrsby the Coiiiniitteun SouthWest Africa 3.
In both uses this Cuurt was asked only for an interpretalionof the 1950

Opinion, and conwqucntly itscorroctnesswa. not ~wnsidered.
The lalerOpinions are nevertheiesssignificantinsofar a.they cast light
on the majorilyopinion or 1950. The firstfcatureof the 1950 Opinion which
they emphasize is the difficulty in ascertaining the legal baiipon which it
was decided'.The Iack of clarityinthe 1950Opinion is shown not only by
thefact thatitretluiredelucidalion itwo furtherOpinions(whichis signifîcani
in ilseI bu)t aIso bythc divisionsamong, and reasoning of, the Members O€
the Court inthe subsequent Opinions. The 1955Opinion prucecded upon a
purcly texrtiaIinterpretatiouof the words uf the-1950 niajorityopinion, and
is accordingly of intcrcst rnainly for the fact that an interpretativeOpinion

was rcquired,rather than for its contents" Inthe 1955Opinion, on theather
hand, the Mcmkrs of Ihe Cour[ alw advcrre tdthe legai basiof the 1950
majority opinion, with instructiveresults. The 1956 majorityopinio(nwhich
was cndowd by eight Meinbers of theCourt rigainsia minority offiw) inter-
preted the 1950 Opinion as having been based on a iransfcrof supervisory
powers hoin the Leagire C:ouncilto the United Nations GeneralAsscmbty,
apparcntly by agreetrientamongst thc intcrcstcd parties. Thus ir stated that
the Court had held "that the obligationsof themandaiury thosc which
obtained urider themandates systern"" and itreferredto thefinding(in 1950)
"regardingthc subsîitiitioof the GeneraI AssernbIy of the United Nations

for the Council of the League of Nations in the exercise of supcrvision6"
(ital iddst:ù).Ai varioiis subsequentstageof itsOpinion, the iiiajorityagain
referredto
"... the paramount piirpoçeunderlying hc ruking uwr by the Clenemt

CrrtnhridigeEssayin ZnrernuiionulLaw(1965). pp.37-39 .oi>tnoreadeleted.
Yoring i3rocedrion Vitestionrslariiig ro RepdirrsuPetifiofts c~nccrningthe
'if rriroofSourhWesr Afrira, AdvisoryOpinion,I.C.JRepovrs 1955,p. 67.
' Rd»ii.rsi.%IofFierirfngofPetitionerhi flw C0:ortlttionSoirthWesr Afrirn,
Advi~ury Opinion, I.C.JRrporis1956 ,.23.
* Videth<:coninients by Professor Jenniiigs (p24, supro)and Hungdah Chiu
(para.25, $;,pro).
As regards the separate opinioof Jiidgc Lauterpaçhl, howeverseethe com-
ments of RmfessorJennings in para. 24sicpra.
Ad1~li~5i.5i.jtifenringofPeririniiehy thr r'ornniiircr onSoarfi WAfriru,
Advirory @inion, I.C.J. Rrpris1956, p.27. AsseiiibIyof the Uniicd Nations of thc supervisoryfunctions in respect
of ihe Mandate for South West Africa forn-ierlycxercixd by the CbunciI
of theLeagucof Nsttiotis '" (italicsadded),
and to the

"... Court having d:tcrmined that the General Assembly had rtpiacutl
ihc CounciI ofthe Lelgue as the supervisory organ ?" (italicsadded).

'Theinterpretation of tIie 1950 Opinion by the majority in 1956 therefore
apparentlyaccords with ~hatset out above by the South African Govcrnntent,
viz., thal ihc Court in 1950folind rhat a replaccmcnt or supervisory organs
had heen eiTwleùby tacitagreement.-Such a findingiscssentiallyone of fact.
29.The rninority in 1956however,interpreted the 1950 Opinion În a dif-
fcrcntway. lnthejaintdist~ntingopinionof Vicc-PrsidB eandtawiand Judges
I3asde>znt,Hsii Mo, Armand-IJgm and Moreno Quintana, the FolIowing

atlitude wasexpresscd:
"Resolution 24 (0 iidopted bythe GeneraiAssemblyonFebruary 1Ith,
1945, had made provision with regard to the method tn he adoptecl for

the exaniinationof a!ly request 'that the Unitcd Natiotis shouldassume
the exerciseof flinctions or powers enlmsted to the Leagite or Nations
by treaties, internationalconventions. agreements and other instruments
having a poIiticalciiaracter'.Herc uppeuredthe ideaof apssibiti trni~.$er
idpnwers cntrust~d r.illeteagite of Rai rhe course indicarrdfry
rhuiresnltt~ionwn.7rrcbftoliowed. fiehion oJ South A fricahas ~iotsirb-
niittedtu the Geiieral A.wrnhfy nfiyrequfsr ihar the tnrrershoriidarsrrnit
zhe'powerserifria~cd'10 iheCoitnciioj theLe~~gfioef~V~~liom T.he Opinion
of 1950 did not therrfore pIace itscIf on thesame ground as resolution
24 (0. On fhc contriiry, ilstated in itsreasoningihat 'thc supervisory

functions of the Lca1:iiewith regard to mandatedterritoriesnut placed
tinder the new rrusteeshipsystcrn were neithercrpressIy tranqferrcd to
the United Nations nor expressIyassurnd by that organi-ation'. The
Opinion does nor baseitsclf on ihe ideaof succession, on the jdeaof the
rransferof powers.
?'keCourt, u??altrucrehdy theich 01-succession n,the rrarïfero~poivcrs,
hsed ifseIf ari the ofypc~is~efeinents ofrkesiruarion-fhe importance of
intermiionni supervisionunderrhemandules systern ns w~iUSrhe provisions
of the Charrcr O/ the United Ararir>iist was in thex clenientsthat the

Court, in itsOpiniorlof 1950, found 'dccisivereasons'for the view that
'the General Assembly of the Unitcd Nations is legally qualifieto exer-
cise hc supcrvisory funclions previously exercised by the I~ague of
Nations"." (ItalicsaCdcd.)
A similarvieivwasexpi emed by JudgeWiniarsk 4.

It is apparent from th?: abovequoted passage that the minority did not
consider that the 1950Opinion was based upon the consent of the interested
parties,andin particular,trfSouth Africaas inahdatory, to a transfer'ofpowers

Ibid.,p.28. The exprm:iion"iuking owr" appears again at p.29.
: Ihid.,p. 29.hier there appear furthcrreferencesto the "General Asscmbly
replactnf. . the CnuncilorChe Lcaguc" (p.29) and to "the Tacirhatthe AssernbIs
had repfucrtt ikCouncil" (p.30).
' Ihirl., pp. 65-66.
Ibid. p.33. WRIïTEX STATEMEST OF SOUTH AkRICA fi95

this point; but thc findingsor reasoning ofseven ofthem are to a grrateo rr
lesseiexten tinconsistent wilh any survival of ihr:Mandatory's obligations10
report and acçoiint.The:, are Judges AlFaro, Badatq:i.Moreno Quiniana,
Wellington Koo, Koretsky. Jcssup and Mbanefo. Inrespect of the remaining
four Judga (i.e., I'residentWiniarskiandJudges Rasdevan(S . piropoula osd
Morelli)no indicarions art:inrhis regardafforded by theiropinions.
For convcnience, fhe Iudgrncnt and opinions will hedealt with in moreor
less the ordei indiwted-above. '

II. Separnre Opitriotof Jltdg~ Busttinimtre

32. Al though Jiidge Rtislatiiantheld th31 the coniproniissorycIauw had
survivcd thc dissolution oi'the Lcayue, hc madc it quiteclear that hc Jid not
thereliy intend to conveyttiatinhis view any succession to theUnited Nations
had taken place. In Facthc cxplicitly slaled:

"The above findingi da iiut iiany way imply an intention to establish
or to regardasestablished theprinciplcofautonlaticor exofi~.iosiiwssion
of the United Naiioni ro the Ixagtie of Nations. II has ben 5ufficienrIy
clcarlyshown, in theo~urseofrhcrvrittcn andoral proceedingsin this case,
that thetheory of aiilanatic succession is iiiconsistewith the historical
background of the discussiorisand resoIutionsof the two great bodies

during the triinsirionalperiodin 1945-1446 '."
Ikaling specificallywithtlie Mandatory'sobligations toreport and account,
he statcd that "the tutclary organirario rightof supervisionovcr the exercise
of thc Mandatc isan insri;utiunülrulc in thc niandates system", which isno1

just an adjectivalor pioe:dural formality, but an "esseniiaI element" '. The
stirvivaIor [hi5essentialeIen~entwas in his vicw providedfor inthe Charter,
whichiniprised on the Maridatory the obligation toput into forcea trustceship
agreement i.
Une of the yroundson umhichhe bnsedihis conclusion was the veryfact rhat
in the absence of a trusti:eshiagreement ihere wouId be no intcmationaI
~upenision in respectofm:indates .his alipeais vei-ycIearlfromihe following
passage:

"ln iny opinion, thiswordiiiy of paragrapli2, [ive.Article80 (3)]which
is connected with thai of Articles77 (para. 1 (a))and 81, clearIydefines
thc obligation-the urgent obiigütion it rnight be said -of Mandatory
States without delay ro put into force a new Mandate agiwmcnt. This
in~rrpretaiionifuify n~nrrr~iitri a aogicalr~asonin sitirc the itrrtrfiof'n

rheaiirliors rke Clrrirf~rccanno/raveheenrnIm b4ethe~nairdoted ierrifories
inrttfitzi irihr un/et.ercrdiscreionof the irluiiricraiune.TV havedone
so ~votildhave bren tc.distortthecharacter of rhislegal systcm as rvellas
thc intentionsof its fcaundcrsIt would have amaunted to what has becn
calledthe'freeriny'ofihc Mandate,wIiich would practimIlybcequivalent
toanneration 3.0(Italics üddcd.)

Ttis notpropawd to de;rl wdithJudge Bustamante's concIusion regarding an
obligation to concludc a trusteeshipagreement.This conclusion iscontrary tothe findingof thc Coiirin the 1950AdvisoryOpinion, which itis respectfully
subrnitted, asa correctone. It is howcvcimportan ttnote ttiat .ludUusta-

mante's reaçoning isbased, iaii~raiio, nn ihe absencc of supervisionif no
trusreeshipagrwmcnt iuconçluded.

i'fl. DicsrnriOpinion of 3itdgp.SpcncieraiidFirzniaurice

33. In tieir joint disçcnting upinion. Sir PercySpendei' and Sir GeraId
Fitmaurim çlerirlyrevealedthatin theirview the 1950 Opinion waswrong in
tindingthatthc Lcayuc'ssupervisoryfrinctionsin respectof mandateswerc,on
the dissolutioii of the League, transferretO theUnitedNationsT .hisfirst
appem very explicitly from two footnotes. In the first of thesc thestated:

"... v/ethinkthat theview expressedby theCourtin its 1950OpÏnion, to
the cKeectthat the supenfisory functians of the forrncr Lcaguc CounciI
passed to thc Assembiy of the United Nations which ir7asentitIcd tu
exercise(hem, was definitel):wrong '".

The second footnotre eferringto theoriginal Cliinesedraftresolution raiscdl
the final session oftheLcagucofNations and Iaternotproceededwith ',reads
HS ~O[~OWS:

"Thecontrast between the originalChinesedraftandthc one eventually
adriptcd constitutcs an additioml rcason why we find itimpossible to
accepi.theviewtakeiitiytheCourt iit1950 thütthc Funcrionosfthe League
Coiinci[ in respect of Mandateshad passcd ro the Iinited Nations; for
thiwasthe very thing which theoriginal Cliinesdraïtproposed but which
was not adopted"."

This view was again express4 in the folIowing words after a thvrough
survey ofevents concerning thc foundation of, and earIyprmeedings in, the
UiiitedNations and the dissolutioof the League:
"They [i.e., bûth the Lnited Nations and the League Assernbliesl

rcfrairicd equallfrom any attempt to adaptthe Mandates to thesiluaiion
arisingfrom the tcrrninationof theLeague and of League membcrship.
They not anIy 'refraind',hui ai Ieasttwicc (proposalof the Executive
Cornmittee of thePreparatoryConimission ofthe United Nations. ..and
original Chincse resoIution at Gcneva) they rrjticred praposals for a
transfcrof League functionsrwpecting Mandatcs tothe Cnited Nations.
Acceptanceof ~ilhcr of thesr:proposaiswould nitturailynot,ofitsel hr.ve
gotovcr the dificulty about mssation of League rnernhershT itp.ould
prohably have broughr that question intû thcopcn, but this is notthe
point. Ourconcern here is simply to show that the two Assemblies were
(cxccptfor Article73 ofthe Charter)unwi1Iing roprovide in aqJ specific
way frirtheconsequenceo sftheterminatioroi ftheLcagucanditsnieinber-

ship, ar for a possiblc cvcntualfailuto:liriwa mandatedterritoryinto
trustceshipIn thislies the keto the wholc matter.
Itis thekey tothewhole matter Iiecauseit is strikingevidentthat the
twroAsxrnblic (sandthe Applicant Statcsiucrc Meiiibersof both) relied.

ibid ..532,foutnote2.
Videpara. 15,siipua. aChaptcr VIII. para(33-67supru.
South Wesf Africu,PreliriiinarOhjeciinns,J~ufXn~enr,1.C.I. Rrporrs 1962,
p. 535,footnote1.698 NAMrnin {sor:m WFST AFRICA)

IV. Bissenring Opinion cd -itrIgernrtWyk

35. Aftcr ü full and systcniat~ctrcarrncntof rhc quesrion whelher Arhticle6
survived tlie dissotutionnfthe League, Judge van Wyk ~achcd thc fullowing
conclitsion:

"TIicabovcconsiderations cvmpcl nlc ioconclude rhat rhoseprovisiws
of the Mandateswliicli dependedfor theirfulfilmcntun thc cxistcnccof
the Liagiie or Kations were noi irnpliedIyaiiiended iiiany respect, and
accorriinglyccascd to apply on thc dcmisc of the xaçue '."

Hc therealierprocwded todtal wiih the 1350 AdvisoryOpinion and disciissed
fully the ::espec itswhicli he disagreed witli. the findine of thc rnajority
regarditigihe succession ofthe Lnited Nations to ihc supervisoryfunctionsof
thc Lcsguc ?.

V. TheJu(lpi?iearlijthe Cortrr

36. The Judgmcnt of the Courr did net dcal cxpressly with the question
whether tliebague's supervisory functions regardingmandatespassed to the
United K:itionson the dissotuiion of the Leaguc. A detailed analysiaT itç
reasorringaIso docsno1 provideanycIcarconclusion as 10 thcprobablcvicwof
itsauthon in hisregard. A consideration of theCoiirt'sfinding and reasoning

in rcgard tu lhe survival of thc compromissory clause (Article 7 (2) of the
Mandate)indeedappears to provide strong support for a concltisionthat thc
Cour[ mu;[ hve considered thal Ariicle 6 had lapsed ut1 dissolution of tlie
Lciiguc; bu1doubt issgain cast thcrcan by the actuaf treatrnenlof Arricie 6.
These two aspcts will he deait with in turn below.
97. Thr Coitri's fitiriinb~srrgrir~hesurviwl oj'drricle7 (2).
As kas hocn pvinlcd out abovc 3,Applica~ts relieciin theirObservationsonrhe
Preliniinai-Objections on a so-called"doctrineof succfssion". This suggcstcd
"doctrine"en tailedtht al[rights and funclions in respectof mandateswould

havc passcd from thc Lcaguc and itsMcmbers to the United Nations and its
Mcmbers , hich would have meant, infer (i/ifhatthc silpcrvisoryfunctiuns
of the 1.eagiiewoiildhavebeen transferred 10tlieUnited Nations, and thüt the
cumpcten~x lo invokc thc compromissory clause ivoiild have passed Born
Membersof the League ofNations to Menibets of thc Unitcd Nations.
The Cburtdid not xcept this argument in ils application to tlie compro-
rniçsoryclausc but, on thc ccontrary, helthat on dissolutionof Ihe Leagiie rhe
cornpetence to invoke the cornprornism-y cliiüscremained vested in thost-
States thatwere Members orihe Lmgue atitsdissolution.Thusthe Courtnot

only dcclincd to ücccpt the "succession"argument raised by the Applicanrs,
but itsconclusion seems aitixiy inconsistcnt ivith any transfer of Lcaguc
supervisoryfiinciions to the UnitedNations. .4s stütcd prcvivusl Iye supr-
visory functions could conceivably have passcd io the llnited Katiuns as a
result of implied agreement conçludcd in1920; orby agreement (expressor
irnplied)iit1945-1946 or thcreafter;or by sonie rule ofobjcciivc:Iaw. It seerns
inconwivable that anyagreement. wherhcr express or iniplied, and whether
concluded in 1420 or in 1945-1945 or thereafier,ivould have separaicd the
obIigafions ro reporrfu theCouilcilof the League froni thcobIigaiions owed to

'Soirih IV~irtA.f?icdl'rc!imif~ar,vObj~cikns, Judgmen. I.CJ. Reports Igd.?,
p. 040,
Vbid.. ['p64U-653.
Yfdcpara. 13supra. WRITTIINSTATEMENTOF SOLTH AFRICA 599

%lcrnbca of the Ixague-in the sense tkarthe former wotild relaie ioa new
international organization and ihe latter to ex-Membcrs of a diffcrcnt and
defiinciorgani7atiIo fth.e intereaed partiesintendedto replacetheCouncil of
the Lcaguc by ihc Gcnera) Aswnibtyof the United Nations for purposcs of
administrativesupervision,the logid course would have been to replacethe
Mcmbers of the I,e.lgue b;;Iviernhefi ufthe Uniied Nationsfor conipulsory
jirrisdictionpurposcs.OthcrwiscanornaIous con-iplica tiayarisc fronithe
diffcxncx incornpusitionI?etweentlie two grnups of States,i.e.thoseentitled

toparticipatein the -'adrninistrite supervision" and thosc cntiilcd luinvokc
the cornnromissrirscIauw. -I'hu~fol instance, if.as the Court found. the
provisionsor thec~rnpromissory claitswere in&& inthe Mandate 1argilyto
enablethewiIl oftheauthori tvexercisin-administrativeauthoritvto bcirn~oxd
on ihe mandatory ',itivoiilbe anomüloustuprovidethatonly snine menibers
of thc body cxcrcisingudrriinistraitve supervision (and indeedon tliepresent
meinbership of the Unitcd Narions Organization, only a rclativcly srniil1
proportion of itsMemhers) would bc abIe toinvokethe Court'sjurisdiction.
And, it would bc cqriallor-even inorc anomaloiis to confer the cornpetenceto
implemeritthe "judicia1 siipervision"un Statethatnccd not tx nicrnbcn:of thc

organi7ationexercisingadri~inistrativc supervision,and which inay even have
bccncxpcIledfrornsuch org~tiization.Siich anomaIiescould never have ken
intended at any stage.
Siniilar ilyhe concept of devolitiion through an objective rule of inter-
national taw should be applicable ai al1 Io rhe circiinrstanceof this case
(wliicl-iisdisputcd).one cannot conceiveof theexistcncc ofs rulcwhich would
have Ihe effectof separating inthc sense aforestated the deï,oIutionof these
two obligations, particularryoiitheCourt's finding thal rhey were designed
tohards achievement of or~cand the same purpose, viz.?enforwmcnt of the

mandatory' "sacred triist-ohligatinns.
38. 7'heCOII~I' ensonit~gregnrrfingthe stïr~irwO/Artirfe 7(2). '
Not only kvastheCciurt'sfindingin regardto Ariicle 7(2)incoiisistctwith ir
subsritutionof suptrvisory organs,as dcmonstrated above, but itre~uorririiit
reachingthisfindingequallytendcd tunegative hepossibiliryofsuchasiiccession.
Thus thcCour1 reIiedIargeIy,if not soieIy,onan agreement among Membcrs
of the League .ofNations ir,April 1946. Thisportion of ihc ludynient pointed
oiit rhat ihe Memhers of the hgue had full knowledge in April 1945 of the
contcntsof thc Chiirtcrofik..United Narions,asalso of the factrhat theUnited

Nations Iiad alreadybegünto operate. -l'hepurposcof thc sgrccment tIiatwas
concItidedwas, therefore,iitthe wrirdsorthe Court:
". . to provide fortht coniinuatinn of rhc Mandatcs and the Mandates

System 'itntilother ari.angementshave beenagreed hetween rhe Cniled
Nations and the rcsptclive tnandatoryPowers' 2."
Whcn defining the ambit of the aaçrccnicnthcld tuhave beeiientered inro
in April 1946for thepurpose sct out above, theCourt. itissubmirted,rendered
itclear thatsuch agreemeni did not conlprehend any obligationtu rcpori and
acçuunt tothe Unitcd Natib>ns. Thus the ruliowinglanguagewwau ssed:

'... obviously an agreement was reached aniong al[the Menrbcrsof ille
Lcaguc at the AssembIy session in ApriI 1946 to cvnlinue the different

Vide Souik Wesr Afiica,Prriirnjno* OfriPioii..Iird~*mentC.J.Reports f96.2,
pp. 336etse4.
? Ihid.. p.338. WK-N STATEMLYT UT:SOUTHAFRICA 701

could not have rht efïect of providinga new body to exerciseadministrative
supervision.J3yanalogy, ihe IiighesteKect itcould possibly havc had, would
have bccn to continiiein frlour of the States whichconstit~rttrieCounciI at
thedissolution of the Leaguethe rrightsof supcrvision which had previousIy
vestcdin the Council. But tibviouslyindividualMernbers muid never cxcrcise
thefunctions ufa body wbic hhad been diçso1ved;quiteapilrtfrom thepractical
difiicultiescrearedbythedisiippearanceofthePerrnancnl Mandates Commission
and the Secremriai.

40. Thc samc ccinciusion secmsIo follow front rwo furiherreasons{appar-
entIysubsidiary to the one dealt with abvc) assigned by the Court for the
survivalof Article 7 (21.Tlie firswas tlia''judiciaprotection afthc sacred
trw . .. was an csxn~ial ftatureof the mandates system '".This essentidity
wassaid to arisefrom theneed ta providea form of supçrvisionwhichcould be
invoked toovercomecases ofdeadlock causedby the unanimity rutcapplicable
ta procccdings of the Lcagtie Council. Ktisnot clear whetf~erthis assenfiality
was regardedasan eletnentwhich, independcntiy of any Lwnseniby the
manàatory, caused the survivalofArticle 7 (2) (which,itissubmittcd,would
be an untenablr: proposition)%r whether itwas considercd to provide a
motive for the agreement vzhichthe Court found to have bcen concIude id

&nl 1946.~ha;v& thc pusition might be,the "essen&lity" was linkcdto thc
need to overcomc a oosihlt:stultificarionofadministrativ euuervisioncaused
by theparticularpro&dures appiied by theLeagucorgans. Itwouldaçwrdingly
bc irrelcvantto any pnssibb:funclioriingof the mandates under the rcgirnc of
the United Nations where ihe Gentrai Assemblycoiild pass vaIidresolutions
bya two-thirds niajorit3.'îhe only bai4 theFefareupon which the survtvaIof
ArticIe 7 (2)could be regardeciasi'css~n(ial*'after dissolutioof the League,
wouldlio en the premisethatadniinistrativesupervisionhad hecnstulliiicd,not
by iiuniinirnityrule{which was nol applicable rothe United Nations General
AssemhIy) but by the Iapse ofthe supc~sory organs.
41. The second subsidiar,~featurewax descrikd as follows7

",, . theright toimp1r:ad the Mandatory Power bcforc the Permanent
Cour1 was specially and cxpressly conferred on the Menibcrs uf lhe
League, evidently also because it was the most rcliable procedure of
ensuringprotection by the C:aurt,n*hareverniighr hapgm tuor~ri.sefroin

ihetnachinery0f odmiti.:sfrve s~perv~rio'"~.(Ttalics addcd.)
As with "cssentiality", this feature of "reliability"u7as presumabiy not
regarded as mmething whirh criuld have h~d an independent legal effect in
providing for a continiialicnor "judicialprotection", but rathcr as a factor
whichwouldprobably baveindiicedthe Memhersof the League to make pro-
visiofnor such continiiationby agrocrncnt amongst themselves. In tl-iisrcspccl
also itis significani that the reliability was directIyrelritedta incideq(ories

possiblç inadcquacies)in the machinery of administrative supervision.Ji is
djficult tosee what these inadequacjcs would or could have ken unlcss the
Court was of opinion tiiat thesupervisory functions of thc League had not
Ixcn transïerredto the Uniied Nations.

Ihid., p. 336.
VideChap. II,paras,14tci18,supnz.andpara.57.sitpm.
.'It wasindeed accepted b!~theCourt thnrjudiciasuperuisionwas not essential
inihe trustxshipsysicmfur ibis very reason--vidSniiilLYcsrAfricu, PreIiiriinarg
ObjecrionsJttdgnienr..C.I.J'eporr1962,p. 342.
Ibid.pp. 337-3.78. 'Io sun:,up, both the conclusion and the reasoning ofrheCourt regarding
the survival of Article 7 (21providestrong indication that Ariicle6 must. in

the Court's vicw, hiivc lapscd,

42. '1'ht:reis, tthc cnntrary,a paswgc in the Judgmcnt whicfi may possibly
ixrd as signiîying thai in the Court's view the obligation to report and
account,:. srnpowd onSoiith Africa byArticle 6, kas in sorne formoranother

survived the dissoiution ofrhe League '. The tneanino gf the passage is, how-
cvcr, fsir frorrclear, and the South African Goverrtmeri~ inust resyiectfully
confessto bcing whoIIy uncertain as to ubhat rhc Court intended to convey
therehy regarding possible survival or otherwiie of Article h. The uncertainiy
arisesnot only froiii tliefuci (ha1 the exprcssiutis"internationalsupcrvision"
aird "thc obligations connected with the Mandate",as usod by the Court ?,
arefor thc purposes under consideration irnpreciseandsoniewhat obscure, biil

alsu and purticularIyfrvrniht:cunicxt and manncr of trcatmcnl uf the su bject
in thc JudgrnenrT . hus:
(a) It is striking that the Court at nostage dealt speçifiatIy with the proh-
Iems arising from the disappearance of the Irague's süpervisory organs,and

that no refereiicewx5 made at any stage ttuihe suggestion that supcrvisory
funçtions were, after Aprii 1946, to beexcrcised by the Uniied Kations. In
fact,the iinpressinni~created that any such ceference wa~ intentionallyavoided.
This appearspart icularlyfrolrithe ptibsagc quuicd frorrithe 1950Opinion at
pages333 and 334 of the Judgment, where every referencc to the United
Nations was deleted 3.

(b) The passageurider discussion concludcdwiih rhe liiIlowing words:
"Thar the 1-eague of'Nar ions in endiny its own existence did not ter-
rninatc thc hhndatcs but that it definiteIy intended to continue them by

itsresolutian of 18 ApriI 1946 witl be seen Iater when the Court States
ilsviews ns to the true effcct ofthe Leag:ue'sRnal act of dissolutionon
the Mandates4."

Sualh West Afiicu, PrelrtninaryObjections,Jüdgiiiertt1,C.J. Reports 1962pp.
333434.
Iriid.p. 334.
Thc coniplete text of the passage igiven beIuw.The paris deleted in the quu-
tatifinare itaIicixrd:
"The obligati~in incumhent upon a mandaton. State to acçeptiiiternationat
supervisionand itisuhrnit reportisan imporrant partof the mandates systern.
When the authors nf ihz Covcnant creatcd ihis systern,they considercd that
thc elfcctivperfornian ocfthe sacred trust tif civiIi7ütitinthemandatory

Powcrs rcquiredthat the administraiionof niandaied territoriesshi>uIdht suh-
j~t tu ~ntcrnationalsupcrvision.The auihurs of the Charter Itod i~mind the
sumc nere.s.riIy w/rcthe)'organircd an ittrerttarioirrusteeshipsysium. The
iieces.;for srtp~rvisioCOH~~~IIIBSOEXIS!despifetiidisappeurnt~crof fhesirpeu-
ri sururgun rinrietrirtiatzdataS~SIPIIIltçannot bc admitttd lhat thc obli-
patio1to subinittu supervisionhsi sisappmrcd mcrely bocuuse ihcsupcrvis;iry
orgrin basceased tu exisr.ndien tiiUnited iVutionshus ut~orher inrcriiarional
orgc111pe[#'orining similuf/~urigaof idenficul,srrperi,isoi.y funcrio(Inler-
naiioiraStntils ofSourb Wcsl /ifriai, AJ~.i.rorOpinion, J.C.J.Reports 1959,
p. 131.) WRIiTEN STATEMEXT OF S<>IYCHAFRICA 703

In the later discussion rci'crrto in ~hisquotation, the Coiirt held that the
intention of thc hlernbers of the League at its find Sessio n as incrcIy to
conrinue the niandates insr1Far asthey would bt opcrable afierthedissolutioii
of the Leagile.In view of rhe Court's findinythat the compromissory dause
siirvivedthe dissolution of the League. the onlj'respectin which therccould
in iis view have lieen inoperabilityaîter siich dissolution, was, as kas ken

demoiistratcdabove ', in that the provisionsrclating to administrativesiiper-
vision felaway. Thc rerercnwin the above quotation to the intentionof thc
Lcaguc of Nations in Apri) 1946 wouid rkrreforcappcar tu indicate that the
Court did not in l'nepwsage under disciissiun inean to express the vieivikat
the provisions rclaiinp to adiriinistmtivesupervision sonithow survivcd thc
dissolution of the League.
43. In the reriulr.in vieii: othe aboc-mcntioned unccriliinties,no clear
inference can he drawn ss to Ihe Court's view on the qiiestion whethcrthc
Leaguc's suprvisury functions regarding niandatcs havc bccn laken over by
the United Nations-aiiIioirgh, for the reasons~dvanced, it issubmittcd ihüt

on balancethe reasoning js inrwnsisi~ittwithsuch succession.

YI. SeltirrarOpi?~ioioi f' ltidgc Jessirp

44, Judge Jessup diJ no: deal expressly with the survivalor othcmise of
Articlc6. He round in reg;.rd tu Article7 (2)rhat Ihe conipetence conferreci
upon Memberç of the Leal:ue reniaincd araiQble to cx-bfembers or the dis-
solved 1.eague.'I'hc argurncnt set out ahove3, relating to the Iogical incon-
sistcncy bciween sudi a fioling.and a finding thatthe Unifed Nations Orgü-

ni7;riion Iiasiicceedcd o the supervisoryfunctiunsof the Lcagiie,would there-
fore atso appIy toihis Opiriion.
45. Thc rcasciniiiwhereliy the Ieamcd Judge rcüchcicdhiscoiiclusioii regard-
ing ArticIe 7 (7)(irrcspwtiireof its sotindncss, with which wc art noi ai the
pwsent stageconcerned) i~C-ithcr inapplicable to rhequestion whethcrArliclc 6
likcwisc survivcdthe dissolutionof the League,or tends pvsi~ivelytocontradicr ,
any possibilityof a succession by the Lnitcd Kationsto ~hc supervisory hnc-
tions previously perfornicr! by the Council of the Ixague. 'l'hc survivalof
Articlc 7(2) was firsily ha:-ed by Judge Jessiip on un inierpretation of the

Article, and in particuIar,of'the expression"ünntlierMernberof the I.mgue
olNations". Ineffecthe followcd SirArnoldMcNair (in hisdissenting opinion
in 1950) in holding ~liatihese words did noi imposc a coiiditioiibut were ,
inerelydescriptiveorindividual States.which acquired rightç inrheir individ-
uaI capacities. It \vil[ bet~bscrved ihat this reasonin sogught to iind, by rt
proccss of interpretation oi thecxpressiun "anothcr Meinber of tlie Lcagiie
of Nations", an cntity capable of survivingthe dissolution of the Lcague.
Sucheatity{oreniities)exis!edduriny the lifetiineoitheI-eague in theindivid-
ual Statcs conccrned in rheir iiidividualçapaçitics. By no process of inter-
pretation, however,can thc expression"Co~lnc~l of the League of Nations"

in Arlicle 6 be interpreted in a scnsr:wliichçoiild have referred, during the
existence of ihc Lcsigue,io any othercntiry [hanthc Cuunçil itself; aiid thus
the IearnedJudge's lineof rcasoning ivith regard to Article 7 (2) cannot he
applicd to Article5.

'
' SoifharWesi8Africn,,Pre,litziiruObjraioirs, Jitclgni~iI.C'J. Kepoits 1962.
pp. 333.333.
' Vid~ para.37,supra. 46. Secondly,Judge Jessup reIiedon a statcmenrmade on behalilfof Sotith
Africa on 9 April 1946rzialive to the coiitinuatinof its obligationsunder the
Mandate. This starementcontainedthe foilowiny scntcnce:

"Thedisappearanceof those organs of the League conccrncd with the
supervision ofmandates, prirnarilythe Mandates Comiriissionand the
hyiie Council, will necessarify precludc compIctecornpliancr:wil h the
Ietterofthc mandate '."

Judge Jéssiip held tint this reservation did not affcct Articlc 7 (2). in
thar:

(nj The PermanentCourt had by cxprcss agrwmcnt bocn replacedby the new
Couri prior to this reservation.and thereforeits disappearanucdid not
pmliide complcte cornpliance wilh ArticIc7 (2);
(b) The referencero "another Memberofthc Lcaguc"in Article7(2) was not
affcctcdby thisrcwr~ation,because ,he Members of theLcagiiewcrcnot

''~rgansofthe League" >.
For presentpurposes itsuficesto say in this regard:

As tu(a)rtbove

That the Council of the Lea&e had not, by agreement or otherwiw. been
replaced, priorto the rescr'vaiion,y an! olher bcdy; and

As (b)nboi-c

That theCoüncil riraone of the"Organsof the Leagiie" and was expressly
rncntionedas such inthe reserval wiotained in the South Africitinstalernent
of 9 April 1946.
ItfolIows, therefore,thzt thestaternentcould not have played any role in
tffectingü subslitiitionolthe supervisoryorglins mentioncd in .4riicIe 5.On

the cnntcis., itshowcd a clcürcontcrnplaiion of ttie absen= of such a sub
stitution.
47. Incertainportionsof hisopininn thelearnedJudgesectr oacccepl that
there was a distinction ktwccn thc frustralioncausedby the dissolutionofthe
Leaguein regard ta, an the one hand, Article 7 (2)(where the newChurt was
already inexisrence)as aminsi Article6 (wherethere had bccnno substitutioii
of supemisory organs)

VU. Seprure Opinion of Sir hziis!Mboncfo

48. Sir LouisMbanefoequaily did not &al wilh theeffectof the dissolution
of theI.eague on tIieobligationsofthe Mandatory tu rcportand account.As in
thc casc c)fthc othcr majorityjudgcs, his conclusioii thatex-Membersof Ihe
hgue wriuldcontinue to beentitled toinvokcthe comprornissoryclause was,
as pointetlout above. inhercntIyinconçistw ethtthe ctlnccplufsuccessi byn
thc Lnitcd Pilntianstothe functions of thc Leayue. Andhis reasoningseems t#
ernphasizethe inwnsiçtency, Thus he said:

: 1.ofM. U.J., Spcc. SupIio. 194,p. 33; Chat). VIII, pa26.(b)(ii)~iipra.
? Souih Wcsf .4fric.n, Pr~limitzuOhjecrioti.Jzictgrn~nI.C.J. Kpports 1962,
pp.4t8-4I9.
-*Ibirl..c:specipp.y413-414. WR~I~N STATEMENT 01: SOUTH AFRICA 705

"AIthoughthe Leag-.uc wiis dissolved,the Mandate sri1continues and
the rightsandobiigatirel mnsodiedin itbewnte, as it wcrernaintainedat
the Ievcat which they were on the dissnIutionofthe Lesguc.It ison this
groundthat the Respondcntan jusiify ilrigh to continuetoadministcr
the ierritory and those Stateswhwere MembersOF theLeagu aettlitin-te
of itsdissoIution the right rn cantinuc to invoke the compromisfory
clauseof Article 7.Thc ri&t toinvoke Article 7renuined vestcd in thosc

Stateswho werehlern!nrsof the Leiigueat thetime of its dissolution,and
cnntinucs nutwilhstandng the termination of thc Lcugue'sfiinçtions'."
43. Irrespect oivtee ci~gencyofihis argument,nobody woüIdbcablc to
saythatthe rightsandobligations rcgardingsupervision"hecamr, asitwere,
rnainiainedat the bel aiwhich they were an thc dissulutioof the Leagtie".

As a rcsultofthe dissolutinnof thc Lcitguethe saidobligation$ could not bc
"inaintaincd": rhere multl be further supervision only pursuant.to a new
ubIigation,reiitting la ncw supervisoryorgan. In particula an,y suggesrion
that in respect of such obligationthcorgans of the UnitedNations replaccd
those oftheLeague would invulve,notmaintenanceof exislingribIigations,but
creationof new obligations-and in fact dityerent obligations invicw uf the
differenccin~~ip~sition, procedure and approuch us ktween ihe organo sf the
Leagueand those of theUnitcd Naiions*.
50. The probable attilude ofJudgeMbanefoalço appcars frornhis specific
endorscment .of tlie folla~ing words frorn the disseittingopinionofJudgc
Read in1950: . ,

'''I'hedisappearancof therégime ofreporta, ciccounlabilis,upervision
and inodification. ~hrough thc Council and the Permanent Mandates
Commission,migk weaken thc Mmùates System; but itwnuld not bring
itra an end.As a matter of fact,the rcconishows thatrheparalysis of

those agenciesduring six uraryearshadno detnmcntal effcct upon the
mainlenane of the iveIl-heinganddeveIopment of the peoples"."

Vfli . ~YS~iRg Upininnsof Presidct~tWftzirrrski,

judges &!.devant and kfureiiiund Declarnrion
of J~tdgcSpiropuuios

51. Nonc of theabove-rrientioncd JudgesdcaItspecificaltywiththe question
relatingto the siirvivofaiirticl5, and no inferencecrinbe drawn lroin their
opinions as tokir vicws iiithat regard.

52. Taking thcJiidgment and opinions on thc Prcli~ninaryObjectionsas a
whoie,therefore, itis subniittcd that ihey tento support rheSoulh Afiicait
contention thattherewas riosuccessionby any orgm ofthe Lnited Nationsto
the funetionsforrner[yexcrçisedhythe PermanentMandatesComniissionand
the CnunciI of the Leayue of Nations in regard to manciaies not converted
into trusteeships.

thid.p.445.
= Yid~Chap. YII,vara?4.51.51,supra.
" South IVestAfrira, Pr6iitiiinar? Dhfiuris, Ji~dgtm>nCl.. Keporlx 1962.
p.444.
' ini~rnorionulSturir~oJScuth WeAfricuAdrisor): Opinion, I.C.J. Rrpo~is 1950,
p. 165. F.Thc 1956 Judgncntand ScperatcOpinions

53.In ilic Sonth IVPS?Africa cases 'one of rhcissuesbe~wmn the Partics
was wliether thesupervisory Cunctionsinrespect of the Mandate for Sauth
West Afr1r.ahad piissed from the 1,wgue of Nations to [hi L:niied Nations.
This issuewas very cxtcnsivcIycanvassed Becauseof the Cottrt'sdecision io
disposeof rhe case an a preliiiiinaryissuc,no fipronouncernent was niadc by
thc Court t>nthisaspect.There isIiowever,iiiuchof relemnceto thismatterin
the reaoniiig and conclrrsionsofthe Cotir1aird of the Judgeswho delivered
separate or dissentin: opinionslndeed, the indicationsare thathad the Court
kn callctl upon lo dccidc the iissutliedecision would have been in Soiitir

Africa's favour. For conveniencc, thc Judgrneiitand sepüratc conçurring
opinions will Lirçbe considered.and thereaket.a Iteniion wiIi Lwgiven ro the
dissentingopinions which dcsItwilh this tupic.As will bc sccn, the cornbiried
erreclof'theJudgiiientand opinions is as follows:

((1) In the Judgment the indicationssccm untnisrakablc that in the vicw of
itauihors (JudgesSpendei, Wiiiiarski,Spiropoulos,Fitzmaurice,Morclli.
Gros itndvrinCVyk)thesupervisoryfunciions in rcspoctofmandales had
Iapsed on dissoluririnof the League. This u7as exprasly so hcld in a
scpara.tcopinion byJudgcvan Wyk.
(A) Judges Wellingtoii Koo and Tanaka htld that United Nations sticcession
had raken place, and gave their reasons Corihis finding. Thcscwcrc in
direct conffict wirh orle anoiiur. Judge Wetlington Koo decided on the

basisof his interpretationof the nlandatc docunicntscorrtbinedwith a
iindinyoi'facihat SouthAfricahad agreedtoa substjtutinnof superviwry
organs. Judgc Tanaka, unthe othcr hand,~s satisficthat no agreemeiit
by South Afrh had been establishcd,but decided thisasprct on a prin-
ciple ofteIeologicalor socio1ogicaIinterpretation operating indcpcndcntly
of spcciiicconscrit.
(c) Judges Jessup, IladillaNervo and Mbanefo decided that a iransfer of
super~isoryfiinctiot~shadoaccrredbut assigned no reasons ofthcirown
for this lindingJuJgc Mbanefo gave na rcaucinsat all, and the first-

rnentiiinedtwo Judges rnerelyabidedby earlier pronouncements of the
Cotirt(and, in parriciiI taer,950 Opiniori).
(dl Judgc:;Korctsky and Forstcrdidnot dcal with this topicaalland gave no
indicationof theirattitude.I'heiropinions will conxquenrly not be dealt
ivitht eIow.

II. TheJudgiirciltofthe Court

54. Although, as noted abovc, thc Cuurldid not cxpresslydecidethequestion

now undei-consideration,its reasoning and findings lead. it istihmitted,
inevitably10 the conclusion that the mandatory'sobligatinnr to rcporl und
accuuni to organs olthe Leagiiclapscd on thedissolution of thatorganiation.
Indeed, tliis apperrrsto havebeeniii~pIicirecognized by the Court, as will be
shown fier?aFier.The foIlowing tltmtnts of the Court'sJudgmcnt,are, itis
subniittcd,of particularsignificance.

: E~hiopiaznd Liberiav. The Repilbjiof SiiitiAfricu.
Videfo:itnoteto para.4si~pro.708 NAMrBU (SOUTH WEST AFI~ICA)

And the Court must have bocn fully aware that iishdings, couched in the
wide language qitotedabove,wouldhave this additionaleffcct, sincc thc nature
and exterttof thc mandatory' suiy io report and account were, as noted,
çxtensiva erIuedbefore it.

(b) ThpC-ourr 'sviewas io ~ficevctz!ijftie~ra~rsitiunleriar1945-f946
57. Tlii: Courtdid not deal cornprchcnsiw vitlylhe questionwhethcr any

fresh agrxmeni concernitig supervision of mandaies not convcrted into
trusteeshi- had bccn concluded in the transilio ynars of1945-1946 which
cuuld haveserve tdeffect a transferofsupervisoryfunctivnson th<:dissolution
of the Lcague. The Cotirtdid, hower~r, say in regard to the argument of
"necessity"(Le.,thc argument thal judiciii1süpervisiwasa necessa ryrncnt
ofihe miindates systein because administrativesupervision was Iiable to he
futratcd by lhe unanitnity rirleapplicabletn the Councilof the Lcagiie l):

"... such u iheorywas iieveroficialIadvrtnced during the period ofthe
League, and probably nevcr\vauId have bwn but for thedissolution of
that organi7arion andI~P fclc~harirwas CIIEcII~~sidcrccieferabk in reiy
on II:QnnticipariothcitiI.ini&~J territuries n~oülle brotghf nbithifdie
Uniri~d,%-triorrrnstecrhisysrerr"". (Italiw:addtd.)
..
This,c,?non analysisonly mean thar there was, ar therimc,no agreement
providingfor futurc supervisionofmandaied ierritorieT.hewords''considered
preferable"nlust connote tliat the coursadoptcd was dcliberately çhosen in
prefercnce to oneor mort alternalives. Tn the present context, the pos$ihle
alternativeswcrc mcasurcs which wouldhave createda ractuaIsituation~nder-

i~g any "new%ity" arguinent supcrffuous,i.e..a facluai sitiralion in rvhich
therewotitùhaveçontiniied tobe an effecrivesystemofsupervisionof rnmdated
territnries.The Court was thus sayÎng that, iiIhc dissolutionof the Lcaguc,
the parties,ratherthan make any spcificarrangementthat would haveensurcd
continucd supervision in respectof mandates,reliedon theanticipation that
mandated territorieswould bc brought undcr the trusteesh system. This
accords 4th views expressiy stated hy two of the subscribers to the 1966
Jiidgment, Juttgcs Spender and Filzmairrice. in their 1962 joint dissenting
opinion ?.

(c)" Whrihrr the Corirt zsenritiiolenXQge ina prvc!rssnf 'f;!Iitrfliegops"

58. 'IleCouri's attitudewas firmlythat it\vasnot entitledtoengagc in any
suçh pro~xss.Inthisregardit said, irninediateIyafterthe passagequoted inthe
premdingparagraph:

"Ii isthese subsequent events alone, irot anything inhcrent in the
mandates system as it was originally conceived, and is correctlytobe
intei'preted,that giveriwioihc atlcgd 'riccessi~y. u1 thaliiecessity.if it
exists,liesithe politicrrfIielddoesnot constitutenecessityiniheeyes of
the law. Tfthe Court, in orderto parry the conseqtiencesofthese events,
were now to read into the mandates systcm. by way of,so to spcak,
rcmidial action, an elemeiit ivhally foreign to its reaI charaçter and
structureasorigiiiallycontcrnpIatewhcnrhesysteni wasinstituted,il would

be engagin&in an r.rpst filcroprricesscx~cfding itsfunclio ansa court

' Videpara. 40,supra.
Vouili WPCI Afriru,Second Phase, Jtfdgnieni,f.C.J. Reporis 1p.47.
Therelevant passageisquotedin para.33,supra. WRlTTIiN S'TA'I'kMENO'F SOUTIIAFKICA 709

of IiirAs is irnpliedhy theopening phrase of ArticIe38, parügraph1, of
itsStatute,theCourr isno1a Icgislalivebody. Itsdty is tapply the lawas
jtEnds itnot to makcit '."

Latcrthc Couri rcrnarkei:
"Ttmay be ürged rhiithe Court isentitled to engagc in aprvccss of
'fillinginthc gaps',in the applicatioiora teleologiculprinciple of inter-

preration,accordiiig rtwhich instruments must be given theieirnaxiniurn
effect inorder tu cnsiire the ackievernentof their underlying purpses.
'I'heCourt need not hm enquirt: in10the scupc of ü principlethe exact
berrririgofrviiichis highlycontroversialforitis cleartkat itcan have no
applicationin circumçtancesin which the Coiirt would haire !tgo heyond
what can reasonahly blrcgardcdas bcing a proccss of interpretation, and
wouId havctu cngagc:iii a prows of rectificationos revision.Righcannot
be presuined to cxisrrnereIy bxause it might seem desirablethat they
should 2."

58.Tosum up, iternerglsFroni the Court'sreasoningthat, in its vicw,thc
Mandate as origimlly han-{edcontained an obligation torcport and account
only to specificorgans of tlic Leaguc,whiçh organsobviousIydid not survive
the dissoluiion ofthe League itself;that no provision was made for thç sub
stitutionof supcrvisory orgins atthetime of tliLeague'sdissolution, andthat
no principleexistswhich wouId now cnabIethe Court inefkct to make suc11
provision.The resu[tof these factorsconsideredin contbinationmust bc that
the ohiigatirinto submit fo supervision haslaps&. The correctness of this
conclusionappeais tuhaveliecnacceptcd by theCourtinthefolrowingpassdge:

"Another argurneni-#hich requiresccinsiderationisthat inso far asthe
Court'sview lads to tliconclusionthat thereisnow no enlity enlitleto
cIaim the diie perfornian ocfethe Mandate, it must bc unacccptablc.
Without attempring in any way lu pronouncc on ~b variousimplications
invoIved in this argurrient,theCourt thinks the inferencesought to be
drawn frvm itisinadinissible.Cf,on a correctlegal rwding of a givcn

situation, certaialleged righls arc found to b~ non-cxistent, the con-
sequcnccs of ihis must heaccepted. l'he Courtcannot properly pusrulate
the existenceof such rightsin order 10 avert those consequences. 'I'his
wnuld tie to engage iiian csscntially lcgislative taskinthe serviceof
poIiiical endsthe pr~rnotion of wliicli, however desirabIein itxlf. lies
outsidethe frrnctionof acourt-of-Iaw j."

IiI.Sep iraTcOpitiiiBilJhidgr ïun Wyk

ho. inthe 1966 praceedi~gs Judgc van Wyk ügain considered whether the

supervisory functicinsoftht League of Nations in respect of the Mandate Cor
South WestAFricahad boen transferredtothe United Nations, and, artcra full
revierv of the relevant facisand thc rcspcctivc contentions of the Parties,
carriero tIieconcIusiunihüt no such trai~sferhad taken place'.

' Suulh WLY~Afiica, Secund f'it'fc,idffrreni,1.C.J. Reports Ipp.47-48.
- ibid ..48.
ibid.p.36.
Ibid.pp. 82-137. IV. Disseniitrg OpitiiurruYii.t.-PresideilrWeiiirr.qKoni

61. In Iiis diswnting opinion Judge WelIi~igtonKoo found that Soiith
Africa'so~ligatiunsto subniit 10 superrision wiistransferred IO the ie~nired
Nations a?follows:

(a] Inter:ns of the ~ün&te, South Afiica was, as Mandatory. suhject to an
"obligation of interriaiionala~rotirziab i".ity
(bj This obligation bccamc latcnt aftcr the disappearançe of rheCuuncil of

the Lcague and the I'ermaneiitMandatesComiiiission l.
(r) South Africaacknowledged theGeneral Açxrnbly as thecornpetentinter-
national organ in thc maiter of the Mandate for South N'est Afriw, b~
South Africa'sconduct in undertakingto si~brriio theCieneralAssemhIy,
and aciually submitiing,a repon on the Territory '.
(dj By this acknnwtedgement, the latent"obligation of internationalaccount-
ability" was reaciivaied as an vbliyation tu rcporr and account to the
GeneralAsscnlblyof the United Narions '.

62. This Iine of reasoning. itis respectfüllysubmittcd, is iinsouiid forthe
follawing reasans:

For the rason.; siaied above hc rnandaioric osbligation was, it issiih-
initteù,ntit one of "international accountability" in.ihc abstract but onc io
report and account to specificorgans ofa particular organiziition.

It follows froni what was said irnrncdiatcIy above tkr the iiiandatoriei'
obIigationrelaIingto supervision was npt capable of survivingthc dissolulion
of the Lcague.

As to(c)
On this aspcctit niustbe emphasized that the conductreiicd upon by Judgc
Wellingtoii Koo as constituting üLxepiance by Souih Arrica of the General
Assembly as thc ncw supcrvisory 01-gan, wiisthe undertakingio submit. and
üctuat subrnission,of a reporr on the Territory.AIthoughhe also refcrrcdto

the 1946 ~~roposaflor incorporaiih oen.did su for a diffèrentpurpnw-ihis
proposal, in his view,\vas an attempt on South Africa's pari to concludc an
nrrangenit:nrin terrns of paragraph 4 of theRnal League resolutionon inan-
dates4, rvhich aiternpi fdcd bcca~ix the Lnitcd Nations woiild no[ agree
iherero 5.1'hereupon.lie heid, Soutli Africa entered into a ncw ürrangcmcni
in~lving accountability towards he United Naliom, as stated, by the under-
iakinç toiubr~iiiinformationand actualIy dni~igsa.
There ir;, iis respectfuflysubrnitted.a basicflaw in this linc of rciisoning.
I3ristu1aiinas the IearnedJudge did " the neczssityof agreementon the piirt
of SoiiihAfrica to a substitution of~upcrvisr>ro yrgaris, nne would have to

Sortfh WtsrAfricu,Second Pho.srjrrclginunt, I.CReports 1966, p. 235.
' Chap. VII. paras. 47-60, supra.
' Quote3 in Chÿp. \'Ill, para. 2(fl,sitpru.
' So~irlWes~rifrico. SprondP~P, J~idgnl~flfI.C.J.Rt.pui,1966, p. 237.
Ihid.. pp. 235-236. WRIITI:N STATE.MEKTOF SOUTH AFRICA 711

determine whether in fact anyagreement vas reached, and. if so, the exact
contenl of such agreement. This viould involva en cnquiry into the South
hfrian ücts and expressioo nfsintention ~0n~r~jtIg the subrnissjonof in-
formation to the United Xations. JudgeWellington Koo a~cpted ihat Sourh
Afrim's action in submilting thc rcports \vas exprcssed to he "voluntar on
its part and for informationonly such as providcd for by Articfe 73 (el of
the Charler OSthe United :Vationsreplardingnon-seIf-gover tnrritorie'".

This siütcmcnt (which, il itrcspççtful slymitted, iscIearly co~rec1:mt)ust by
itsetf negativeany concIusi thnt SoutIi Arrica intended io.or did, subject
itself to anyobIigalion ro ieport and accountunder the Mandate to ht Gcn-
cral Asscmbly of the Unit:d Nations '. NeverthelessJudge WeIlingronKoo
coiitinued to state ihar::

".. .tlre IegaIeffeof ~ts[Le.,SouthAliicii's]declaratiunand nct acknowl-
edgingthe Generd AS ;~nibIyas thccomptent internationalorgan in thc
mattcr ofthe Mandatc for South West AiTica,in view orils~bligation of
international acmunta bilityunder Articlc 6 of ?hc Mandate, obvioiisly

cannol be dctcrmined ?inilaterallybyitalone "".

This masoning begs the question. wfiichis precisely ivhethcrSouth AfrÏca
did acknowledge the Gcncral A~qemtilyas the çompetent inrernationül orgin
inthe matter ofthe Ma ndai-eforSou ihWcst Africa. Assiafed above. on Judge
WeIlington Kooosown finùing of factsthe answermustclearlybcinthe nega-
tive, and hereached n diK(:rentresult onIy by assiimingwhat required to be
established.
In wncl~~sionirmay be noted that Judge \VeIIirigton KooJid not sock to
rcconcile his dissenringopinion of 1966 with the Jiidgmcnt in 1962, towlijch

he ivaç a party '.

63. Judge Tanaka üIsortrached the mnclusion that the United Nations had
succccdcdto the sulxrvisory functionsprevioiislycxercisedby the bague, but
on a differentbasis.He staied:

"This rnncltisiutcnniwi he derived fruni~hc pxprcss or racifinlent ufthe
pcrrtie!O thenicidute dyrccTtietiand rhosrconcerned, brrruusent thep~riad
oJrhc irrccpriou{ihc Mnlrdute czierctzlitch asF/R cfissolitrofrlre Leope

stirrlcuiridnoi befirrr::ertv tlieinCI~Pbecurrserlzeinktiriotoftlreprirfies
ririrlthose roircert~,i:(I~IPs~~r~oitiirlgirc~~~~t~lan zt ~e' prriodof the
dissolution oJ the Leaguc arc sir.scrytibof divers iztcrpr~tntions.'I'here
waq a Iacuna irtthe mandate ayrecmentwhichshuuld befiIIedby the theo-
reticaIor Iogicaiinterprctation by the C'oiir';.(Iralicsadded.)

It will be noted hour explicitly Judge Wdingngton Koo's findiny isrcjected
by the underiinedwords.
Later Judge Tanaka müdc thc following ohenarion: "In this case. we

- .-
l i/~idp. 236.
Yidc Chap.ViIl, para.71, .rupro.
Soifrh Wc.sAfricu,Secur:dPI~usls,udginefi~,I.J. Krporls iM6. p. 236.
+ On thr effccofthe 1962Jridgiiientvideparas.36-43,srtpruand I.CJ.Pleadi~gs,
SoiifhH'es ifricu.Vol. 11,pp.156-161{Couri~er-Mernorial).
SoicifWesi A-frica. SecoiPhase. Jrtd~enf. 1.C.J.Rcyuris 1966,p. 275.cannot dcriy that thenwcssiiy created the law indcpcndcntly of the will of
the partiesand thoseconcerned '".
Ir is rrspecirullyçubrnirtedthatthisapproach,whichinvaIves "sonte degree
nfcreative element in . ..judiciaj activitie'"and renders ir "a btry dcli~iitc
and dificuIt inatter" to determinethe borderliriebetmn legislationandad-

judication ',dms not aaord wiih the principicof intcrpretütionacceplcd in
internatinral law and appIied by this Courr ?:ind shnuld accordingly not bc
followed.
Judge Tmaka's ultimateconclusion on the aspect of United Nations suc-
cession to qupervisionof the Mandate for South West Africa was thnt-

"... the differcnm of opinioos on the questionsbeforc us is in the hnal
instanîeattributed rothedifferenot:etween twornethods of interpretatian:
tclcolc~gir~orsoçiulogicaland conceptional r>rformalistic*".
'Thiscornment must bc rcad in the Iightof the findinq gu,otcd abovc, thai

thefacts on record did not estabIishany agreenwir (in 1970 or in 1945-1945)
whcrcby a substitution of supcrvisnry organs was cff~tcd. Judge Tanaka's
preference for the teIeologicaI or miologicaI approach to interpretation is
rherefore rialof merely aradernic intercstinthe present case-had he appIied
the traditions1 "conccptionalor formalistic" rnethods (which, itis submitted,
are firmly estahlished ininternational lai^)^he would have arrivecl at a dif-
ferenr coni:Iusion.
It is, rnctrcuvcr,intercstito speculatewhethcr Judgc Ttlnaka intended to
suggest in the passagequoted immediately ahive that other minurityjudges
whoreachedlhe same conclusionas hedid, did so byapplying the same inter-
prctativcproccss. Anysuch suggestion wauld be of particular irnporlancsince

some of thesejudges didno! give anyindependent reasons for thcirconclusions
in tkis regard.or reliedonly on the 1950Opinion.which may itselfhave heen
an cxamplz of thc applicstion ofan exrreme teleolagical apprciach

M. In hisdissentingopinion, Judge Jessupdid not givc any consideraiion
to the merirs of the questionwhethcr the supervisoryfunctions of thc Lcaguc
weretransrcrrcd to the Unitcd Nations, although hc dealt atgreat length with
certain of the other issuesraised bctwcen the Parties(and somc which were
not raised).The reasoning in JudgeJessup'sseparale opinioin n 1962 seemed
to ncgativc thc possibilityof any siibstitution ofsupewisory organs? This
apparent effect of the opiniotiwas pcrtincntlydrawn to tIreCourt' attention
in the SoiithAMcan pleadinys ?.The absene of any comment on thisarpect,
or any rcasoning inconsistent with the South African contcnfiuns coricerning
the lapse of suprvisicin inia5pect of South West Africa,would appear to in-

dicatethat the interpretalionpla~~dintheSouth Africanpleadingson the effcct
of Judgc Jcssup's opinion in 1952couId not be faulted.

' South West qfricn. SecondPhase, Jtld~tnent, i.C.J. Kcpor!.s196P.277.
YideChap. Il.supro.
Soutli :;YeAfricu,S~rondPhare, Judgtnent. ICI. K~porrs 1966,p. 278.
YidcChap. II..sriprrt.
' Vide tl-.cviervsexpressed hy niinority judgc5 iri (1956 Opinion iiwhirlli
referenccismade in para.29,siipru.
Videpiras.44-47.SU~~U.
'I.C.J. I'l~~diiigs,SorirhWcsr Afuicu, Vopp. 161-163.714 XAMIBL4 {SOIIT~~ WEST AFHIC:A)

As the case procccdcd, furthcrenquiry and research extendeci thc ambit of
such facis,but the purpose forwhich thcy wcrc adduced rernained uiialtered.
In parti cul;^iwas not suggcstedttiat thesnew facts had any direct rclevancc
io the findingin 1950 that the Mandateas an irislitution hansurvivecithe dis-
solution of ~heLeague. The SouthAfriun attiiudc \vas[kat,even ifthe Man-
date did siirvivc,nu substitution of supervison, organs had taken place, and
itwas towards establishing this Iatler proposition lbnt the "new facts" were

adduccd.7hcclïwt of the"new facts" onthc Iapseor othcnviscof rhe Mandate
as an insti:ution couldonly have beeiiaii indirectone in the sense that, i11
wereaccepteclthat theobligation tosubrnillo supervisionhad Iapsed, the ques-
tion wauId havc arisc-whcther the Mandate wüs capablcof sursival in sucha
trimcated 'orin. 'I'hiwould have rai4 questionsof sevembiIity, on rvhich
the "new hcts" also had no significantbcaring.
In the1il:hof this, Jitdgc Jcssup'sapproach to andtreatmcntof thcsc "ntw
facts" is,to saythe least,surprising. He comincncedhis ccinsideratioiiof this
topiç by statingthat some of these facts"bear on the issueof lhe suwivaI of
ihe Mandate, anissuc which csnnot k ignored in thisopinion l".As regards

Preparatory Corninission procccding ', Judgi: Jessup stated that South
Africa---
"... scerned10 attacliiniportanoc tothisaIIegctl 'neifact'in connection
with ilargumentsthat the Mandate lapsedon thetcrrninativnor dissolu-

tionof the League of Kations and thal the Lnited Nations refuscd to
acccpt any rcsponsibil or auehority in wnncct ion with the territories
wKch lradken administcrcd as mandates l".
And tater:

"Tlie thrustof Rcsponùent's ai-guinent...is that this omission proved
that iwas agreedthat the United Narions had no responsihiliiyin regard
ta mandstcd tcrri~orics4."

Judge Jessupcoitsequentlysotrght iosliow in this partofhis opinion,firslly,
thal the new facts djd not detract from the existence of an understanding
amongst Statcs that thc Mandateas an institutionhad sun*ivedthedjssolution
of the 1-eagueaiid, secondly, that.therewas wide agreementthat the United
Kations haù responsibiliiiesinrespecttomandated terrilorieunder Chapter XI
andior XII ofthc Chartcr 5.Since the presentationof thc "ncwfacts"had no:
been direct o either oftlreseissues,and sinceneither ofthem ariscfs orcon-
sideration in rhepreserirwritlen sfatemcnt itwilt not beriecessas tûcrrnsidcr

whcthcr tttcconclusions rcachcd are in anyevent carrcct. Mureover,aswilI
have appeared from the treatrnenlof ttiis topic in this written statemen',

nary Objmtions), pp. 67,97-99; Vol.II(Couotcr-Mcmorial). pp.141-148, I52, 155-
156; Vol. VI11(Oral Prt>cwdings), pp.547-562.Substantiallythesanie contention
isadvanctd hcrein-ride paras. 5-18.suprrr.
l SoitilIVe.rAfiicd, Seciil'hast-,Judginmt,fC.J. Reporrs I966, p. 339.
Discus:;edin para17.supru.
" Sourh West Africu,SecondPhu-se,Judgmuni, I.C.J.Reporrs IY66,p. 341.
' Zbid.,p. 342.
Yide.c.g., p344.
Vide <:hap. 1, supra, wnççrning thc question whethtr ihe Maiidatc as an
insiituii<in :apçerdissuIutionofthcLsague.
Yide paras. 15-18, ~upra, and carlpassagesto which rcfcrcnceisiheremade. WRiTTFN STATtMENT 01:SOtJl'Il AFRICA 715

Judge Jessup'sconsideratioa of these"ncw facts"is a highly selectivand vcry
incomplcte one '.
Forthe forcgoiny reasoi itwilI siiflicto say thal such considcration as
Judge J~aîsuphasgivcn tu theso-calIcù"ncw fiicls" does not iiany way waken
theconclusio rensched thercüncnt in thiswritrcnstatement.

67. In his dissintinsopicion,Judg Padiiia Nervo cndorscd theconclusioiis
reached in 1950 and 1962 wirhout presentingany additionaI or independent
reasonin ingsupport thcrcof2.Itivillthereforesuificto say that, fothe reasons
statcd above, it issubrnittedthat the 1950 Opinion should not be foliowedin

therespea now in qucstior,.

68.Judge klhanefo statcd hismnclusion tharSouth Africa "isaccountablc
to the Unitcd Nations foi the properdischarge of its oblipations ulider the
Mandate and that the Unitcd Nations has a corresponding right of super-

vision 3".As in thecase of othcr mncIusions, he did noi giveany reasons for
rhis finding butconlinedhis reasoning to thepoints an which hc disagreedwith

Judge Jessup'sdisciissioriothe suggestedadditionai paragraph ina stritemçnr
niade by Dr. Smit on 1l Mi4.y 1945(Souih West Africu, Second Pituse,Jirdgment,
I.C.J.Reports 1966, pp.339-3411, isanoti-terexample of treatrncbythim (isome-
thing not rclicripun hySoui-hAfrica.This matter was rajscdbySvuthATrica in its
PrclirninaryObjections{I.C.,'Pfeadinxs, SouthWesf Alrica, Vul. 1p.345) butwas
dcscribed as eirrlas 4 October 1962 by the South African çounsel as "not rcally
irngvrtiint" (ihidVal. II, p. 91and "really unimportani"(ihid.,p. 102) because
"theri:isiniplit inthe body of thestaterncn... theMme as iconvcyce dxpliciity
in thisrurther pnragraph" {ibid.). Still Judgc Jcssripfciuitnecessaryto devtite
more ihan a page of hisopiiiion in 196to thismatter, urlrichhadnot ben relied
upon by Soiith Africa since1962, although, like Soutli African coun.wl, he con-
sidercdthat "it is doubtful u'hetherthextraparagraphadds muçh io whatis said
in thc lastthrce pnragraphs of rhe statement as adrnittcdlymade by Dr. Smit"
(So'ottri rst tffricu, Second Phcise,hdgmen,1.C.I. Reports 1966,p. 340)I.n the
light hereofitis diifrcult to understthe significance attachtd by JudgeJessuto
the questionwhether Dr. Smits' momorywas at fault when he wrotc thahc had in
factread outalso thc additirmalpuragraph.
A secondpuzzIing fcoturcof this part ofJiidgeJeessup'sopinionisthe suggestion
that the BotithAfricüncont~:ntions,both as regards the PrcparatoryConlniission
procccding snd as regards the first Chinese proposa1atthcfinal meeting ofthe
Lcaguc Assemhly, had been -'stiinulatehy the 1962 joint di~senr(ibid, pp. 341,
347). InTricitheSoutli Afria:anconicniionson thcsc aspects were advancd in the
same ivay inthe PreliminaryObjjocri~n si.e.prcccdinpthe 1962joint dissent)açin
the Counter-Meniorial (i.e., aftthe 1962 joint disseni). Coinparc in thiregard
ihe PreliminaryObjections (1.C.Jf"le(i(fNtSourli WestAfica, Yot. 1.pp.345-346
and earlier passagctherccitcd)with rheLountcr-Mernorial(ibid., Vol.TI ,p. 146-
141 and earlicr passagcsthciicited).Morcovcr, iiis difficutcisazwhy ishould
givc rise to any comment if a partyivcrc to adoptarguments in irsfavoiiwhich
were fIrstadvanced hyjudg-s in earliçr stageof the proccedings(\irhichinfact
happeoed in some instance: in the South West Alrica rsses although not thvsr
mentirmed by Judge Jeesup).

~u~iih JVes AifiicaSecûid Ph~sc,Judgfrze~~tI,.C.1. R~rpor1966,pp.450, 456.
458.460-461,470-47 1.
Ibid.p. 490.the Court'sJudgment '.AccordingIy he aIso did not attenlptto rcconcilehis
dissentingopinion in 1965 withhis separateopinion in 1962 2.ft wiIIaccord-
ingIy againsuffice to subrnit that his wncIusion rcgardiny United Nations
supervisionwasiiiwrrect.

69.For the reasons aforestat itis,contended thai theCaurt shouId not

follow the 1950 rnajoritopinion butshould hold that the saidOpinion was
incorrectk~decidedin therespect now inquestion. Inparticularitissubntitted
thatthe CourtshouIdnowhold positively that the sup?rvisorpriwers re1atii.e
trimandates which had kn vcstcd inthc Councjl ofthe Leagueof Nalions
were no1 lransferredtotlie UnitedNations CIeneraIAssembly, and that South
Africa 'bIigationfa report andaccount in respector the Mandate for South
West Africa, lapscd on dissolution ofthc kapue.

.Fou~hWesr Af~icuS,econdPhme, Judriir~nf,I.C.J. Rrpurrs I%5, p. 490.
As IOwhich,seeparas.48-50,supm. W HITTEX STA7E%lEhI- I>+ WC 1AFKICA

CHAPTER X

THE VAJ,lDITY AKD LEGAL LFFECT OP GEKERAL ASSEMBI,Y
RESOLUTIOK 2145 (XXI)

A. Infroductriry

1. Inthepresent Chaptex jt wilbe assumed, despitethc rrrgumcnlsadvaiiced
tothc contras. in the prewdingchapters,fjrstly,thatinits AdvisoryOpinion
of1 1 July1950, this Courtcorrectly decided that-

"... the Gcneral Asseinbly of thc Unitcd Nations isIegalIyqualificd to
e.xerci.wthe supervisoryfunctions previousc lxercised by theLcague
of Nations wiih regardto the administrarionofthe Territory... '"

and, secondIy,that [he powers othe Lcüguc in ihisregardincIuded thepower
to revokethe Mandatcfor South West Africa.
In whatToIIowsh ,owever,itwill be submittedthatevenonthc basis ofthe.%
assurnptionsthc GcneralAssem bly wasnot itsclauthorized bytheterrriof the
CharterIO revoke the Mandate and ihat theseforeitstesoluti2on5 (>;XI),by
which itpitrportcd todo thiswas III~~vire3and of no legaeffect.
11this cnnnectiontheorig:iand ambitof thepowcn of theGeneral Assembly
wiI1firsbe considered; next, the natureand scope of thosc powers wi1Ibe
cxarnincdin sofcirasthcy relateto theprestnl question; and thereafterem-
Irition2145 (XXI) wiIl be tnalysed inthe lightof thcconclusions arrivcdai.

B. The Orii* and Ambifof fhe Poiversof the
Gmd Assembly

2. It hasbccn pointed01.1in conncction withthe SecurityCouncil tht the
cornpetences of thvariouscirgansof theUnited Nations arederived exclusively
from andlimited by the provisionsofthe Charter 2.Thuswhtever the naturc
and cxtcnt ofihepowers of:he GcneralAssembly, ttieycan beascertaineconly
from the teimsof the Charter itse>. In thewords of one emioent authoriiy,
commenting upon rhtsuppcsedprcsumption that actionby theUnitodNations
Organizationwhich "niay b:rcgarded expcdientfrom the standpoint ofone
of ihe purposesof the UN" is not ultraviresthe Drganization:

"As the Soviet menibcr of the WorId Court, V. Koretskii, correctly
notedin thisregard,sucha presumption wouldmeanarcturn to aformula
1ongsincc condemned:'the end justifiethemeans,'Professor Ch. Chau-
mont of France emphasizes that 'states-founùersofan organization
wncludean agreement no1oniy on, then(~ruroefirs goalsbut uho onrfie
mem for alraitring theit" (ItaIics addcd.)

InlctrnolioaalStoxfSo:rrhIVe.rfAfricoAdvisoryOpinion,LC.I. RcporI1950,
p.137.
Chap.III,para.2..rupro.
Yide Certain F~p~nsesof fhc Unitedrliaiions (Arti17,paro~raplj 2qf the
Churrer), Adviror.v Opinion, 1,C.J. Reports p.184(ceparateopinion ofJudge
SirPTunkin,G. I.,"ThcUnitcdSaiions: 1945-1965(ProblemOF InternationLaw)",
Sovirl tawand Go~,errimen.ol. IV*id.4 {IÇ66f. 6.Peüling withinternationa1organizationsin general znd the Cnited Nations in
particular.the same authoritypoints out that:
"The charterof rn internationalorganizaliuri,in this imtüncc the UN
Charfer, definesihe auurhuritof the internationalorganirata isonwhole
and thst of its organs, the rights and duties of itsinember-states,their

interrelationshipwith tlieorganization,etc. It foltowsfrorn thprinciple
gacra sunt s~rvu~rdatkat siatemristfuIfiIconscientiot~slytheir obligations
undci thc chürtcrnf the internationalorgini~ation and, at thesanie time
tliarnorecannot be requiredof siaies (han isslipu[uredin ihc chartc'."
Moreover. as this Courr has said in regard to the very question now being

considcrcrl:
"Ir istobe recalledthat the Court, in its previous Opinion, statethat.
'The cornpetence of the GeneralAssembiyof the United Nations. ..is
deiived fromtheprovisio nfsAriicIc10ofthc Charter,whichauthorizes

rhe General Asscnlbly todiscuss any questions or any 1nattei.within the
scope of the Charter andto makerecornmendation s nthese questionsor
mattersto the Mçrnkrs of thc Unitcd Nations'. Thus, theairrhoriioffhe
FE?IE~# !sse~nbiyi5 exercise sipervisiort #ver tadnririislruliofSouth-
IVexrAfrica as a niandated Territory is basenun rheprovisiorisof thc
C:ifurierWhile, in cxcrcising that supervision, the GeneraI Assem bIy
shouId notdcviate from the Mandate, ilsaurhority CU #cricedecij.ioiri
order io e&ct such supervision is d~rivetfiom iis own coiistitutia2."
(Ilalics addcci.)

It thcn, the powersofthe AsseiiibIy are derived from and basccl upon thc
Charter, iicannor act outside the Charwr. It follows that thc Assemblycould
irothave revokcd thc Mandatc for South West hfrica unIes!sthe Charter
conkrred uponit powers wideenough to eff~tsuch a revocation. Whciheror
nof the Charter did so isthenext qiicstion to hcconsidered.

3. Thelwwers of thcGcncralAssenibly cover a wide range and linaybevery
broadly cIassifreas cither"political"or "orgairizational"iinature,thongh il
willsomctirnes he diRciilttodraiv alinebctwem theiewu.The former category
embraces theAsscmbIy'spowersof discussion and reccirnmendation:the latter,
siichpowcrs as tho.seinregard tontembership oftheOrganiution, theclcction
ofrnemhersof variousorgans,budgeraray ndfiilancial rnatters,thecontroand
supervision of subordinate organs, the administration and supervision of
certain triistterritories,andtharncndrnen ot.theCharter 3.
Of these powerstheonly vnes whichcan beconsidercdrclevant tothe present
question are thoçc politicalpciwers ccinferredinArticles IO, 11 and 14. The
lermsof AnicIes 10 and 14are wide enough to bringthe question of Sout II
- .-

Tunkiii, CiI.,"The Cniled Nalicins: 1945-1965 (Prohlems rif Internrriional
La-)", Sovirt Law aridGovurnn~nt,Vol.TV, NO.4(1966) p.8.(Footnoles omitted.)
Terriroryu,fSnorli W~srA,fricAdvisory Opinion, I.C.J. Report> 1p.576.rnirtgihu
Vide ÏIIthiscrmnectiun Ross, A., C.bnstiiutliin of!lie Lfr!Vutionr(1950).
pp. 59-50;Goodrich, L. M. and Harnbro, E.. Charrerofihr LfnitediVarions(2nrIed.).
p.25; Verdross,A., Yujk~rrec (htid.), p.520. WRLTTEN STAT EMENTOF SOUTE4 Ai-KlCA 719

Wcst Africawithinthepurlicw of the deliberalandrecommendatory powers
ofthe AsscmbIyand thesz.mewould hetrucof Article 11,pwagraph 7,if this
quearion were onc invol\ing the maintenance of internationalpe3ce and
securityFor interinsof AlticlIOthe Assemblymaydiscuss and ~riakrecorn-
mendatioo ns "anyquestionsor anymatters within thc scopeofthe present
Charter"; in termsofArik:Ic11, püragrapl2, it nlado the samein regardto
"anyqucstions relatingtothemaintenancc ofinlemational pcaccandsccuri~y";
and in terms of Article 14it "may remmrnend rncasurcs for the peaceful

adjustmenl of any situatin~n,rcgardlcsof origin,wliich itdeems Iikelyto
impairthe gencritl wcifurcor îriendlyrelationsarnong nati...".
However, since it has kccn shown that theAsseniblypuiported to adopt
resolution2145 (XXI) by virtue nf powrs vcsting init as sucCtssortothe
supervisors pnwers of thc Ligue of Natioiisl,and sina: the cornpetenccto
exerciscthesepowers has tecn heldbyrhis Court to derivefrontheprovisions
of Article 10 of the Chart-ir', and since, niorwvthenaturc O€the powers
conferredin Articles 10, 11und 14 are thesame, i.c., deliberat ainderc-
commendiitory, consideratioiiofthe powers of the AsseniblycanIorpurposes
ofthe present question beconfinedto the considcratioof thoseconferred in
Article103.
4. What then are ik natureandthe cxtenl of thepowersbeslowedupon the
General Assembly inArlitIe IOofthe Charter7That ArlicIe readsas foIlows:

"'Ihe Gcncral Assi:inbly inaydiscussany questions or any rnatters
withinthe scope of the presentCharteror rclating IO the powerç and
functionof any 0rgar.pravidcd forin thepresent Charler, anexceptas
pravidcd inArfjcle12.may make recommendationsto ihcMernkrs of the
Unite Ndation orto rheSeciiritCounci olrtohoth on anysuch quesrions

or mat te^."
When regard is haiothe plain meaningof thewordsusedin thisArticleit
isclear ihat itconfersupontheAssembly only two powers-the power to
u'iscu ansdthe power to ihecomilietIt docs no more thm tht, though ob-
viously rhe powcr todiscussmust "also include the powcitomsko decisions
whichcithçr sum uiithestzrtemcntsmade or inwhichthe hsernbly assuch scts
fortlitsopinion i,sofar asthis hasnot thcchiiractof arcwminendation 4".

The lançiiage of the Articlt:wrtainlycanbetconstrucdto givethcAssembjy
the powcr to rnakea decir.ionhavirtgbinùingeffectIt is irnpossihto infer
such a power frum the ampetence to "discuss",while,as %vasshown with
referencetothe pnwersofihc SocurityCouncil,a "recommcndation"can by its
very naturchaveno bindirigeffec'.
5. Ifthe language oftheArticl isclear,so isthe intentionofthose who
framed theCharter. Iti~apptirent, both from the cvmments and proposed
arncndrnenfssubmittedby StatesinregardtoChapter V,sectionB,paragraph 1,
of theDümbartonOaks I'ropos( atlsforcrunner ofthe prestnt Articles IO
to 15of theCharter) andfiom therecordsof Commission U anditu Cornmittee
Il, thatIhe deleptes to the San Francisco Conference accepted withour

VideChan.VI. suortr.
fnt~rrrari&sfuluof~iisriWcsrAfrica. Advisnyt.Opini1.C.J. Regorrs 1950,
p.137.
The conclusionsin regardto the powersconfcrrcd in ArticlIOwill apply
eqiiriltorhoseconferrcin Article para.2,and inAriiçle14.
+ Ross,op.rit., p.61.
Yi& Chap. V,para.52,rupua.question tliat the poli~icaland socurjtpowers of the GeneralAssetnblywcre
to bcmcrcly clclibcraa tidvrecornrnendatory andnot in any sense binding '.
Indeed, the uoni&jegale who cxprcsslyadvertcd to thequestion rook thisto be
a rnatrtrof course.He said:

"... there isno Iinziton thc power of recommendation Save the one
mentioned in the text [this isan apparent relkrence io thc cxcepticin
containeciin thepfeçent Artide 12, parrigraph11, and the Assemblyrnay
rnake rwiornmcndatiano snthese mattersto the UnitedNations. Ofcozirse
thoserecon~rrr~iidufions iU hve no upcratireeflcc~inany mun iry ..."',
{ltalics added.)

And ai nu iimc during thc course of the relevantdiscussions was this inter-
pretationcalledinto doubt.
The viewsof the framersof theCharter astu the natureof a recomrnericlulion
arc dso illuvtratcdby a ruling of the I'residentof CommissioF[ incunncction
with Chapter V. section B, paragraph4, ofthe Durnbarton Oaks PmposaIs,
dealing, intealfa, with thepowerof the Assembl y "tu elect,upvn recurnmcn-
dation of i.heSecuriiyCourtcil,tfieSecrefaryGeneral of thc OrganizationF-
as the foIlowingexcerpl frornthcrocords of the first meetinofComniissionII
wD1 show:

"Mr. Evnrf:Mr.Frcsident, on behaIfof AustraliaI support the requcst
of the Nethcrlands,but we aIso think îtis irnpliedclwly from the words
used--and 1 woilldlike yourruring on that, Sir--rhia letA.wembiy hzs
theri&, nfterfherecotnntetidarioreochesil. to say'yesor to say'no' ...
1think that it iimptiedfroin the words uscd, that ifa recommendation
reachesthe Assembly iiran rejec:it...

Prrsidetzt[in giving his ruIing]. ..AlI, therefore, diai the Sectirity
Council cloc isto rnake arecommendation.It is tro [sitnatidatorar afi.
Tt is simpIy a recommendation. The General Asçeinbly annot elect.
withoiithaving before itsuch a recommendation, bsr rhey aremur bozmd
bysircharec~~nitnemkdiur i. seerrtotneth plait1meirnitgofrhe recnllttnen-
da~iniiand 1rhink, that king the case,we need not pursue the rnaiter
rurihcr3."WaIics added.)

That representativesaccepted thisruling on thc nature and effects of 3 re-
cornmendation as kingcorrect isshownbythe fat that i\vasnever contestrd,
thenor laier.
S. Tt has been pointed out in wnncçtion with the powers af the Secürity
Cnuncil that a recommendation of theCounciI can assume a bindin charaçter
only ifsornc or0th provision of the Charteroperates to invcstitwith such a
character '.'l'hat equaI1ycrueof arcconimcndation of theGeneraI Assembly.
Hut in the caseof the Assemblythereis no articlof the Charierwhichmight
even suygcst thatits recomrnendatory powers under Articles IO, II and 14
can cverbr:trairsfortnedinto thusc afbinding&cision.
Moreover, there is ample authority inthepronouncemeiitsof Memkrs of
thisCour tnd of publicistsof repute.or at Ieastol thoseofthem whu do not

5'1ciUNCIO dt~cs.,VolsIII, \'I(pp. 195UI stq.and IX.
UNCICIdocs.Vol. ViI1. p. 208. (Statemcntofthe Ausrralianrcpresentritiet
theFourth n~cetinof ConirnissirII.)
Ibid.pp. 32-33.
YfcieChap. V,para.52, siipru. 7.The conclusion isclear. Under Article iO of the Charter the General

Assemlily wn discussandcan rnakc rwrnmcndirtions ona vcry widc varict of
subjects.Butthereits powcrs end.Itsrecommendatioiisare notbindingupon the
Staies to which they are addressedand iicannot, rherefore, irnp~sc 11swilI
uporiStates. Apari from itsorganizational]cornpetences, itis,in fact,only a
body "to discuss,to consider,and to recorsimend ,ut nol to take action l".
Action,in a proper case, is the prcro~ütiveofthe Security Council.

D. The Nature aiidLegaI Effectof &nerd hsembly
Redution 2145IXXI)

8.The +:niaof GeneralAssembly rcsoluticin7145 (XXI) is opcrat ivc para-
graph4 in whichthe Asu'rnbly:

"4. BecicIes rhai thç Mandarc conferreil upon His Britannic Majmiy
Lo beexercisedunhis bchrilf by theGovernmeiit of tlieUnion of South
Africa is thereforetern~inated,rhat South Afriça has no other right to
administer ihc:Tcrritvryand that henceforth South West Africa cornes
under the direct ~esponsibilitof the United Nations."

In thcir essential nature the other paragraphs of the rcsoIution çonstiiute
citherthe reasonsgiving riw LU thcdt~isionscmbodiedin operativc paragraph 4
or the measures takcn in consequence of those decisionsand in order to
implcmentthem,and, as sucll, theseother para~aphs are legallyirreIevant to

thequestion ofthe cornpetencio:f thc AsscmbIy toadopt operative paragraph 4.
9. It is manifestfrom the Ianguag ofparagraph4 tht itdoesnot purport to
be rccorn~ircndatoryin character. Xt embodizs three separate biit related
decisions by which the Asxrnbly purports triterminate the Mandate for
South West Afriça; to niake a legalfinding tothe efîectthat therefore South
Afriça haç no right triadtninislerrht:Territory; and to place the Territory
under thedirect responsibiIityofthcUnited Nations. The validity of thesccond

and thrd of these ddecidonsdepends iii the firstinsiancenpon the velidity of
thc dccisian tn revnke the Mandate. Lfthe latterdccisionis invalid,su arethc
others and so ihen arc al1 the rneasures taken in remlution 2145 {XXO to
implement thcm.

Second Plzuse,ludgtnenr,I.C.J. Reports 1966,pp. 50-51; Ceriain E.~prnreroJrh~
United brufinri(Article17, pnu~grapfi 2, ($ iCefianer),Adci.~oryOpiniun, 1C.J.
Repuris 1967. p. 233 {disscnting opinioti of JüdgeWiniarski), and pp.250-251
Cdissentingopinion or JudgeMorenoQuintana) ;Dahm. G., Vofkrri4echi(1961), Vol.

the United Natioiis", BYBIL, Vol. XXXIIf Re(LY5S-1956),pp. 97nerascq.;Bricrly-
3.L.,'Th 1-uw ofNcrtiuns(6thd.), p. 110;Goudrich and Hambru,op. Nt., pp.151,
152;Dugard, J., "The Kcvocation ofthe Mandateror Suuth West Africa", AJIL,

Vol. 62 (1968), p. 94;Kclsen, H.,IThtLaw uJrhli UnitrriVtrtiu(ns51), pp. 193
ci seq; Beritwuich,. anciMartin. A.,A Coinin~nruryon ~hcClinrtcr of tlrc Uaitcad
Nufions(19511,p. 33;Yallat,F.A., "?'heCampctencc of tlic Unitcd Nations Gcnerril
Assembly", Recueildes c.uiirVol.97.No. 11 (IYS!] p),230-231 ; IlQiiaI,1..{.es
eftrs desrP.roEirii&s iVrifiom Unies (1967) p. II ; Rindschedlzr, R. L.. "dé-
limitation descornpitcnws dcs Nations Unies", Heciieii decours, Vol.108. SO.1
(1963), p. 345; Verdross.op. cirp.522; Schwarzenbergcr,G., A iMlrnlrnoj.Inrci.-
aafionnllas (5thed.),p.284.
Gotidrichand Hanibro, op.rit., p150. Or as Uolivci.L.,7'hc Llnite:\hiions
(1946),p.23, puts i: "lt isclear;Ilinteniici;ithe CharterlrirnaketheAssernhly
the greatrntlrand politicalplatl'ormotheworld, hutirrInjetir tukediruct~rctiui~."
(Itaijcsaddcd.) WRln'EN STATEMEKTOF SOUTH AFRIC.2 723

Thc decision by whichthe Assenihly purportcdto fernijnatethe hlanduieis
one by rvhichit soughtto impose its will-to makea politicaldispositionwith
bindingand Far-rcachi Icnalcffectsrrgn omnes. It has, howevcr, kcn shown
thstundcr Article IO of tlieCharterrhe Assembly unnot do inore than make
reconrmendiitions,rhal thr:wrecomrncndaiion hsaveiio binding effeçand ihat
wnscqiiently the Assenibly can never impose ifs will iipon Sraies.'I'hcon-
cIusion Îsobvicius-tlie Asseinbl~''~"decision" to revokc Ihc Mandate for
South Wat Africa isaltoi~therbeyand its authorizedpowers andthushas no

lem[ efYeç1ai al'.
IO. 1i isrnoxover, signifiant that of thefewivriterswho, tothe knolvlcdge
of the Soutli African Gr,vcrnment, havc dcaIt with the question nonc has
attcmpteciio justify the 1r:galvaliditof CreiieralAssembly cesolution 2145
(XXI) while scvcrsl havc doubtcd or denied its validity 2.CarrilloSalado
üppcarssin~plyto accept ihe fact that thc qucstion of South West Africais a
politicalone and that theAssemblyin purportiiig to terminaie the Mandatchas
prnceeded in a political way :jAçcoràing to RahmatulIahKhan and Satpal

Kaur:
"It isonc thing tu :;aythatthe Mandate stibsists;thaithc UN succeeds
to ihe supenrisoryfurictions ofthe Lcaguc; and lhat South Africa cannot
alterthe Sratusof South-Wtst AfricauniIatcrally,and it isanorher thing

tn daim for thc UN Ihe authority toterminate theMandatc as a sanction
against the inandatoi.yYm s isuse, or incffcctive performanceof the obli-
gations over themanifated territory...4"
- The authors thcn contiriuc, with rcfcrencero the general compctcncr:of rhe

UnitedNations in relatiorto"ter.ritnrialadministration"and aftercitingthe
cases of the Free Serrirory of Tricste, the Partition of PaIcstineand Wat.
Irian:

"The burdcnuf al1rhesethrcc prcccdents isthat the Uh' cars assurnc
responsibiIitieof terr-itorialadministrationin the evenr of&ri! coirsenr
iirnonystlhtpowers c3ncerned.[Ernphasisin original.]Thelegalau~horily
for such activim iyy no! be aninsurmouniable obstacie,but consent is of
crucialimliortance.
Thus, ont: cannot iielpking sceptical ahout thc Icwl validityof the
terminationresolutio!~Ii.e., 2145{XXI) ]oth on the hasis of the WmId
Corirl'sadvisoryopinions and jiidgments on thc subject and on ihcbasis

of thc UN cornperefice in gcncral. The only possiblc Icgal explanation
woüld be that the Inrcma~irinaIComrnunity which createdthe Mandatc
inits Ixague of Nations incarnation might be supposedto have thc pawer

'Unlcss thc "dccjsion"iiiaybc.regarded asin the nÿtureof a rn-onimcndation
to Statcs,includiSnoguth P.frica.whichscenishr>wever,to be impossibIrsinceilis
addrcsscd tonobody and by itnüiurc posfulates nochoice of acrion.
Vide.for insiance, R~xisxau. Ch., "Chronique dcs fd11sinternationaux",
Renie b%?vhu/cde drvirinzer-nnfionpuhlic,No. 2 (19671,p. 384; BastidS., ''L'af-
faire duSud-Ouest Afiicairdevant la Cour intcrnaiionalede Justice"loi~rnaibu
droit inIfrnuiioniVol.Y4 (1967),p.573: Higgins,K,,"TheInternationaC l ourtand
South West Alrica Thc Implicationsof tbcJudgmeni". JottrnrroftheInr~riturionat
Commissioii ofJurisis, Vo'1111No. I (196-0, pp29-33.
Parrill Salmdti, J. A"Un Cyso dc r>rwoloni-mcion: El'lèrritoriodSudueste
A Ericano",Rrt-i.ttüErpufioL iDeyecI~lniilernrici<i, ol. XX(I967),pp.418-419.
' "The Deadlock over Souih-West Aîriça", indiun JotirnaofInirriiarionnLuw.
Vol. 8,Ko. 2(1968).p. 184. tr, tcnninatc rhesame through itsnew institulional rellction, i.c., the
CnitertNations. This, apartfrom bcinga far-fctchcdaxplnnrrriot~h,owever,
serves as norea1 justificntîon. .'" (Emphasis inoriginal.)

Even Dug.rd, who corsiderschat it "may at fist appear IO be ridiculous" to
conclude tha; rcsolution 2145(XXI) did i~or havt:the des ed effectoftermina-
ting the Mandate, concedes,afterenqtiiry, thi lhisconcIusÏcin"ilowslogically
from an examinationof the puwcrs conFerred upon the GeneraIAssenihly by
its omn Charter 2" becrius:

"It is tritlaw that resolutionsof the GeneraIAseinbIy no1concerned
with its nwn interna1 management are no[ IegaIly binding upon States.
...Su:h resoiuticinsarc only rccornrncndatory in their effect ..>"

I1. The cunclusion, then,is that the"decision" iiresofution 2145 (XXI) io
revoke the Mandate for South WestAfrica was trIm sirestheGeneral Assembly

andofno legaleffwt iitaIIA.ndsince the remainder of tharresolution depends
upon lhat decision for its vaIidity,itfollows that the rviioleresoluiion is
without legal effect.

"The Deadlwk over South-M'est Africa", IndiunJnirrnrtoftnfernutiomi Law,
Vot. 8,No. 2 (1968),p. 185.
' Dugard,dJlL, Vol. 62(19681, p. 95.
Ibid., p94,(Referencesto foornotesoniitted.) CHAPTER XI

'l'HE FACTCAL ISSUES

1. In previous chapiec; tlie South African Chvernnient has contcnded,
izrfcrrlili!ththe UnitedNations dd not succeedto thesupervisory powers of
the Lcague, and that the Gcncral Assembly was not lrgally empouueredto

revoke the Msndaiç for :South West Africa. In rhis final chaptcr it wiIbe
dcmonstrated firstly thal, aven if itwere io be assuiiied that the GeneraI
Asseniblywas so empoweced, thcri: cxistedno factualbasis which couId have
justifiedthcrcvor;ationof the Mandate, and rhat the rcprcscntativeor States
which supported the aduption of resolutivn 2145 (XXI) I either rverenot
ancerned whethersuch a factualbiisiexistcd,or did nul applytheir rnindqto
the factsavaiIsblcto theni,with the resultthat they were undcr a cornplete
misiipprehension asto thetrue faclual position:and more especiallythe nature
of South Africa's admini:trationof South West Africa.Sccondly, iiwiIl be

dernonstratedthat if the clernand for withdrawalof South Africa's adminis
rrationwere lo beacceded CO,it wouId have dclctcriousconsequeriw foral1the
peopfes of South West Africa*. TiwilIconseqüentIy be submitied thateven if
the contentionsadvanccd in the previorischapterswere not ta beacccptcdby
the Court, the saidrwolution is, in anycvent, invatid forthe rerrsonset out
hereiii.Moreover,even if theresoluiion were to beregarded as a validrccorn-
mendation, il wjllheshown that cornpliancctherewilh woiild bedetrinienta[
tothe intcrcstsof theinhabitantsof South West Africa.
2. ItirriIl brecalledth~t i1ie"deckinn" io revoke the Mandüte cmbodied

inremlution 2145 (XXI) :vas sought 10 be hsed on the ground "that South
.4frica has pdilclo fulfil its obligations in respecof thc sdministcatioriof
the niandzted 'Territoryand to ensure the rrioraland materialwell-being and
sccurity ofthe indigenous inhirbiiantsor South West Africa, and has, in Fact,
disavowed thc Mandate. . . 3"
ltis not clear what was meant by the phrase"has ... disrivowed the Man-
&te". Presumahlÿthe authors of!I>eresoliirionhad in mjnd asserfions on the
part of South Africa to tile eflect thal the Mmdatc had lapsed. Whilst itis
true that the South African Ciovernmcnt contends thar the Mandate did lapse
on Ihe dissolutinn of the bague of Nations, ilfiasconsistently cxprcssed an
in~cntion to adrninisterth? Tcrriloryin thc spiritof the Mandate4: in other

words, to carry out, as amarai duty, its erstwhilesiibstantiveobligations as
if the Mandate siil1 cxisied.The resoIutionunder consideraiiondid no( pur-
port to rcly on the "disavowal" of the Mandatc as ci separateground for
revocarioitthcrcof. and, irthe IightofSouth Africa'sdsctarcd intent, irslegal
conient ions regarding the lapseof the Mandate cannot, it isubmittcd, con-
stitutcsucha sepaiate goiind.

YidpChap. VI, para.I.:upm.
As tothe requircmcntsc-fjusticeian cnquiryofthisnarure,ride Chap.i',para.
43,SllPVQ.
" VideChap. VI,sirprri.
' Vih, e.g..GA, OR, Second SWS.,Fourth Conirn.,31sth?eçting, pp. 3-41.C.J.
Pkodings, Sortrlttésl/fjkicV~ol.1V,p.201.726 NhMIBlA (SOUTH WEST AFHII'A)
ris kas IKMIdemonstratedabove '.thc revwation of the Mandate caniiot

bejusrified orithe basisOF a breach of a treaty or agreement existinç ktiiieen
the Lniteci Nations and Soulh Africii, and, indeed, in adopting resoIution
2145 (XXI) the General Asscniblypurpoi'ted Io açt yIaasupervisory organ not
q~~g contractual party. And as a purportcd supervisoryorgan, the United
Nations must surely ha\*ebeen concernedwith Lhcmanncr in rvhich Soulh
Afriça adniinistcrcd the Ièrritory,ratherthn withviews exprcssedby South
Africarrs to the legalposition. Itisccinsequentlyonly South Africa's alleged
failtirto ensiirethe n~oral and material wdI-king and securitÿ of the indige-
nous inha'r~tantsof the'Ierritorywhiçhis rclevant for prtsenl purposcs 2.

3. In th{:succeeding seclions (B and C) itwill lxshown that the whole
issueor ScnuthWest Africiimust beseeriin its context as part or a polilical
campaign rlcsignod to secure the independenceof South Wmt Africa as a
siitglepoliticri[ unithut mtijonticsin the Gencral Asscmbly, although osten-
sibly concerned with the materid and moral wcI1-king of the inhabitantsor
thc Tcrritary,wcre in realityinlenton attainingtheir politica1ends irrcspoctive
of ailnthei-wnsiderniions; that relevant resoluiions wercadopted asa result
of the exisieno cea klicf (real or simulated) tkatSouth Africa'sadministra-

tionof the Territory isoppressive of tlie indigenoiisinhabilants; that, in so
far as rhisMief niay havc bccn genuinelh yeId,it can be attributedlargely to
dernonstra1,IyfaIseallegations niade by pctiiioncr ans;that certain represen-
talivcs in the United NaIions have no1 only ignored expositioonfsthc truc
facts but. on the contrary. have eaçerlg awepted aIIegations from obviousIy
untritthfulsources.
Scction U will be devoted to a consideration of thc pru~mdingslcading up
to the adoption of rcsolution 2145 (XXI), and willdemonstrate thattheabove-

mentioncd politicai motivations, couplcd with a failure by delegaiesto have
rcgard tnriIlthe informati avnailabletothein, pIayed a dccisivc roIe in the
relevant proçocdingsof the GeneraI AsscmbIy.Section E will containa resumB
of subsequentevenis whichfortif tye cnnclusionsAowingfrom the previous
sccrions, arldin secrionF the South African Giivcrnrncnt wiH give an expoci-
!ion of rcccnt inforinationconceming the Territov from which iiwiI1appcar
fharit worild bedcirimcnta1 to the interestsof the inhabitantsif SouthAfn~i
were to withdraw therefl-on1in the light of thc incrcased progres and well-

being shown in al1spheresof Iifc.

B.ThePolifical Backgmrind to theAdoption uf Rmlution 2145(XXI)

4. In itsCounter-Memorialin the Soirth WPA!Africrr cases ihr:Govcrnrnent
of South Africudcnionstrated that jtwas only arterthe outbrcakof theSecond
World Wai that theimpetus ofanii-coloniaIfeeling in Africagathered monien-
ium 3.The demand for an evcr-increasinp shai~ in the governmenis of iheir
countrie fosu~id growing support antong the politically comcious .fricans,
and was sti-onglyinfluend byevcnts in othcr ~isrtsofthe world, particuIariy

! VideChap. VI, paras.5-15,supro.
?It is(rue thaoperativeparagraph3 nfresnlution 2145 {XXI) rcferrcdto South
Africa'sfai11~re>rulftitsobligations cztiiensure the raid wcll-hcing and security.
hut fromthe concext itappcarsreasonablyclearlyiliaiit wasprecisely thobligation
to ensurc the well-king and sccurity ot'the indigenous inhabitanis ii'hich South
Africa was allegd iohavc failcd to lùlfil. Th~isborne out by ihe attacks,dur-
ing ihcdebares preceding thc adoption ortheresolution:on theapplicaiion of tbc
policy[iscparatcdeveloprnent tuthc-1-crritory.
I.C.J. Pfendin~sSouth IvesrAfricu.Vol. Ilpp.431-438. WKITI'EN ~ATEME~T OF SOUTH A~-KICA 727

Asia. 'I'hcrcsirt of this awakcning African nationalisrn or anti-culoniaiisni
forms a part of contemp-ciiary history and itis acmrdingly not necessary to
give a fu1I awoiint thercof in this writlen sralement. It wüs refiected, inter
uli(1,in the constirutional dcvclopmcnt of thc various territories in Africa,

çuuth of tlieSahara '.Tkrc are, however, certrtiiaspectsof the anti-colonial
muvernent which are of ivlevance for present purpows, and which wilIcon-
quentIy be dwlt with inthe succlyding paragrsphs. ...
5.The developtnent of participatioilby Af~i~arIsin the ceritralgovernnient
of thcir countriescontinued to k a gradiialprocess up taapproximately the
1950s, after which ittna~ed a( an cvcr-accclcratjng pacc. 'I'hisreflwtcù not
onIy the results of a sirengthen demdand for independence on the part of
rhe peoples of the territories concemed,bu1 aIso lhe dfects of increaqedpres-
surein internatianaIIife,parlicularly by itncwly independe Snatcs ofAfnca

and Asia.
'I'heresultwas that, whcreas up to the early 1950s itwasgcnemlIyaccepltd
thatmany or most ofthe tcrrirorics in Africa would notbe grantcd indcpcn-
dcncc for a gcncration or inore, nlost of ihem rrtiaind self-guveriinient or
independence hefore the ~tirdof lhat dtvacic, or within the firsfew )vars or
ihe next. This accelerzttttdpolitical progres??refiecteinreralil;, a significani
change in attitudetowart1sthe statcof advünccrncntrcquired for seIf-govern-
men[ or independen=. The earlier attitude had been that independene or
self-government should net hegranted bet'ore a territory had reacheda reasan-

nbIyadvanceci stageof eccinonlic,sociiiI andpoliticadcvclopment. The colo-
nial and former colonial pcoplcs ivere.however, progre.3sivle essyprepared
to acwpt the valiàity of tliis attirude.In thiregard, for instance,the repre-
sentative of Ciuineais rep~ted Iohavc said in 1961:
"lrrcspecto ivth,:state of development of tipiirticular'I'erritory, its

full independene ba;ed on territorial integrity was the sine yution for
rapid progress in al[ iiel2."
hhny sirnilar statcnlcnrs were made in vürioirsCnired Nations organs as
from the Iatteryears of the1950s 3.
6. This view found increasing support in world politics, In 19M) the well-
knoivn Declaration on tP:cGrantin~ OF Independence 10ColoniaI Countrics
and Peoples was adripted :>ythc:United Nations GcncralAsscmbly by 89 votes

io ni1wiih 9 iibsteniions(idAfrimn rnernbersw , ho were present, voting with
the majority; the Colonial powers and administeringauthorities gencrally
ahsiainingj -{ttcontaine id,rcnlin,thc following paragraphs :
"1. The subjcction ofpeopIesio aIiensubjuga:aliond.orninütion and cxpIoi-

iation consiirute:a dcniiil offundamcnta! huninn rights, iscontnry
to the Charicr uf the United Nations and isan iinpedimcnt to the
proinotion of worlù peaceand CO-opcration.
2. AI1 peoplei havr the righi to self-deierrninaiion;by virtueof that
right thcy frcely detertnii~e their polilical sutus and frcely pursiie
theirecnnomic, siiciaI and crilruraùevclopnlent.
3. inuci~(pracyofpciiiirnf, ~conomic,socio! or ecitirn:ir>nirepciredt~es.~
sfioitksever ser~tnsn pretext for ciel(zyii1zdep~rzdet1cc.

:Ibid., pp. 509-527.
-GA, OH,Sixiccnth Scss.,FciurlhCtitrim.Il86th Meeting, 26Oct. 1961,P. 186.
Vrd~1.cJ.J5'ccudingSsiuih WeslAfricrr,Vol. II, pp. 441-445.
GA, OR, Fifleçnih Ses:..947th Plenary Meeting. 14Dec. 1960,pp. 1273-1174.
This rcsolutioi~ reproducedasAnncx h to Chrip.VI. abovc. ......*...**......**_....... f.......I..*_

5. fmmedioreneps sknllbe taken, in Trustand Non-Self-Governinç Ter-
ritiiricsor al1other territorieswhichave not yet attained indepen-
delice,totransferrtllpowers tu the peopiesof thoseterrituries,u~irh-
ou.:mzy condirions or res~r~~oiotis,inawrdance with thcir freely
cxlircswd wilI and desire,without any distinctinn as to race,creed
orcolour, iirorderfoenabletkem tu rrrjoycut~pleteinriepe~ideiinPtd
,frerdom '."{Itnlicadded.)

Referencr:was made to this dcclarütion,and rcliancc pIiiccd thcrcon, in
numcrous subsequentresoIutions.
7.l'here are two aspects of [liproceçs or decoloni-/;itiowhich require
emphasisaithis siagc.Thc firstwhich hüsaircirdybccnnotcd, is its uncxpxted
swiftness.T'heothcr, whichis probably I-iotlia cause and aneffecof therapi-
dity with which the leaders of the decolonization campai= attained rheir
major ends, is thcgrrai dcal ofcmotion cngcndcrcd by this issuc. Amongst
rnanypeople, particularlyin the i~exvlyindepiident States, there deveIopcd
an intensedesire toeliminate the Iastvestigesof wloniaIism (or what seemed

io ~hcm to aniount to coIonialism). Examplestherenf wiIl he givenbrlow,
where itwillbe sliown lhat Souih Africa'spolicics have frequentlybeen stig-
marized ;tsamounting ro ç01onialism'.
S. Thc South African Wernment resents sratementsto thiseffeciTt isnot
oppmd tothe basic principIeof self-dctcrminatio(as distinyuishedfrom the
mariner in which some States seek ro apply it)and it does not question iht:
soundness of the principleihat ~uardianship and tru%teesh exeprciwd ovcr
peopfes un~bie 10stand by ihcrnsclv arcsnhcrcntIyintcndc tdbe terrninated
uponallainment by the "wards" of a stageof rnaruritywhich enablcs thenito
dccidt:upon theirown future.If, upon reachingsuch a stage,thewards strongty

desire self-governnien~and indepcndcnctc hcrc can lxno question about a
moral righron theirpan to attainsuch id-[, nor about the soundnes ofthe
policy of allnwing then1to do so-in both instances, however.subjecr to diie
considemiionofudjustmcnis to bcmadc, and of a balancetobcstruckbrtween
competing or confficting daims ofcomparalile mord pntency on thc partof
UIhcrs.
As far asSouth WestAfrica is conccrncd, thc South African Goirernmcnt
has clearIypledgcd itscIf that the objective of irs adiiiinistratiseIfMeter-
mination for al1 the peopfes of Souih West AFrica. Thus, in his statement
More the Genenl Asseniblyon 12 Octuhr 1966,thc South AfricanForcign
Minister spoke of "rhc advancement of the peoples concerned to their self-

detcrrninationand self-reaIi7ationas"a principleIO which ItheSouth Aïrican]
Government iswnipIetely comniittcd 3".
Cln 14 necember 1967 the South African represeirtativc.in theGeiteraI
Asseinblyriopatcdthis objectivein the followingwords:

"Theprincipleof self-determinatioito whichthe South AfriçanGovern-
mcnt is commirted leavesihe way openfor unlirniledpossibiIitiescom-
patible with the cfio~ccwhich eachpopulation group miyht cvcntuaily

GA, rcsotutiun 1514(XV), 14 Ucc. 1960.inGA, OR, Fiftccnth Stss.,SupNo.
Id(A/4684), p.67.
: Vide C.E.,Mi-. Dugrsurcn (Mongolia). GA. UR, Ninctccnth Sas., 1306th
Plenarv Mecring, 17Dec. 1964, p.9:%Ir. Achkar (Guinca),GA, -OR, Nineteenih
Sess.,1308thPIenaryMeeting, 21Dw. 14M, p. 14.
' GA, OR, Twentg-firsScss.,143911Plenary Meeting,17 Oct. 1966,p21. WRIT:nCESSTATFMENT OF;SOCTH AFRICA 729

wish to makc. Tlic CouthAfricanGuwmmcnt's approacl~to the wholc
question of self-determination wüs outlined by various rncmbers of niy
Government. For imtance, the former Prime Minister statedin 19634 in
1hc South Africün Parliament thr ...

'... the basic pririciplesofjustice require ihatwr. should not aIlow
the devclopmcnt ol'one impcriaIisticgroup but thateach RrOUp shorild
be able to enjoy it;fullrights:the Whites, the Ovambos, the Hereros,
the Ukavangos, th(:Namas, theDamarasand the B8iieis''."

9. The charger thatSruth Africa pursuescoIonialist poiicies and lhal ii
deni- the inhabitantsof South Weqt Africa any progres?roward~self-deter-
mination, are based upon the niistakcnprcmiscthat xIf-dctermination in any
given territoryinusi ne=sariIy foIIowa particuIarpattern. namcly universal
adult suffrageof the ppoulaation as a whole withjn a sinde terrirorialunit.
Thereis no justification for swh a prcmisc, whicentircIyignores the ractthni
circumsiances ntay di& frornone territoryto anothei..andthat such a pre-
deteimined pattern niay not lxsuilable atal1in the circun.istanceof a parti-
cular terriiory.No such premise was contained in the objectivesof thc man-
Jatcs system, nor is it cnibodied iithe principlesenuncialed in the Charter
of the United Yations. On the contrary, the vcry provisions 01Arricle 73 of
the Charter refute such a proposition. This Articlespeaks of thc recognition

of the principIc thüt thc jnlerestsof the inhabitantsof Non-Çelf-Governing
Tetritoriesareparamoulitand requires that theiradvancen~cn tsro beensured
"wiih due respect for the culture of the peoples concerne&'. It procc;edsio
proclaim in expIicittcrms the "ideal to devcIop self-govcmment, to take duc
account of the political aspiraiions of the pmpIcs and toajsist them inthe
progressiiledeveloprnent ofrheir free political insrirutions,accordintu the
pariicular cjrcumstances oî each ierritury and its pcoptcs iiitheir varying
stages of advai~ceinent''.
For presentpurposes i! isof no cnnsequencewhether South Wcst Africa
isor isnot a Non-ScIf-Gr~verning Territory wilhin Lhcrneaning of ArticIc73.
Tn prornoting progress towards seif-detcminatioii itmusr be a principle of .
universalapplication that sheinteratsof thepeoples concernedarcpstwmount,

that duc üccount should 6: takenof ihcir politicaspirations,andrhat proper
regardsltouId t> ead for the circumstancesof each territow, its peopks and
thtir varyingslages of adrmcement.
10.The praceeding hrriughtagainst South Afrim by Ethiopia and Libcria
in thisCourt. as welIas theadoption of variousrelevantresolurionsby organs
of the United Nations culminatingin rhe adoptionof General Assernbly rcso-
lution 2145 (XXf). are to be çeen as part ofthe politicacampaign aiirredat
independena for South West Africa (uponthe basis of universal franchise
within a unitarysystem) irsan overridingobjective to whichal1athcr aspwts
and indications are to b2 subordinated. 'I'hisfeature appcars clearly from
debatesat, and ~soluticins of, conferen~s of certain States and opans
of the United Nations, -uhich will be hIt with in the succeeding para-
graphs.

11.JnJuIy 1359,a co~iference %,asheIdat SanniquelIie.Liberia. between
the Presidentsof Liberia and Giiinca, and the Prime Minister of Ghana. In
a joint communiqué the lcadcrs of the saidthree States stüted in regardto
South West Africii:

' UN doc.A!PV. 1632(14 Dcc.1967). pp.89-90.730 NAMIBIA(SOUTH WEST AFRICA)
"WC: maintain thatthisTerrirory is infacta TrustTerritoryof ihc United
Natioris, anda. such theUnited Nations mnnof relinquish i tsIegaI and

nloral responsibiItiies to the indigcnouinhabitants ~ho are eniiiled iu
the sa-ne treatmcnt given tu vther Trust Tersitorics. ConscqrientIy, ive
will rcquest the LJnitedXations to give further consideration ro this
question, declare rite Territorno1a par1of SouthAiriça and fixa date
for thc independence of the TrustTerritoryof South West Africa '."

It is to Iic norcd that thcomposite aims ol trusteesha ip setout in the
Charter, viz., to promote the advancerneniol the inhabitanisof the icrriiorics
in a niimberof diffcrcntrespects,had,in the minds oftheauthors of thecorn-
rnuniqué,tien reduced to rhe one dnçle aim, namely rhespeedy attainmen t
of indepeiidenceirrespecitveof othcr cconsiderations.
12.As dcmonstrütedin the Counter-Meniorialin theSouth Wcst Afiicn
cms, thesame attitudetowardsdependen rerritorieç,and parliculaS routh
Wesl Africiipcrrncstcdthc procccdings of thc MonroviaConfercnce of Foreign

Ministersof IndependentAfricanStatesheld laterinihe same year2, and of
the Second ConFerence of Independen A[friçanSlalw in 1960 ?.At thisCon-
fcrcncc, a rcsolutianiws adopted which appealed to the United Nations "ro
fix aclareJOT theit~drpeirckirofthe territory ufSvrrtlWest Africc'-'(Italics
added.) This point of ~icw \vas again ernbodied in a resolution takcn by the
Summit anference rifindependen African States ar itsMeetjng in Addis
Ababa oii 22 to25 May 1963,and in which ihc SouthWPSI Afiiru cases firert:
considereù to be part ofa concertedeffortto advance the process of "decolo-
nization" fowards the "unconditionalaitainmentof national independence"

of ali Africanterritorie>.
13. Also in the United Nations, actioiirelativeto South West Afriça was
considercd in bean aswctof"decoloni?;ition". In 1Y61 theGenerrt Assembly
adoptedresolution 1702(XVI)which,recalIingthcDwtarationonihe Granring
of Independence $0 CoIonial Countries and Peoples, decided to cstüblish a
Unitcd Nations Special Chfilmittee for South West Afrim whose task would
be to achievc, in consultation with South Africa, ititerniih. thcfoilowing
objeclive:

"le) Prepiiraticinsfor gcncral elcctionsto thc LcgisIiitivAsscmbly,
based on universaiadult suffrage, to be held as soon as possible undcr
the suyiervisioandconrrol of the Unifed Nations 6."

During its next sessiun in1962 the Gcncral Asscrnbly adopleci rcsolution
1805 (XVII) inwhichresoluiion 1702(XVI) was rewlled and re-afir~ned .'lie
Secretary-Cienera lf the Uniled Kations was rcqucstcd.intiralin,"lo take aIl
necessarysleps iocstablish an effective United Nations presencc in South
Wcst Africa 7".Accardingto a statemmt ofMr. Purevjal of Mongolia tlie
relevantdr:ittresolurionwas sponsoredby the Afro-Asiangroup

''Joint Corninuniqué", in The Fir.~!M'esAfr:'raSunziiriCoiifcrence11leul
SaivriqueiIie, 15-19July 1959,issuedbythe LibçriariInTormatioervice,p30.
4-8Aug. 1959.Vid~ Legum. C.,Pon-Afiirunisiri (1952p.165.
1.C.J. Pfeudings.Sourh WcsAfricrrVol. II, pp. 447478.
+ Legum, rip. cit.,168.
' Ofiiciatext.resotutionin SuniiiriC.I.A. Sjflt.n.Z{Kevpp.45.
"GA, UR, SixteeothSess..Sup.No. 17 (Ai51001,p.40.
Ibid., SevcntccnthSrss., SuNo. 17(A!5217),p.39.
Ihid., FourthComm.. 1386th Meeting, 15Nnv. 1962."sacrcd causeof riddinghiiniiinity ofthc shamc of apartheid", which hc dc-
scribedas "this crime againsthumanity '".

15. The :jourcesof the above statcmcnts, inso far as they are not mere
staternentsuf poIitical artitudes, and in so far athcy purport tuhavc üny
factual hasisatall, arcto br found in allegationmade by petitioners.
It isirn~ossibleto understand the trüe nalure or the proceedings in the
United Nationsorgans relativeta conditions in South Wcst Africa unIm one
has regard tathe rolewhich pctitionersaridpetitions haveplay& inthedeliber-
ütions of siichorgans. I'ersonswith reaIor irnaginarypievances against rhe
South Afriranadministrationin SouthWest Africa wrnrnenced, in ihe early
1950ç, ro p:tit~onthe United Nations. The oralhearing of petitioners bytlie

organization was approved by this Court in 1956'. Thereafter,in courso ef
tirne,a classof professiomIpetitioners came irito king,which play& a big
rolc in the açlivities of the United Nations, as will bc shown.
17. IntheirMcrnorialsin tlieSouth WestAfrica caws theAppIicants(Ethio-
pia and Litieria)reliedon a numberof exiraersfrom petitions (both oral and
written). Thcy refcrred Lo"the cumuIativeeffea and thrust of thc pctitions,
received frrirnso wiùc a varict yf independentsources". andadvanceclthe
prupusiiicinthat the extractquoted by ihcm iiIusirated "thinanner in which
the daiIy]ivesoi theinhabitantsare affected3". South Africa dcaltthoroughly

with rhis aspect in itsCuunter-Mernorial 'arid demonstrated tliat,on the
whole,the petitions reliedon bytheApplicmts had emanatedfrom a relatively
srnaIlgroupof biased professional petitianers. Furthemore, each and cvcry
extract wasfuIly dealt with. thc trfactswere set outandthe grossdistortioiis
and pure fabrications inthe extractswere exposed. Ir was also shown thai a
largepercentage of the petitioner{whn in anyevent constitutcda smalI body
ofmen) were not cvcn rcsidcnt in Soutli West Africa,and that their activities
wcrc actuated by politicalambition. In thcir RcpIy the Appiicanis did no1
controvert this demunsrration ; indeed. the Reply was totatly silent on this

point.
Duriny ihe courso ef theoral proceedings inthe Sorrtk W~st Aji.i.cncases
the Applicants adrnitted astrue al1South ATrica'shctuaI allegatinns inthe
pieadings This mmnt, inrer ofinthat South Afncia's statcmcntsconcerning
the petitioiicrwhich prcivedthe utter unreliabilitof theirallegationsstaod
adrnitted.Ilndeed,the agent of the Applicants was c~rnpelIed to state: "The

GA. OR, t3Mih Plenary Meeting, 17Dec. 191i4,p.II. Thcaforcsa iniotional
approach icîurther illustratedstatementsmadcby ihc foltowingroprcscntatives:
Mr. Tchictietle (Chtigo, Brauavillc)GA, UR, Sixtecnth Sess., 1037th Plenary
Meeting. 16 Oct. 1961pp.459,460 : r.Yupiampu (Ghana), GA, OR, Seventeenth
Sess.1143rd PIcnary Mccting, 5Oct. 1962,p.345; Mr. Mazigh (tibya), GA.OR,
NinctccnthSess.,1296thPlmary Meeting, 9Dec. 1964,p.3; Mr.Dualeh (Somalia).
GA, OH, Kineieçnth Sess.1290thPleiiary Meeting, 4 Dec. 19p.7; Mr.Mahmoud
Kiad(LAR), GA, OR, Xineteenth Sess.1298thPlenriry MeetingIODec. 1PM, p.4;
Mr. Kümbrina{Tanmnia), GA. OR. Ninetecnth%:.S..1298th Plenary Meetingp.15;
Mr. Chalniers (HaitiGA, OR. Nineteenth Sess.1304th Picnury Meeiing,16 Dec.
1964.p. 3:Mt- K.arunatilleke (CeylanGA, OR, Twelfth Sms., Spec. Pol. Comm.,
56thMeeting, 31 Oci.1947,p.31.
Adnii.ssiAinf1fruuinb.yofPeritio~ietsby rCbmi~iitreeon Soitfh WesAfrira,
Advi.rnrOpiniotiI.C.J. Aeporrs1956p.23.
VI.C,J. Prentiings,SouIvesrAfrica.Vcd.1,p.67.
Ibld.VoI.IV, pp. 1etseg.
ibid.Vul.IX, p.21.Applicantshave nor reIil:upon Ihe amuracy of staternents in such ptti-
tions...'"
And, after lhiswncession had been made, the South African counselsaid:
". ..we know, and vuehave demanstrated on the pleadingsaiready,that

no reiiance can he placed upon[the]evidcnc[e of the ppctitioncrsj.We
would consider quite seriously,if nlylearned friends should wish10 cal1
them, whethcr we oiight not to offerto pay their witnws fes sn as tn
altow us the priiriIeof cross~xumining thcm -."
The AppIicantsdirl not rcacrto this invitation.
18.In hiscvidenw giveriin thecours ef theoral proceedingsMr. Dahimann
confirrned South Africa's demonstrstion thüt thc pctitioncrs constituted a

srnaIIbody of men with ~~oliticaa lmbitions? As regards the veracityof the
petitioncrs,Mr. Dahlmanri saidrhe Tollowing:
"Tu uuin Svuth N'est Africa, it issometimes veryhard touudersland
these petitions. Man:#of them, whether rhey corne from within South
West Africa or from abroad, contain faIse ststcments and serious dis-
tortionsand cxaggcralions of the rai situation. Onltonamea fewwhich

aremade ver)often,forexample,that there isa largescaleof militarizaiion
in South West Africa, there isa niissile tracking station, thsthe non-
Whitcs within the tcrritory [ive conditions of slavery, thatgeiioçideis
cornrnitted agaiiist the non-Whites, thathcy are being exterminated or
murdered,that they have no schuoIs, no hospitals4."
ThcApplicants did not cvcn attempt toattack thisevidence incrossexaini-
nation, nor did ttiecal1 any aitness fa contradicMr. Dahlmann. It is clear,
iherefore, that in thSouth West Africa cases itwas conclusively established

that no rdiance could be placed on the evidence of the peiitioners. In the
succeedingparagiaphsit !vil1be show IO what extent, by contrasr, reIiance
was placed on thcircvidericein orgms of lhe UnitedNations.
19.A most cursory re:idirig of statcmcnts madc during relevant debates
reriders ickar that thegrratestimportance was attached to the aIlcgationof
the pctjtionersbeforeUniyedNations organs, thateven the niost fanciful alle-
gations were unquestioni nccepted asestablishing thc truth. and that the
hccivy rc[iant;t: whicwar placed on the saideviderice played an egtremely
important roIe in the nature of the resuIiitionwhich were ûdopted by Ihe
various Cbmniittees ol th6 United Nations and also bythc Gcncral Aswmbly
ilself. ïhis ishtirdly su~rising in viewof the comman purpose of certain
Statesand the petitionerio impose a partiçiiIatypeof potitical settlemeon
South West Africa.
The triannecin whichtks cornmon purpose functionsinpractice, canbcstbc
iIIuslratedby showinghow certain rmtastic statenienis readilappcar in the

cvidence ofthe petitionen, and how thcy arc awpted and echoed and acted
upon inLMed Nations O:-gans, paving the ivayfor acceptanceof a resoiution
condemning South Africa's administrationof South West Africa. Space does
nnt permitthedrawingof 1 ruIIpicturc.Inthc cmotional and binsed sertingof
the carnpaig ayiiinstSoutli Africrraiih which tioth the petitioncrs and certain
delegationsto the United Idatiomwere associated, the artackson South Africa

Ibid,p.42.
Ibid ..110.
Vbid., VOL.XI. pp.455.fr srq.
Wd., p.480.and its policies bristlc wiih factiial inaccuracies,with distortions and with
hseless acr:usations t isprnposed ta deaIonly witha few categoriesofchrges
whichrcgularly dominalcd ihc disussions.

20. Alley~tiw onhich describe South Africa'spolicicsas king policies of
gcnwiùc, clrequaI to getinocide,occurredwi th monoronous regularity. South
Africa'spolicicswcrc charsctcrizcdas racial exlerrnina~ionandas having the
objecti vfettiepliysical destruction ofa nation. These allegations are SV
prcposterotis that they require no refulation-inded, they were not erreen
raisedby tliApplicants inthe Souift WesrAfrica cascs.
In thc reportof ihe Cornmittoe neSorith West Africa to the16thSessioi~ of
the Genera:A~,ssembIy in1861,Mr.Ngaviriieof theSouth WestAfricaNational

Union {Sb-ANUJ was quoted as follows:
"MI. 'lgavirue stütcd that whiIe itwas ribvioiisrhatthere wasa great
necd for weltàre services,oiiecould not zrcpect philanthrnpy from the
ruthless South African Govcrnmcn twhich was bent on the taskof doing

anything possihie that m~nulddirectly or indircctlyexterminrite the in-
digenouspopulation.Hence,there wasabwlutely nathingdoneto promotc
thc gcitcrülwelfarc ofthc indigcnouspopuiation .. .l"
Mr. Kerina, who was at thetiine the Presidcntof theOvambolandPeopIs'
Orgminizatiiin,referredinOctoher 1959to artificial mnditirinswhich had bccn

crcatcù,iviththcdrought as prctcxt"inorder iciput hundreds of thoüsandsof
human beii-iat the mercy of the Govcrnrncntand to wipeout a race 2";and
on 8 May 19S4, Mr. Mbaerraof SWANU, with reference to the OdcndaaI
Commission Rcport 3,statcd:

"TheCommission was appointed to deviserneansthrough which a large
nuniber of Africans or non-Whitcs shodd ix exierminated tlirougli
stant;tionunder theguiseof beingdeveloperi ... unlesstheUnitedNations
takes imrnediateaction to prevent Verwoerd and hisgang frnm carrying
out their programme for racial genocidc, thcrc wilbr: a seriousdanger
thatrnay be beyond the contro ofrhis Organization '."

21. The next category of accusations ofren made by petitioners is to the
eftèctthat South Africa herds the non-White population into cunceniralion
camps, ihi ihc non-Whites are treated like animais, that thcy have ken
reduced tosukhuman statusandthat conditions of naked terror exist.'I'hus,
Mr. Ko7origuiziin kis oralstatenient to the Cornmitteeon South Wcst. Afriw
said that thc South AfricanGovcmment "hd ~ranst'ormeodur cciuntn into a
hiigcconcentrationcainpandour people intvsIa\~sinthe name of itsexclusive

palicy of white siipremacyr", and Mr. Kerina statedbcforc the Fourth Com-
~iiitteeihat Nativcswcrc "hcrdcdintv concentratioiicanips6".

GA, Of:. SixtccntScss.,Sup. So. 12A (A/492(i)p.17.
thid.Fourteenth Sas., Fourlh Comm., 909tti Meeting. 1Oct. 1959.p. 136.
" Yi& I.C.J. Pleudit~gSniithH'e.Afiicu,Vol. IV,p. 201.
' UN doc. AjAC.109jPV.275(15JuIy1964), pp.76-27.
GA, OR, FourteenthSess.,Sup. No. 12(Ai419 1p. 41.
fiGA, OR, EIeve~~thSess.,Fourtli Comm., S7Ist hfee~ing11 DE. 1956,p.11.
Staicments in similar veiwcre made by the folli,wing petitioners: Mt. Nujonia,
GA, OR. Pifteenth Scss.,FoiirthCornni.,1052ndMeeting, 15Nov. 1960, pp.312,
3 13;Rev. Markus KiiciperGA, OR, Fifteenih Se%.,FourthComm., 1050th Met-
ing. 14 Nov. 1960,pp. 302, 303; Mr.Kuhangua. GA, OH, FifieenthSess.,Fourtli
Comm.. 1052ndMeeting, 15 Nov. 1960, p. 31;Mr. Kuhangua, GA, OR, Sixteenth
Scss.,FourthConim.. I219rh Meeting,21 Nov. 1961,p. 390. WW TEX STATEMENT OP SO- AFRICA 735

22. The thirdcategory nfacçusations cornpriscsallcgationswhich are oflen
lcvclIcdand also rcfcctcd in the reports of the Conmittee on Soiith West
Africa,to tlieffecttliaSorithAfri~üis deprivingthe non-mite population in
South West Africaof "th<:richest partnf the Territory"and confininy thcm to
"desert-Iike"or "unhealtlty"areas (o rnake way Tor while xitlers.
Thesecharges were alsomade by the Applicantsin theSouth Wpst Afiica
cases.For example, in thcir Mernorials theyalIeged rhat"the mandatory has
prrigressivelyreduced the proportion offaim landuvailablrf:or culiivation or
pastoralusebythe4Nativt'popiiIation ...'". And in thcir RcplytheAppliciints

statcdthat" 'non-White' inhabitantsareconfined to the poorestarcas of thc
Territory ... '"1'hesechr.rgcswcrcIciicrabandoncd by iht:Applicants,andthe
unirnability~hereor ,nd the falsiotfytheallegationscontain indthe ertmcts
which wiIl bccjted hereunùcr, aredernonsirateciby a referencetoihc trucfacts
as set out in South Africa'spleading in the Svittfr West Afiicacases3,a iid
abo the evidenceof Profesor Logan givcn during theorai proceedings '.
73.On 16 Novcmber 1!160,Mr. Kozonguizistated kfore the Fourth Com-
mittee:

"... the reservationsin which the Africanpopulation iived wcre in thc
most infertilepartof rhcTcrritory, forcxarnplc in thc Kalahari Desert. If
any govd watcr wcrc found in a reservation,thearea was hanùcd over to
FuropeanfarnrersanJ the Africans wereforced 10move away '."

Mr. Niijorna, anotherpetiiioner,stated hat the South African Governrnenl
had intendcd "to climinatca11 Nati\,e reservein the PoliceZone in ordcr to
enable new settlers to corne io the country 6", and r kat "the Africans had
alreadybecn forced to 1c:lvetheir homes fora dmert area wiihoul süilicient
wateror pasturage for theirmtiIe 7".

24. Many çxarnples may be given of how rhe petitioners'allegaiions were
simply echoed by represeatatives of certain States'1-hus,Mr. MghdelIchuf
Tanganyika, now l'anzitnia, referred to tlieSouth African "policy of gno-
cide Mr. Gasssso ufl'ogo allegcd thüt the people inSouth West Africa
"had been dying of hungcr or hadbn murdered in concentration canips9";
and Mr. DialIo ofMali .;ad in 1362 thul "the indignous population were
herdedinto reservesconsii;ting ofthe Iext fertillaed l0". .
25. The last calegoryof aIIegationsto which rcfcrcncc is made by way of
ilIusfration,mmprixs allegatio relating to tliealIeged militarizrttion or

SouthWcst Afrjca.In thisregarditisprtincnt to note thütin theM-emorialin
the So~ifhGYesfAfrica c:tsesthe Applicants alleged ihat Snuth Africa hird
established and maintaincdthrcc rnili torybase s iihin SouthWest Africa ".
This alfegation,wIiichhadii~origin inUnitcd Vat ionsrcsoiutionsbased nn the

I.C.JPieuding.~, outh IYest AliiVol.1,p.11 8.
Jhid.Vol.IV, p.464.
IBid.Vol.YI, pp.255-2ti6.
' ihid.Vol.X, pp.367-363.
' GA, OR, Firieenth&S.. Fourth Comrn., 1U53rdMmting, i6Kuv. 1960,p.3I7.
Ibid., Sewnicmth Stss..FourthComm., 1371siMccting, 2 Nov. 1962, p.275.
' Ihid.1,74th Meeiing, 6 Nov.1962, p.292. l'idal50 tlstatcment made by the
Rev. Markus Kooper atihe:;arnmectjng. p.291.
Y Ibid., Spec. Pol. Comm.. 328MeLing, 100çt. 1962,p. 1.
Ibid., FiitccnScss.F ourth Cornm., 1076ilMeetirig,6Dec. 1960,p. 457.
'O Ibid.,Scvcntwnth Scss..Fourdi Com~n.,1385thMeeting, ISNov. 1962, p.377.
For furtherçxnmples.i'j&1.C.J.PleadingsSoirthH'csAJi-icaVol. XII,pp.f16 124.
" I.CJ.Pieadings, South IVestAfricu, Vol. 1,181-83.evidenceof petitioners,wasrefiitedin South Afriw's Counter-Mernorial, wtiere
it waspointxi out thata fullcxpIanation,showingan absenceof mililarization,
hadbeen given in1959 to the Fourth Corn mittee hy South Africa's represen-
tativc Evc~tualty,thcApplicantsadmittcd, for thcpurposcs uf~hcprococdings,
SouthAfrica'sdenial of theexistence of niilitary basesand didnotattempt to
coniradict Ihe tvidcnce of GentraIMarshail Iolhe effect ihat he hadnotscen
anything in South West Africa that cnuld he regarded as a rnilitarhase, and
thatiht:Territorywas les militarizcdand mort:under-armed than anyterritvry
of itssizchf hadcver seen intheworld '.Indecd, thc Applicants'agentreferred
raGeneraI~arsha11as "a rmgni7.ed tnilitaryautharityandividely read assuch

in ournatii-ecountry, [Le.,ihc U.S.A.] 3" and sitidcoricerningthe inspection
whichthe CicncraI hadconductcd in South LVcs tfrica:"... 1 may say that
thisis thefi~tinspectionof whichthe Cnited Vations wiII have heard and this
informaticinwill bc trcinsrniitto thcrn+."
26. Dcsp:,tcthe above, more or less identicalallcgatio continucd to be
made. in thisregard the 1915r5epoirof theSpeci:~IComtnittw on the Situation
with regard to Ihr: Zrnplçmcn~atioo nf the Declaralion on the Granting or
Indcpcndcnce to Colonial Countries and PeopIe s,ted 19 August 1965, is
illuminating. According to this report Mr. Nujoma of SN'AIQ srated that
"in ~ioIalionof ihc Mandatc, South Africa had tstablished~niliiarybases in
Windhoek,WalvisBayand at Katinia MuliIo inthe EasternCapriviZipfel j",

and Mr. Kuhmgua said thai il was theCornniirte d tts to seek effective
ways 10put an cnd to "thc aparrf~eidrcgirnc'rnilitaryventuresin thc inter-
national telritor o f Soutli West Africa". 1-Iealso referredto tlie "heavy
rnilitarybuiid-up inSuuthWest Africa 6".Anvrher petitioncr, Mr. Kerina, felt
it fit to state that "South Afriw had estahlished numerous n~iliiabrayses in
South West Africa ... ?".
Bu[ thiswas not aI1-Mr. Make, of the pan-AfricanistCongress, who had
never set fmt inSouth West Africa, testified ihat "aspart af itsrnilitary
acti~ilies, South Af~icwas nuw building nucIclirrractors iniisown counlry
and in South West Africa &".Mr.Keiina siid that "the pcople of South N'est

Africa were not surprisedro see, ..that a niicIearreactor had beenbuiIt in
theircouniry Y"; and Mr. Kuhiinyua stiitc"that thegrerrtestdangerto South
West Afnca lay inthe Federal Repirblicof Clerinany'sdecision tocstabIisha
racket stationin the Namib Desert 'O".
These itIIcgiitioivcrc intendcd to rcfcr tu thc Max Planck lnstitute for
Aeronomy ütTsumeb. lt isthereforepertinentto note thal in iheoralprooeed-
ingsduring 1965 General Marshalltestified that he had visitcdthciinstute üt
Tsumeb and that it had no rniIitsfrnyctionwhatsoever ".
27. Once agairi the petitioners'allegations were unhesit~ringly acwpted.
7-herepresentaliveof Tanzania is repurted to havesaid:

-
' I.C.J. Pkaddigs,South WL>-tAfrira,Vol. V, p.60. .
' Ibi(I..Vcd.lxpp.21and235; Yol.XI, p.587.
Ibid., Vol. Xp.517.
Ibid., 588.
VN doc.A)ooOO~Rev. 1,para.77,p.Ilh, inGA. OR.Scvcntccn Srhs,.Annexes
fiiddendum toagcnda item 23).
O ?hirip. 130.
Ihid.p. 1:Il;.
" Iliid.,p. 127.
Ibid.p. 134.
l3Ibid ..,128.
" 1.C.J. lcadit~g5,Suuih WcsAfricir, Vol. p. 55. 30. Although the South African rcprcxntülivas-never attendcd the hearing
or pezitioncrsbccüusc of Souih Afriw's conteniion thalthe Cornmittees con-

ccmcd were not coinpetent to grant suçh hearings,they didat timesgjve cIear
factuaI information concerning rhe statements or petitioners, andco~rcctcd
unrrueand crroncous cvidcnrr:given bythein. liniurtuniitelthe reactionsof
rcpresentativesof atherStates wercoftcn tu di5rnits he staternen ofrSouth
Africa'srepresentativeand to confirm theirinrplic~faithin the allcgations of
the petition=rsThus, Mr. Achkaror Guineasaid:

"Th(:representati\*eof Austratia hadsuggestedthat the report of thc:
Committccon South WcstAfricarriight not bcfu1Iinyaccordance withthe
facts,sinctehat Cornmittee had not visitedthe Territory; thepetitioners,
hoivevt:rwereal[ froiiSouth West Afrjca and, whilethere was no rason
to dciubt thcir statcmcnts, thcrt:weinnurncrablc rcasonsfor douhting
thvsecf the Mandatory I'ower'."

And Mr. Carpio of rhePhilippinesslated:

"He wondered whom the Cornmittee was expected to believe: the
petitioners, who camc frvm the Territory and asserted that the Nativc
reserves were fenced. or the Ministerfor ForeignAffairs:who had prob-
abIy ni:vcr bccn to the Tcmtory and whu rniiinrainedthat thatwas nut
the case 2.''

It is consequently not surprising that every year sine 1955 thc General
Assembly Iüis passcdrcsolutionstaking note of stiitementsmadeby thepeti-
tioners3.
31. IL is submitted that theexposition inthe,preceding psragraphs justify
thc follurvi~çonclusions:lirstly, thattlallegatib oynsetitioneron matters
of fuiidamentalimportüne regdrding Soiith Africa'spuliciesand actions havc
ben patenrlyfalse; secondly, rhai such alIegationshave nevcrthclcs keii re-
peatcd con::isicntly andsystcrnaiicat,ynd,unforiunaiely,have been ac~tpted
by a large nuinberof representativesofStates and by Cornmitteesand organs
of the Uniled Nations; thirdly,that the attitudesoa largenumbcrof delega-
tions havc bocn infiucnccd byihc a1lega:aiiofspctitjoncrsand fourthIy,that

the factors mentioned clearly pIayeda major ruIe in the adoption of Unitcd
Nations resol ontscondemningSouth Africa'sadn~injstrafionofthc Territory.
Thc Iast conclusion isfortificd the fact ~hutinthc debatesprecedingihe
adoption of the aforesaid resoIutions,most of thestatementsmadein support
thereof were merelyrepetirir.of the petitianers'allegario'.

II[. Kcactioi~fo E~poariot~ sfthr Truc Farts

fa) The Yisir ofMr. Cnrpio and Dr. Martincz d~AAfw foSautli West Africa
32. GencraI Assern bly resolutioii 1702(XVI),adoptedon 19December 1961,
conlained rhe foIIowing:

-

GA, OR, SixteenthSas., FourthCornni.: 247rh Mecring, 13Deç. 1961,p.587.
Ibid., Fiftceoth Sess.. Fourth Comm., IU53rdMeeting. 16 Sov. 196318.
Sess.,Sup.So.,G16(A/4354),p.29; GAXIresciluii<1547(XV),n18,DCC. 1960.in GA,
OR. Fikenth Srss.,Sup.Xo. 16{A!4684), p.32: GA rt.sr>luiioii1703(Xb19)Dec.
1961in GA. OR, Sixleenth SessSup.Ko. I1(Ai5100).p.?O.
' Vid~I.C~..J.fleudin~W ~es.SJric,boI.XII, pp.142-153. N'RIE-EN S-l'A'[-hMEN-ïOP SOWAPRICA 739

":!'oINI~wi~h incrz,7.~edrli-cqilci~the progressive dioraionof he
siiuation in South West Africaasihc rcsiiltoftherutIilessinicnsificütion
of the policy orrptrlticidthedcep einotional resentincntsof al1African
peopIes,accornpaniedby therapidexpansion of South Afrim's military
forocs, andthcfact thatEuropeans, both sokdicrsand civilians,arc bcing

ariiiedaiid iiiilitarily ieinforcetherpurpose of oppressingthe indige-
nousptupIe, al1of which createan increasin expyiosivsituationwhich,
if allowed to continuc, wilI cndanger internarionalpeacc asccurity'."
Thisresolutionpro~eded toprovide fortheappointinent of a Special Corn-
mittec on South Wcst Africa and charged it, interlia,to atternpt tosecure

'-evacuationfrom the Territoryof al1military forws ofthe RcpubIÎc of South
Africa ?".
33. During May 1962. the Chairman, Mr. Carpio and theVice-Chairman,
Dr. de .41va.ofthe SpecialCornmitfee on South West Afrim visitcd the Terri-
tory asgucsts ofihc South AfricanGovernrncnt. In thc Rcjoinder in-theSouth
Wesr dlricu cases fuIl detïilswcre given of this visit anof the joint corn-
inuniquéissued by the visitors andthe Soirlh AfricanGovernment inwhich
thc farrncrstatcd,itrttralia, ihai ihcbd found no cvidence aiid hard no
atlegationsthat therewas 2.thrcatto thepmce in South Weçr Africa an,d that
there were no sigm of rniIitarizait nitan Territory or ;hat rtiindigenou!:

popirlstion was bcing cxtt:rininated.Iiwas shown that the visitors were at
liberty to çee what they wishedand to sjxak to whornsoevcrthey dcsiredin
South Wesr ATrica, and rhat Mr.Carpio was in facta party to theissuing of
the wmrnuniqui: 3.
Tt was furthemore shovln rhür, notwithstandiiigoverwhelrniag evidenceio
rhe contrary, Mr. Carpio lafer adopted the attitude that hchiid notbccn a
party to thc issuing of thc cornrnuniqua:nd ihat Dr. dc Alva niaintainedthat
the oppolite wastrue; tliaïtthe eighth meeting of the SlieciaCornmittee on
South West Arrica on 24 July 1962, theChairman at lharmeeting stated that
thc jointcommuniqué had corneas a "diwgrwable shuck"; that atthe thir-
teenthmeetingof theCoinrnittee,and inreactionto Dr.de Alva'sreiterationof

the rolepIayedby Mc.Carpio, theChairmm statedttiat hjsdelegationregardcd
Mr. Carpio's statementiha thc had had no partin the draftiriçorpublicatjorl
of the ccinimuniqué "as an authoritative statement"; and ikat eventuallthe
comniuniqii8 was not inclijded in thevidenceforwnrded ro the 4'C~rnrnittcc
of Scvcnteen" and was consequenfty notconsidercd by thc GeneralAsçembIy
of theUnited Nations '.
34. May dcfegat testhe UnitedNalions had. priorto the issueof thjoint
communique in 1962,cono:ntrirtcd on thefolloiwinthrcc charges:a threat to
thepeace, genocide,and inilitarizatinn.The maincharge wasrhatinternational
peace was being endangeretlas aresultof the allegedsituationin thc Tcrritory.
No less than3 1 deIegation:had during 19<a-I961made tht charge,on which

heavyreliance was placcdlecause itcouldbe usedinthe S~CUT~C ~Yunçilas a
groun? for rakingaction againstSouth Africa. Theadmissionby thc ttwocmis-
sarics of thc United Nationsdisposcd of themainchargc, asalso theother two
seriouscliarges.Ifthesedelegations.or themeinbers of the SppeciaCornmittee
had Ihe interestsofthe inhabitanis ofthe Territory aiheart,onc would have

GArcsolution1702(XVl) 1,9h. 1961,inUN doc.AI5100p, .39.
' Ibid.para.2(b), p.40.
1C.J. PJertdiiS,nitiWcsf Afric#, VoiV,pp. 5-9.
fbid.,pp.9-1i.expected that the contentsof thejoint comrnuniqukwould havc bwn cigreut
reIieftorhem. Imtcad. but perhaps not surprisinglythe generaIreaction was
that "that Communiquéhad cnme as a disagreeableshock ...'".
The poiriofinimediate importance isthat,despitcthc cvidcnct:of Dr. de
AIva and ihat ofmembers of the Smetariat who amrnpanied the visirors,
the SpeciaICornmitteerefus4 ?ogive recrigniticinto thejoinrcommuniqu6 ta

which Mr. Carpio and Dr.de AIva ivereparties,for thcvcry rcawn that the
declarationsin thc said comrnuniqul:relevant to conditions in South West
Africa were in conflictwirh what the majorityof the Committee wished the
worfd io br:Iicvc.
(b)Furiher- R~ut:fionruFridencc provinjihr Absence of Mifitnriintion

35.Rcfcrcncchas alrcady bccnmadc lo the fact that alIegationsomilitari-
zation of South West Africacontinued to be niadeeven afterthe Applicants
in the Souil1 WestAfricn caseshad admittedSouth Africa'sfaçiiial averments
dernonstrating.it~terah, an absenre of such militari7ation ?.Even General
Marshall'suncontroverted evidence ta the samc effwt failedto make any
impression on the leadersof the campaign ngainst South Africa, and their
allies. GerieraI MarshaIIgave evidence &fore this Loiirt in October 1965.

During th<: priori 22 Yovember to 9 Decerrikr 1955 thc Fourth Cornmiltee
heard pctieioncrs,discusçcdthe so-called questionof South West Africa, and
evenfualty adopted a draft reaolutinn which ultirnatelybecanietieneral As-
sembly resolution2074 (XX) O.perativeparagraph 7 uf thisremlulion aHed
iipon the Govcrnment of South Africa "to remove irnmediately rtlbasesand
other miliiary installationIocatedin the TerritoryofSouth West Afrjca and
torefrain;rom utiIi~ingtheTerriiov iriany way whatsxvcr as a miIitarybase
for intern;or externa1purpoxs . .. +".
35.Notwithstandingtlie evidence of Gmcral MarshaIlthépetitionersagsin
allegedth: existenceof miIitarybases and militariution in gcneral inSouth
West Afrira. Mr. Kuhangua of SWAPO sratcdthat hisoganitation had re-
cently drawn the attention,of the United Yation"to the maliciousintentions

of the EederalRepublic ofGerrna~iyw , hich had atabIishcd a rocketstation
inthe Nainib dcscrr'". Mr. Kerinaof NUDO alleged that"SouthAfrica had
several military baws and camps in South Wcst Africa &",and Mr. Nujonia
(SWAPO)testifiediha tthe Committee "should fulIy undcrstand thameasures
such as the constmction of militarybüscs pear the Zamhianfrontier wcrc a
threat din'ctednot oniy atthe people of Souih \+'~5tAfrica, but also at the
peopIe ofZambiit itself...'".
37. As had happencd in the pas!, rhc aliegationof petitioners wert un-
critically i-epeatedby representatjveof wrtain States Thus, Mc. '1-hiamof
Mali expresscd the vkw tht thc Gen~rakAssembly "should dernand that
South Africaremove al1its militaryhases inSouih West Africaforthwith and
refrainfrnm using the Territoryin any way for theconcentrationof weapnns

Videpara.26,suprrr.uh tVe.~tAfrira, VV,.p. II.
Videpara.25, sirpro.
' GA rcstilution 207rXX1.17Dcc. 19G5.in 6.4.OR. Twcntieth Sess.Sun. No.
14CA16014).p. h. . ., , , . .
' GA, OR, Twentieth.%ss. ,ourih Cornm..1564thMeting, 22 Kov. 1955,p.272.
Vbid., 1565thMeering,23 Nuv. 1965,p.279.
Ibid., 1567rh Meeting,24 No1965,p.295. WHI-['TESTATEWEN'IOP Wlll-ilAFRICA 741

or armed Forces'"; Mr.Dinitruk of the13yelorussianSSR srated rhatthe S~ourh
African Governrncni,witli the help of Wcst German specialists, "had cnn-
structeda rockethasein ilie Namib Desert ?"; Mr.Malecefa of 'ranzaniasaid

that"rheestablishmentof rnilitarybasesand the constructionofarmsfactories
in Souih Wcst Africa ivcre vic'iIatioof the Charter "', and Mr. Ghho of
Cihaliastated that l~isdclcgation "veheiiiently condemncd the presence of
military inçiallationinScuth West Africa, whichwere a llrreato the peace
and securityofthe area . ..+".
38. Not one ofthe rcpn:sentativeswho reïerredtu thc cxiçtenceof rnilitüry
basesor militarirat in5n11th West Africa made iiny nienrionof theeviknce
given by Cienerat M-arshaI l EventuaIIy the South African representative.
Mr. Iiattingh,indealing~r'ithth2 chargesor rnilitarization,referretoirleitcr

dated f 5Seprember 1965 h,in whichthe South African Perinanent Reprcscnta-
tivc to thc United Nations haddcnicd the existence of so-calkd military bases,
to a Ietterdated6 July 196 5from the FedercIRepublic of Gerniaiiy inwhich
it had bwn pointed otit that the allegedrockct Iaunching silat Tsumeb was
sctualIyan observatory fniionosphcric rewarch hlonging to the Max Planck
ïnstituteand to theevidence given by CieneralMarshaII
39. The reac~ionof certainreprescntativestothe speechof theSouih African
rcpresentativeis illurnina~ng.Miss I3rookesof 1,iberia.speaking nn a point
of ordet. questionedthc propriety or ciling kxforc thc Conimitteetestiinony

on which the Internationid Coiirt of Justice had to pas judgment S.Mr.
Hattingh disagreed and said thai he was surprised 10 tind that the Liberian
repi-esentativhiid becornea proragoni of thesubjudire principle,whichwas
not in Iinewith her carlieiposiiionin theFourthCoi-iirnitteea,nd saiù that in
any event fiesaw no reaçon why the inhrmation cotrld not givvc g9Miss
Hiookes repliedthat ii\vasfor the TntemationaICourtof Justice, and not for
the Fourth Committce, to pronounce uponthe testinionybrought More it by
South Africa 9,and Mr. Mliaye of Guinea staled thathe agreed \vih therepre-
sentaiiveof Likria. MT. Thiam ofMaliwcnt further in sayintkatihe mernbers

of the Cornmittee feltno nred tolistento what Mr. Ilattingh had to say.WC
wntinued :
The Comiiiittee's tüsk was to defeiid the rrightof peoples, and the
South African reprexritative's restimunywas of no useto itin thar con-

nection'O.''
Mrs. Mohammed of Nigeria urged that the Soui h Arrican represcntative's
speech shauld be d~lared clurof order 'Oand Mr. A&+nof Somaliaexpressed
theview ihütii was irnproger IOcitc tcsimany subrnitted io theIniernntionnI
Coiiriof Justiw:and saidtkat ifthe SouthAfricanrepreseritativecontintied to

Ihid.1,68thMccting,23 Nov. 1965, p.302.
Ihfii,569th Meeting,26 NOV. 1065,p. 315.
- Ibid.1570th Meeting,26 Nuv. 1965.p. 327.
' Ibid.p,. 329. Vidalso the starçrnentï made byMr. Abdel-5Yahab(UtZR), at
thc 1571stMeetingof the FourihGimm., p.333.
Videpara.25,srzppuu.
UN dor. AC5993(23 Sep. IY651,pp. 1-3.
Ch' duc. A!AC.IUY!142 (113Scp1965).
' GA, OR, Twcnticth Scss,Fourth Cooiin.,158Ist Mccting,Y Dec. 1965.p. 414.
* flii~l.e the attitudes :idoptcby thc reprcscntativcof Likria and South
Africa ine.g.,IieFourth Crirnmiti~, GA. OH,FiRccnr Scss.,IO51st Meeting, 15
Snv. t960,p. I.
Ihid.p.415.do so, the delegationof Somalia ivouId also withdraw '.At the next meeting
of the Foui'thCorninittee Mr. Rhabha of Pakistan said:

"Th: SouthAfrican Representative hadreferred to a General MarshaII
inhi, sta~emnt. That person uoas nor known to the Comniittcc and the
C:ontrr.itthad not heen given any inforniarionregardinghis qiialifica-
tions ?'"

This atti!iidewas in marked contras[ IO thatof the Agni for Ethiopia and
1,iberiato xhich referencewas made above 3,and is diificuIIoreconciIe wilh
thc undcrt~ikingthai had btxn siilen to transmit the iiiformstion contained in
General Marshall's evidenoc to the Cnitcd Kations ,'.

(c) TheSorith Wcsl Africa cases

4.0 P.robably the most iniportant part of ihe SurizfWest A~F~c(czaseswas
that in which the Applicants alleçed vioIationsby South Africa of itsfiinda-
mental trustob1iga:aiionndcr thc Mandate, which was to "promnte to the
utmost the matcria1and moralwclt-being and the social progras of the in-
habitantscf the Terrifors'-'Certain lyFarthemajorportionof the plcadings
2ndors1 pi-wocdings :sonthc rnerjtswis dcvoted ro this charge.
Annex /i' containsa suinmary of the nlIegaiionsoriginally made by he
Applicants and of the nianner in which 1hcycventualIychangeù rhe basisof
thcir wholc casc rcgiirdingthc aforcsaidirlleged violatinnIt was shownthat
whitstthe clrargeniadein the Mei~iorials was onc of dt-likbera oppression of

the Native popuiaatio OS South West Africa, tlie factuaIexposition in Sotith
Africa's plcadings and othcr circurnvtances (including a proposa1 by South
Africa thar the Cour! conduct nitinspectio inlmo inSouth West Africa)
eventually mrnpelled the AppIi~~nts lo admit di the factual averments in
thcsc pl~atiings andto amcnù thcirsubniissions so 3s ta delete alrefcrcnccs
to aIlegatirinof oppressivecondüct 6.
41. These developments wereof specialsignifica incie: of the factthat
in its Countcr-McmoriüISouth Africühad deal t withsome basic mpccts of ils
paiicy of separate developnient. It was shown that the policy was not one of
dominatioil. biit its veryantithesis,viz., onewIiichwught by an evolutionary
proccss to bring about the termination nf Ihe guardian'ssupiemacy and thc

emaiicipation of the wards; thattlie ainof thc polic)wasjustice foi afl. ona
basis orpcitentiaetluaIiat nd freedom; tliat irprincipiethe policyrtccorded
with the Iiasicconcepts underlying the thinking of inlegrated, mufti-racial
States, in that its moraloutlook and idealisticnbjccti\ts rcsledon iiiodern
wncepts ofhrimanrights, dignitics and freedoms irrespect ofvace, cuIour
orcreed, a.nddid nat run caunter to them; antl that [he policwaq nnt bascd
on any coiicept ofsuperiorityor inrtrioriiy, brncrclyon thç Facithat people
diffcred. particularlyin iheir gruup associatioiis, loyaltcultures,outlook.
modes of lifc and standards ofdeveIaprnent '.

'GA. OR, Twçntieth Sess.,rourth Comm., tS8Ist Meeting. YDcc. 1965,p. 415.
'IVidepara. 25sirpru.,4 Deç.1965,p. 418.
'Art. 2 ofthcMandate.
Vi& para.61,in&.
"nnex A, pp.142-145. Via+ nlsD'hrnato, A. A., "LegaaiidPoliricalSirategies
afthe South West Africa I.itigation", I.aw in TmrirstiuirQr~C~f671,pp. 8-43.
Thc authorissaid lohave ken "rtiainedhy Etliiopia and Liberttrwrifeportions
of thcApplimnts'brief".Ifbid., p. 8.)
1.C.J.~~feadingS,iriIWest AJricn, Vol. 11.pp. 473-474. rhepopulation of South West Africü in a stale of perpetualsulijugition.
IIymeiins of policebrutality.South Africa was trying to apply its policy
uf apartheid in the Territory and to perpetuate the maaer and xrvant
reIatiorishipby denying the Africans any furm of justicein the iandof
theirbirthl."

Al1cga:alionosftlieexistenceof concentration camps, torture, tiiassacrcs and
geiiocide cciniinuedtn be made. Mr. Dashtscrcn of Mongolia alleged Ilut
South Africa was forcing iht: indigenouspopulation of theTerritory "to Iive
in Iübvur c:oticeiitrationcamps"'; Mr. Golovko of the likrainiiin Soviet
SociaIistRr:pubIicreferred to South West Africa as "a tiug police torlurc-
chamber '-';Mr. Aziniov ofthe Union of Soviet SocialistRcpublicsspoke of
tlic Africrtr.reservesor homelands as "concentration camps'' and "living
cemeteries3";and Mr. SIievchenkoof ihe Ukrainian Sovici SociaIisiKepublic
said:

". . theSouth African riicisarsecontinuin!:to appIy theinliuman policy
of apartheid in the Territoryand iniroducing racist priicticesworthy of
thc Middle Ages. The policy of the whireracistsis aimed at wiping out
theindigenous inhabitantsor turningthern intoslavcs ofthc white settlcrs

in perwtuity '."
45. Most of these, and other identicaor siniilastaremenrswcrc niade after
the oral prcxwdings in the SniiriiJ.lle.AfrjCr~casa had beeii compleied;
certainlyal1were inadc aftcr theApplicantshad atiandoned aIl charges ofop-
press~on. Howevcr, not a singlereferencc wüs made tothe truefactual position

as itemergedfrom theSouth Ai'ricanpleadingsaiid srnplificdbyoral testimony.
This coirldnot have becn duc tuany rcspectforthe suh jzidice riisinceSouth
Africa's proiesiaiionsthat issueswhich~vcreMore tIie Court should nor be
discussed \vent unheeded Tor Inany years, and the Gencral AssernbIyin hct
adoptcd. bcfore Judgnienr was given, rcsolution 2074(XX) iiiwhich South
Africii.5 policicand apartheid by name, wmera cgain condenined because ihey
aIlegedlyconstitutcd "a crin-ieagaiiishumanity
46. Of si~cial s~gnificanceis thc rcüction~o stateniets made by the South
Africrin rcpiescntativcin ihe Third Cornmittcc in 1966. PItier Mrs.Dmitruk
of the llkrainian Soviet Socialist Repiiblic had referrcd to "the rnonstrous
canstquences of colonialismand racialis ini... SoitthWest Africa"and had

aIIcged thai."üpürthcid was depsiviiigtheAfricm uf al1 human rights and al1
fundaniental freedoins by forcing [hem to I~ve in riiiscrabIconditions, by
herding thrrn into reservarions. ..,byfurbiddirigihem any fainilylife ..'",
the South Africiinrcprcscntatii'estrongfy objected "to the ready klief which
seeiiiedto be given to the allcgat ions madeagainst hiscountry, accordiny to
which the policyof his tiovernment in Souih W-es.Africa was one of oppres-
sion in violation uf fiumiinrigtitsand fundamcntal fi-eedon~"-. Hc pointed
out that thcApplicantshad originaIlyhased theiritccusitions un lheerronmus
assumption ihat South Africa wüs oppressing the indignous population OF

' GA. OR. Tweniielh Sess.. FourthComm., l57011iMeeting. 26 Nriv.1965,p.328.
' Ibid..1569th Mccting,26Nov. 1965, p. 3I-I
' ibid.,1:85thPlcnaryiMccting, 30Nov. 1965,p. S.
' thid.. S1YrhPlcnary Mmting. 6Dec. 1965,p.17.
GA rescilutiu2074 (XX), 17Dec. 1965, GA.CiK. TwçntierhScsi.,Siip.%o. 14
(A!60I4), uperative par4. p.60.
" GA, UR, Twrnty-fifit Sess., ThirdComm., 1382ndMeericg,4 Oçr.1966, p.35.
&id.,p. 2. wnnTE?isr~r ~M~NT OP SOUTH AFRICA 747

Deccmber 1960 '".Itwaf.slleged thatSouth Africahad "extendcd its inhurnari
policies of racialdiscriminatio10rhe Territoryof South Wcst Africa '",and
itwas rtxoiiiniendcdtha! theMandatcshouId bc revoked 2.
52.'I'hc rcportofrhe!iub-Cunimittee on South Wcsr Africa,iisadoptcd by
iht Special Cornrnitiw,was considered by the CieneralAsscrnbly inPlenüry
Sessionwhcn resoluion ::I4 5XXI) wiisadoptcd. The South Africanrepresen-

tative, Mr. de VilLierinaddressingthe GeiiersilAssembly, gavc a rcsumk of
what had happened in thc SoiltiWcsr Afritu cases.1le pointed out that the
Applicantshad original1J ntlegedrhat '-apartheid"ivüstrsystem whereby the
indigenous inkabitantsof thc Tcrrirory were deliberatelyoppressed for thc
bencfitof theWhite rninwity, but thüt even at the oiitset, sonof the more
oiitrageousallcgatioiis whiçh had regularly been niade in United Nalions
cornmitteesand orgüns.sych as allcgütionsof genocidehad nnotbeenraisedby
tliApplicants; timt thecharges rvhichthe AppIicanrs did makc, were refuted
inSouth Africa's wriiten pIcadings and oral evidence; that the testimony of

thc petitioners,arclicupon by C'nitcdKations bodiesandby the Applicants,
was shown to bewhaIly unlrliable and that duringtheoral pruceedings, the
Applicants wcrc indmd !nvited to cal1 the petitioners as witnesses but that
thcy hiidfailedto respondro thisinvitation;and that thApplicantseventtially
aineiidedtheirsubmissio;isso as to ahandon aIIchnrgesof oppression 7 Th
cwnter the allcgationsol'militarization,attentiowns drawnto the evidence
of Gcneral Marshal andta thefindin grthe three Sudgesivho dismisscd
the Applicants'allegatiarrs relatingtoinilitariza oftioouth West Africa'.
At alater stage, thc SouthAfricanMinisterof Foreign Affaiis,Dr. MulIer,
in developiny an argumentIhacSouth African Govern~nentshad never feIf

ihat theyhadanything to hidc or tcbe ahamad d concerning rhc administra-
tion,policies orobjective;inSoiith West Africa,statcd thai, givcn thnece.-
sary cfi-cctivCO-operatic.nS+outh Afriça wouId give the most seriaus and
constructive consideration toproviding information, on a vcrlunlary basis.
regarùingany thing thatrriiyhtimproveknowizdge and undcrstandingreIalive
to the situaiioninSouth WestAfrica".
53. 'I'heinformation providedbyihe Soutli Afriçanrepresenhti~es,feIi on
deaf ears.Allegations of oppressivand briitalconductcontinued to bemade.
l'hus, conccming South Africa'srreatrnentof the indigenous population of
South West Africa, then: wcrc rcfcrcnces to "iiihuman and criminal poli-
,ies691,4the sharnefuIariddiscreditedsysremof the expIrtitation ofnlan by

man '"; '-theinhuman trmtment by the South Afrimn Government "> '"hc
irrationalinhuniandenial of thc Governineiitof South Africaof thesesacred
righrsby a brutal policy if iron and bIuu9"; "the üntold tyranny imposed
on the Africans, spoiIingthe most fertilpartsof thcirland,subjecting them
to compulsory chcap La3our '"'; "the mercila\$coIoniaI exp1,lujtatioiiand
racialùiscrintinaiinagajnst the people of Solih West Africir"; an adminis-

Ild.,p.298.
)!;i d..298-299.
Vide parah. II and40-42,sripru.Pleiiarv Meeting, Sep. 1966,pp.4-8.
GA, OR, Twenty-firsScss.,1439111PlenarMeeting, 12Oct. 1966,pp.21-23.
Ihid.1,47th PlcnaryMeeting, 2Scp.1966,p.15.
' Ihid., p. 16.
"hiri.,1419thPtcnüry hleeting, 21 St966,p.iO.
Ibid.,141stPleniirMeeting,5(kt. I966. p.Y.
Ibid.p.ID.iratiun invnlving "a peculiarmixiurc of the tnost reirograde features of
al1systcms rifexploitaiion known to history:slavery and feudalism, ccono~nic
expldtariori and social and poIiticaloppression I'';''astate of constant polir-

icaI and econornic servitude'"; and -"cruelrcprcïsion marked byarbitrarp
meaçures,tcrroristii,and nias kilIinpsof tlie Af'ricanpopulationl which hiive
rwtiltedin .!eritablc genocidc j".
54. .4sin previousyeais, reliance \vasagain pllicedon thc cvidence of dis-
credited petitioners, and allegatians of mititarii.;ttionnTthe 'territorycon-
iinued io kie made. Apürt frorn the liict that thc alIcgations of oppressive
cvnduçt, ereti of gei~ocide,wcre repetitionsof allegations made in previous

years and ~vhich, iishas been shown ',canbe rraced back to the untruthful
cvidcnce of 1he petitioners, statcrncnts rvcreiiiadc in whichrcpreset~tali~es
relied in 50 many woids on allegations of the petitioners.'l'bus,in allcging
that South Africü had cstablishcul~nilitaryb:ises in Soiith Wesr Africa, ihc
reprcsenlat ive of ttiIIkrainianSovict Socialist Republic stütcd :

"Rc~irweiitativesof variouspolitical parties [thepetitioners1 of South
West Afriça, spcaking before the Cornniittt~ of Twenty-Four, provided
irrefut:,blcvidcncc on thai score '."

Aner cet:ain petitioners had giircnevidci~cc hefore thc Wiirth Coni~iiittee
and hüd rc~eated tIie alIegations thehad madein previousycars 6. Mr. Thiain
of Mali, or! 4 Octobcr 1966: said "thal pctitioncrs' statements gave a clcar
ideaofthesif uatioiiin South West Africa ?''At the wmc Meeting \Ir. Nyirin-
kindi ofRitanda "assiircd tticpeople of SoiiihWest Africa of thc syrnpathy

and support OFhisGovcrnnicnt" and stated thai '-hehad no questions toark,
since thesituationwas plain andthe pctitioners had Jexribeù il well'".
55. Thes< :tatcments were madeafrer the Soiilh African represcntative, oii
26 Septernkr 1966, with reference ta thc .TnurliWest Africu cases hd said:

". ..oiily ihree meinbers of the Court in iridividualopinions, dcalt witft
the question of allegcd militarizalion. Onc of hm war; on the side of
the Cvvrt,aiid itieother two on the side ofthe dissenticnts... itcame as
no surprisethat al1 thrcc of rhcm firrnlyrejectedthe AppIicanis'daim
as iinfoiiridedOne of the dissentingJitdges9, .. .uscdparlicularly stroiig
Irrnguü:<c,saying (hot.'the testiinony of oite of Kejpondcnt's witnesses

satisfiedme that this charge OF ihe Applicants was completely without
foiindation'lU".
And:

"FoIlowing on our ireritmeniin rhe pleadings[in the SoirriiWest Africa

'GA, OR, T~entp-firsiSess.,1427thPtcnary Mecring, 3 Oct. 1966,ki. 9.
Ihid., 1425thPlenaryMccting, 3USep. 1356,p.7.
Ihid.. 1418thPlcnaryMccting, 19Oct. 1966, p.2.
Vide paras.16 erseq.,srtprn.
GA. OK, 'I'wcnty-firScss..1431stPlrnary Meeting, 5 Oct. 1965. p. 8Yidc also
slatçment madi: by thercprcsrniiiiivzof Yugcislavia, UN doc. A/t.tlX)!Reu. 1,in
GA, OR. Tiventy-5tst Sess.Anriexes (necndn iiern2.3.p.293.
Ifi(paras.20-25,srrprrr.
GA',OR, Twenty-fint Scss., FourrlCornrn., 1603rdMcçiing, 4 Oct. 19156p .39.
ibfd.,p.41.
O Judgc J4:ssup. Vide bis disscntinopinion, Soirih Wrsr Africrr,Second Phuse,
Jii~i~iit~I.C.J. Reporta 1966, p330.
1qG.4, OR, Twçniy-iirstSes., 1417th PlenaryMeeting, 26Scp. 1966. p. 10. cases] of the suhjec! of petitioners, the Applicants' Agcrit Mr. Gross,
cxplicitlystatcd incpcn court thatthe 'ApplicantsIiavenot relied upon
the accuracy of statcmentsof such petilioners'. ive coutdhardly believe
our ears. we said,'Rst pIertscal[ thesc pctitioncrs'. WCsaidthi in opcn
Court, and WC addeli thüt if ihawcre doite ir7ewodd seriouslyconsider
pitying theirwitness fees,so that we coiild have the privilege ofcross-
exalninitn hein. Thme wasno responsc '."

56. Thc rcüson why thc truc facts ctincerning South West Afi-icawere
ignored,is not dificdt tofind. Bythistintethe leadersorthecarnpaignagainsi
SoiirhAfrica, and theirallieshad lostany intcrcstwhich thcy formcrly rriighi
have had in the qucstion whcthcrSouth Africa Iiad piornoted the well-king
of the inhabitantsof the Iérritory.'I'heyrvoirldnot have kn satisiied wirh
anything les [han the imrnediate~ndepcndcno ccSouth West Africii as a
singlepolitical unit,subjcctto a shortpcriodof United Nationsadininistration

of ihe Territory. Any erlideiice tthe effcct that Souih Africa had in t'iict
promoted [he said well-king, was consequently disregarded.AIthough ccrlain
repre.wntarivcsstilljuutificdor purported to justifq',the revocation of the
Mandate on South Africa's failureto fulfiI its obligarions, otherepresen-
tütiivcmsade ilclear that !hisfactowasof nt,iniportance oranIy of smondary
importance. Thus. Mr. Kapwcpwc ofZambiasaid:

"The Uniled Nations itself is not endowcd with thc righl Ioobstruct
the wishcs of the in3igcnous pcoplc of South West Afriw. Neither the
Uniird Nations nor any other forun1 has any authoriry whatsoever to
divc trI~Pfiinrianierr~issue, which isJretdot)~und itidc~le~zdenct, that
of a legal drawn-out exercise over the techtlicaIiof a mandate granted
10 one race over another race. . .
_ff...........______...........I......*...
The indigenous pe3plc of South West Afriw had no .=y in the drafting

of the mandate thai is now used as a cover to perpeiiiatetheir cnslave-
ment. As suçk, the propke of Su141h kVcsrAfrica arc tiof bouirdby any
mandnreforrnulated from übovc or froin outside...
... the kugur O;rVu~ioirsMrirzdrr:f~orSoitrh WPSI Africa is trotthe
fundatiieri ~SIlEkeiP.The içsiieai itsbcdrock, is tht ofthe inalEnabIe
right ofthe indigenocrspeople ofSouth WestAfrica. to self-detemination,
frtsdorn and indeperidcnce '."(Italicsaddcd.)

And iMr.Achkarof Giiincastatcd:
"Souih West AIIica is a Kon-Self-Governin Tcrrirory under the
domination of SoiitttAfriçan racists , .Our reactionshouId bc cqually

as simpIe: as a NonSeIf-Gaverning Tcrritory, whether :WatrJaiedor tiot,
South Wcsi Mrica csrnesunderthe provisionsof the Declaration on the
Granting of Independence to CoIonialChuntriesand Pcoplcs. Thcre can
beno equivocation on thatpoint 3."(Itali acdsed.)
The foIlowingare furt1,erexainpIesof representativesratements:

,Wr. 13unjur(Mongol ia):

"ln accordance with its policy ofunfailing sripport for rhe countries

Ihih,p.8.
Ihid.1,25thPlcnary M'eeting30 Sep. 1966,pp.2and4.
Ibid.1414thPlcnary Mectin:. 23 Sep. 1966,p.15.750 NAMrnIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

artdproples wluch have takenup thestrugglt:for fhcir freetlom and indc-
pcndçncc, thc Mongolian People'sRcpublic isstrongly infavour of allow-
ing thelieopleof South West Africa toexercisetheirinatienablerighl io
self-determination at once.. .'"

'*South\%+sr Africa, the people of South West Africa. inust becorne
indcpendcnt irnrnediately, in accordance wi:h the pi'inciplesof interna-

tional1a.w and the United Nniions Chartcrand in cunformity with the
resolurionsadoptcd by the Gcneral Assernbly. We intelid to vote intliat
sense.. .. BrrrRnnm~~iLiu 'rrlinn shoukiniru wny be inferprer~dasnzcar~irg
that jvecu~isi&r ntiyCegai action n~linrsoeveto he required, on the part
of the United Nations or any other forum, before the people of South
West Africa can have the right to Ise master in their own country 2."
(I!alictidded.)

Mr. I.npez (I>hilippines):
"The Uniicd Nations cannot allow this situation tn continue. The
inalienableright of the peopIe of South West Africa io freedoiri and

indepeniknce isenshrineri in the Charter and in [he DücIaration on thc
Granting of LndcpcndcnccioColonial Countries and Peoples .. . Decol-
onization ha5 reached a point where we cannot allow any country-in
thiscase,South Afrim-to re\*ersehis historicalpracess3."

Mr. Slici~el(UkrainianSoviet SocialistI<epublic):
"... no decision of a court, no intrigues,or machinations of the EOIO-
nialists can dcprivcthcpcoplc of Souih West Africaof rheirright tn inde-
pendeiiceandself-determination.Freedomtliey nius1 have,and obiilinii
they wiI1.. . My delegalion thercfore fiiIly supportsthe demands of the

Afro-Asiancountricsthat thc Manùstc of the Union of South Africa nver
South West Africa shouldIie revoked .. .IVe advocate the granting of
independence rothe peopIe of this Territory withoutany May. Likcother
socinlist countries, the Ukrainian SSH takes itsstand on the principle
of the sovereigiityand the equaI rights of iilcountries and peoples 4,"

57.The ahove-quoted statemenis fiiIly jiistify tfollowing çornmenis or
Rosalyn Higgins on thc stratcgy and motivation of soine of the African States:
". . . whiie othe one hand ihc Africanssought a judjcial detcrminarion
on the liroper implernentation or the Mandate. wjmi ~lrt?realiy wnnfed

WC~Snu ,Tfizcinrttal!.This di~holomybctwocnwhat ihcy thoughtprudcnt
to scck from thc Court-thc cffcctiveciirryir out of the Mandate -and
what they at heartultimately hoped for-independence for South West
Africa-became inevitabIe after the passing of General AssernbIyreso-
Iution 1514in 1960, on theGrantingof Independenccto ColonialPeoples.
h other ivords. the jmint had aIrcady kn reached hy 19hh whereby the
weight of African poIitial aciivityw,u directcd towards indepc:ndcnce,
andtm: townrds flicfidf ar~dcfcniveimpicniez~ariunofthe 144g11dnre.
BirrrileCourris Jfc&rnmr-eveir ifir/rad Rnne co~nple~e{y ilfucnrrrof

GA. UR, Twcnty-firstSess.,1429thPlenaryMccting, 4 Oct. 1966.p.7.
Ibiri., 1439th PlenaryMccting. I2 O1966, p.4.
Ibiri.I417Plrnai-yklorting,ZBScp. 1966p.2i.
ibid., I43Isi Plenahkting, 5 Oct. 1966p.9. WKIW~S STATEME~T OF SOUTH AFRICA 751

E~lriopiarrd Liheri,~-wutiidIinveprovided tiaicgaigroundsfor u deniuiuf
for iric!epsrrOc~cor~,helerriiory'."(Itaiicsadded.)

58. The exposition ccintained in the preceùing paragraphs lads, it issub
mitted, to the fnIlowÏngcanclusions:

(a)The adoptioa of GcneraI Asscmbiy rcsoIritionSI45 (XXI) is!O h
seen as the ciilminarion of a political campaign as Far as SouthWcsl
Africa isconccrnet:.,in ihe course of which the question whetherSouth
Afriw had proii~otc:d the well-beingof the indigcnous inhab~t~mts of the
Territorybecame of no or secondary importance;rhe only objective being
theattsinrncniof iridepl:ndencefor South Wst Alrica asa single political
unit,irrespectiveof al[ otherçonsidc oans.
(bj Becaiise of ~hisobjective the majority in the GcncraIAsserribIy,

priorto thc adopiia~~ of ihc saidresulution, ncit only failed toascertain
objectively whetlier South Africa hadviolated its obligations,but in fact
did no1 direcr iheiniindq to this question.
(r) In su far as it\vas alIegedin the &bates precedingthe adoption
ofresoiution 2145 IXXI) rhat South Africa had failedto futfilsuch obli-
gations, such allegatianswere basedon the pre-conceivcdidea thai South
Africa'spdicies are opprcssiircofthc iridigcnuusinhabitants of the Terri-
tory, aiid ona failurcto have any regard to theecidence 10 thecontrary.

As will be shown in the sncceeding paragraphs,subsequmt cvcnts foriiry
thesccond usians.

15.Suhseguent Evcnts

59. Uuring the tl~irdMccting of the Ad Hoc Cornmittee for South West
Africa2 on 25 January 1967 siiggestions were niade ihat morc information
should be obtained abovt South West Africa for rhepurposes of the work of
the C'otniiii ?tke
Initsfurtherconsider;irion of the questionkrween 10 Februaryand6 March
1967, the Ad Ho<: Clomraittcchad bEforc it a working papcr contaiiiinginfor-
mation on the Territory, prepared by tlie Secretariat inaccordance with a

dccision taken by the <:omrnittee at ilsthird meeting 4. I'he working papec
purported to fiirnishinl'orniationon South West Africa under~hefollowing
hcadings:Land andPcople; Gowrnmtnt; Public Finance; Economic Devei-
opment; Socialand EdumtionalConditions.
'I'heworking papsr did not discIosc al1the sources froni which the infor-
iiiationwaç culltd. Hu-wevei, parts of tIie workii~gpaper indeed contained
information which was :;ubslnnrialIycorrecl alrhough out ofdatc and inconl-
plcte, and therefore mislcading. Bcthat as itmay. what is of particularsignifi-

cance is thatitithe delikrations of the Cuii~niitteevirtuallyno reference was

Higgins, R., "TIieIn!crnationalCourt andSouth Wcst Afsica".doirrrinlof the
Iiircrt~rinriCoi>iniissiof Jiti'isVol. V111,No. 1 (Summcr 1967), p.28.
Establishcdin tcrms -~f~ipereiirparugraph 6 of Gençral Asscrnb1~resolutinn
2145 (XXI) "tcrccomniciid praciiçameans hy which SciulhWest Afriçs shouldhe
administerrtl50 as tocnableihr pmple of~hc Territriry Io rxercisethe rof self-
determination and tu uch:ve independence ..,"
,3Vid~tliestatemenibj the UnitedStatesrepresentative, UniteNations Gcncral
Asrembly, Surnrnary Record of the third Meeting of rhc Ad Huc Comniittcc fur
Sriuth WestXîrica, UN dric.AjAC. 1231SR 3, 9Mar. 1967,p. 7.
'UN doc. PilG640,7Alir. 1967para.43. These suggestions for a full and impariial considerarionof the hcts came
ta naught. Evenin the b3dy hi chhad becn cstüblishcdtu recorninendprac-
ticalmeans for the adri~inÏstriitiof the Territory,correct infomülion was
regarded as less important than the prcconccived polirical norinns of the
majority of the delegates. 'Iltesame picrure emergcs from th reaction to

furtlierSteDStaken by lht:South AfricanGovertinient.
61. By Ietter,dated 2; March 1967,the Acting FernianentReprcwntative
of South Africa transinittedto the S~reraiy-General of the United Nafions
a publicationentitled So:rrlrkVcsiAfrica Srrrvey lr967.Thisdocumentset out,
i~rrprdia, gengraphicalaiid iiistorimlfeaturcs of South West Africa and con-
tained a rcsumé orthe 1e:;aprweedings inthe Soitlk West AJicn cases and of
the evidence given during the oraI procc~ïlings. It rurtherniorecontained a
bricfexposition of the bencficialintent alideflcct ofSuulh Africa's poIicies

as applicd in theTerriior,y,and sel out recent develapmentsin the spheresof
gowrninent and adminijtration, cconomy, cducat ion, lieath and housing,
showing increased progrcss and well-being of al! the inhabitants of South
West Africa. Tht Surveyis aitachrd tothis Chapter as Anncx A l.
61. During Augusi 1457 rhc Prcsidcnt of~he United Nations Council for
South West Africa, estahlished by virtueof GencraIAsscmbly resolution 2248
(S-V) of19 May 1967 ',addressed a Ietrerto theMinister of Foreign Affa'airs
oftheGovernment of Sourh Africa inwhichatientiun was drawn to theafors
said wsolutionas weI1 ac resolutioii2145 (XXT) of 27 Octokr 1966, and in

which the Councii reque:;tedan indicalionof the nieasureswhich ihe Govern-
iiient of South Africaptoposed to take in ordcr iofaciLitatethe transkr of
the administration of rhc-Territory 10 the Council -'In rcsponse to thislcttcr
a communicationfrom t.1~Foreign Ministerof the RepubIjcof South Africa
was forwarded ta the S~cretary-tieneralof the Unitcd Nations4. This com-
munication sets out rhe reasons why Ihe Goveinment of South Africa con-
sidered the adoption of :;csolution2145 (XXn to beinvalid, and why, apart
from iis invalidity,therrsolutionrilso "tacked any sernblanccof cconomiç or

social worth beca~ise itçompleteIyignorcs thc disastrousconsequeficeswhich
woiild inevitahly foIIow from the course which it sers.It attempts to force
upon South Arrica a wurr;e of action which, far Crampromoting rtceprogress
and wcll-king of the inliabitmts of thc Tcrriiory,cannot but destroymmany
of them, thrnwingthe ri:mainderback into the cruel conditions or the pas1
and bringing untold rni:;eg upon al1 A copy of tks cornmuiiicationin
attachcd to ihis Chaptcr as Anncx B.
62. ln rcsponsc to thc transnrissionof the textof Srcurity (:r>unciIresolu-

tion 259 of 12 August 196g6, South Aîrica's ~Ministerof Foreign Affairs
addresseci a Ietter, daied26 Scptcnikr 1969, to the Secretary-Gcneralof the
United Naiions. 'This Ict!crdealt witlithe more substanriveIegaI uridfactuai
aspectsof the said resolurion.Reasons were givenwhy boih Gcncral Assembly

Rcfercncc tothc Surviy was made in the 1967reportof the SpeciakCcitnmittee
on thcsituarion withrcgirrto iIiImplemcntotion of thefkclarationon the Grant-
ing of Indcpcndcncc tu CtiloniaCountries and koplm. UN doc. Aj6700;Add. 2
(31Oçt. 1967).paru.26.:'li1otrfproducedI
GA resuIution2248 (SV).UN diw.A/L. 5t6;Rev. 1.
VilicUN doc. A/659:'. Anncs 1.in GA. OR, Twrnry-sccunüSBSS.A , ~CXCS
(agenda item 64(bj), p4.
' lbid..Annex II.
Ihid.Artnex il.p. S.
fiUN doc. S!RFS/269 (1969),I2Aiig.1969.resolution 2145 (XXI) iinJ Sccurily CounciI resolutiun 269 were cvnsidcred
to be invalid.and attention was drüwn to thc cxpressed and impliedaccusa-
tiona snd misconceplionscontained in thesubstantiveparts of thelatrer resu-
luiion. Finalis,the view was cxprcsxd thiit wmpliane with this resolution
ivould nut serve the inierestsof the inhabitantsof South West AFrica but
wouldon tht:contrüry Ieadto disaslronsresults.4 mtmorandurn was attached
which, when read with the Soitrh West Africa Survbey1967, dcmonstraredthe

significiintdcvcloprrtcntswhjchhad takenplace uiider Soutti Africa'sadminis-
tration of tlieTerritory in al1 spheres of life, and rvhichwould cvmc to an
end if South ACricawere ta *ver its tics with South Wat Africa, resultin~
in chaos wtiich would no[ bç liriiitedto South West Africa but could casily
spillover iiitotherparts of SouthernAfrica.The siid lctter and rnemorandum
are attachedto ihisC'hapterasAnnex C.
63. Thc dcbatts in cirgansand comniittees of'the United Nations during
the Twenty-second and latcr Scssionsshow ihat littlc, any, notice {vastaken
of ~ht:afores,iiddociimentssubmi tied hy the SoutliAfricanGovernment.There

isccrtainlyno cvidcnce of unyobjective appraisal of the iàctsselorrttherein.
'Thus, the rcprescntativeof Zam bia inthe Swurity CounciI summarily dis-
missed the commun~caiion,AnnexC hercto, as "a volunie of distnrtionsand
fallacics'".
64.The ieppürcntIyùelibcrarererusa1to takt notice of these exposiiions of
the true faccualpnsition went hand in hand with repetitions of charges of
oppr~xivc conduct andof militarizatioiiof South West Africa.which were
said bycertainrcpresentatives toconstifii[ea thre~to rheFace. Ln thePIenary
Meetings of theGeneralAssembly duringits'1-wenty-wcondSession references

wccc rnadc ;loa "systcriiof terror2", [O an intensificationof "critnina1açts
and terrorislrncasurcsagrtinstthe population ol this Territor3", to "tens of
~Iiousands of African patriots" whn were "lan~uishing in prisona snd con-
ccntration ciimps +",io "slavcry" which was "thc 101 of thr:Airicans $",io
the minorityWhites who "thrived oiithe sweatand blood of tlre indigcnous
Africans and to SoiithAfrim's actions, methodsand Iaws ivhicfiwere said
to bc "disrul~tivc", "criminal" and"opprcssivc '".
As regardsmilitarizatioii,it wasallegedthata militarybasehad ken estab-
Iishedin rhcCapriviSirip 8; lhat alIhe so-callcù Tsurneb base inSou? h West

Africa, preparations were king made for twring long-range rockctsg; that
Soutli Africahadtransfornied South West Afriw into a "tremendciusrnilitary
police camp 'O"; rhairheTerritoryhad ken transi'ormed"intoa slrategichase
againsi thc nations1libcration rnovcmcnts ofoihcr tcrritoricand ppIes in
Afriw "", and ihat SouthAfrica "had established itiilitabases aitd instal-
lations onal1 of the Territoryof Soulh West Africd '%".

UX d{iç,S/PV. 1527(28Jan. I970)p. 31.
"UN rlw. AiPV. 1625(11DK. 1987).p.47.
"UN dm. AIPV. 1628t13 nec. 1967,,. . 13-15.
fbilip.32.
UN doc. AIPY. 1632(14Dec. 1957'.,.. 36.
fhid ..,37.
Ihid., pp. 38-40.
* US dnc. A/PV. 1628(13 Bc. 19671,p. 7.
Y ilridp. II.
Ibid,p.32.
'L UNdoc. AiPV. 16?2(14 Dcc. 1967),.16.
l2 Ibid.p. 7. Duririg the 1968and i969 sessionsof rhe GeneraIAssernbly sirnilaaIIega-
rions, which would be iedious to rcpciitwcrc made '.Mr. Sirnbmaniyc of
Ijurundiwent perhaps a IittIcbit furtherthananyhody hnd everdonc befort:

by allegingthat cliildrenwere "snalched away from rheir parents
G5. The same mis-staiements of South Africa's policics and disrcgard of
thetrue facts,which wcic rcad~lyavailable, appear from the SecurityCounciI
dcbütn precedingthe adoption of resolutions264 (1969). 269 (1969) and 276
(1970) . r.'\lwaangaof Zambia sllcgcdthai lhcappIicaiionof iipürtheid had
"enahled the thrcc miIIion bloodthii-stywliites of South Africa to bar by
every possible ineansincludingbrutal force the economic, socialand politicaI

advancementof the people of Nüniibia 3"; Mr. Boyc of ScncgaIsaid that
South Africa wishcd "ilnot [ciexteriniliateat least to elirninatea major
port ionol an en1irerace. afterhaving debaîed itand reduced it to theleveluf
beasts of burdcn 4";and ,Mi. Malikof thcicnion of SovictSocialist Repubjics
referred to"Africnnrcscrvdtions resernblingghcttos '."
Chargesof itiilitaiizati<of the Tcrrirorywerecoupiedwithwildallegatinns,
not supportcd byany facual siaienlents whatsucvcr,thatSouthAfriminlcnded

to iiw its forcesin Soutli Africa and South West Africa against independent
BIack African States. Mr. A7.zout of AIgeria referred10 rhe"continuation of
the rnilitaryoccupütion (ifNamihia by South Africa" which \vas siiidiobe in
itself"a seriousviolrttioiiof the frindanientalpriiicipleof the Charter" luid
"a typical cüsc of dircct anned aggrcssionagainst 3 territoryandagainst a
people whichmust enjoy the natiiraland nal lien ah lreigiofreedoni and self-
deierrninülion""; Mr. Turhay Ayala of Colonibia slated that the Security
CounciI"shouIdnot simpIyalIowtheamcd forcesof Souih Africa illegalIyto

continueoccupying the Ierritor~ of Namihia and Mr. Mwaanga of Zarnbia
saidth tSouth Africa wti~ilduseitswcapons"against blackNarriibinnçb , lack
Sauth Africans andal1 th:independent Africün countricswhiçharedeterirrined
to make thewhole of Af~icatrulq'independeni '".
It wilIihiis beseenthar. inrhcGcncrol Assernbly, no atteiiipwas inade10
analyse documents contt.ininy fullexpositions of thc triie factuaI position in
Soufh WestAfsica, or to make an objectiveappraisalof South Africa'spolicies.

Ytde. c.g.UN doc. A!PV. 1730(29 Nov. 1968).pp.17 and 22; 'Twcnty-fourih
Scss.,Fciurth Comrn., i'rorisioiSitttrtiiaRecord UN duc. A!C. 4jSR. 1825 117
OLT.lii69),p.20; ibid .I,.1d<iç.AIC. 4ISK. IR26{17 Oct. I969) ,. 14:ihirf.LN
doç. A!C. 4;'SR. 1829 (20Oct. 1969),p. 4;ihrk, IJK ddcA/C. 4;SR. t830(2U Ott.
19691,p. 3: [M., L:;Sdoc. AiC. &SR. 1831 (22 Oci. 1969).pp. 4, II :ihiUN. dttc.
A/C. 4,SR. 1833 (22 Oct. 1969),p.21.
' Ch'doc. A/P\'. 1819(1 nec. 1969),pp. 24-25.
"UN duc. SIPV. 1464(;ilMÿr. 1969).pp.28-30.
' Ibid. p.37and UN do.:. S!PV. 1494(6 Aug. 1969),p.17.
' UN duc. SIPY. 1528 (:1Jan. I97V)pp. 48-50. YidealstiIJN ducs. S!PV. 14M
(20 Mar. 1969), pp.73-26, 28-30, 34-36. 42; S/PV. 1465120 Mar.19691 pp. 6345;
S/PV. 1492(30July 1969).pp. 15 and 18; S!PV. 1491 (6Aug. 1969),p.16; S/PV.
1495 18Aue. 1969).p. 3: SjPV.1517(28Jan. 19701,p.37: S:PV. 1550(29Jrily 1970),
pp. 8-10,
UN doc,S!PV. 14W (20Mar. [%Y), p.I2.
' UN dm. S!PV. 1492(30July 1969).p. 12.
UN Joc. SjPV. 1527 (28 Jan. 1970), p. 38. Vidalso statement madcby Mr.
Zakharov (USSR), CK dur. S/PV. 1494(6 Aug. 1969),pp. 18-20. 66. inpreiriuuschaprexsFullreasom have kcn given fortlieSouth Africai~
Government'scontentionsthat hth General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI)

and SecurityCouncil resolutioii276 (1470 arevoid ofany Icgiicficct. In the
preceding paragraphs itwas Furthcrmore shown thatthere was no factualbasis
for l'neadorrioo nf the former rescilutinn.The purpose of this seciion is Io
dcmunslrate rvhy,even if itbeassunied that eithcr orboth of the said reso-
lutionscould be rewrded as validrecommcndatioris,theSouth AfricanGovern-
nientniustdecline to giveeffect theretnI.
Mention liasaIready been niade of the letter, dated 26 Scpternbcr1969,
addresscd to theÇecretary-GeneraI of the Unitcd Nations by the Minister of
Foreign AffairsofSouth Africa ?. lnihis letterreasons were given why, in the

view of Ihe South African Governinent, it ivoutdnot lxin Ihc intcrcstsof ihc
inhabitantsoftheTcrritorytoscvcr theirticswithSouthAfrica.A mernoranduni
attached to ihc Icttcr, rad with the publication Sourh W~sr Africu .Y~drvey
1967, showedthe significantprogresswhich had taken pIsccin thc Tcrri tvry
under South Africa'sadministration in ail spheresof Me. and which would
corne to an abrupt end ifthe saidties were stvercd.
Tnthc sücc(:eding puragraphsdctails will bc givcn of thc Iatcstprogrcss in
South Wat Africain someof the more important spheresof life, affecfing ail
the inhabitaiits.This ivjllshow, itis siibrnitted,notonly thai the masons set

out inthe Icttcrsïill holdgood, but indccd that itis at presentmore necessary
chan evrr before that South Africacontinueto atltnitiisterthe Terriiory.
It will b<:noted rhat in rnany instancesno soiires arecitcd for statements
made in thc ncxt paragraphs. In siich instances the information was derivcd
li-onigovernitientdepariiiients.and dl, ifihe Couri so desires,be verifiedby
vivo vocc evidenw or affidavit.

II. Pop~rfariori nd Hix!or~

67.Thc facts about the pcopfcs ofSouth West AFricaand theirhistories arc
fulty documented? As it is of vitaliniporfance to understandand evaluate
properly the nature andptirpose of Soulh Africa's administrarion in Sotith
Wcst Africa, thc salicntfcaturcsarc rccapitulatcdfor the sake of convcnicnce.
68. Itis gçnei'ailaccepted thnt tlie ii~habitanthaveneverforineda homo-
gwieoiis entitg.but rhtniielves wished to retain IIieiridentitiTch5ere isinthe
Tcrritoryno singtc cntity which cün bcdcscribcd as"the pcopfe of thc Tcrri-
[or>-" 'The populatioi~ isin fact made up of a nun~ber of disparatepeopIes,
each conscicltisof its own identily. Difkrenl pai-1os f the Territoryof South

West Africa have to a Iargc cxtcnt for generrttionsbeen occupicd by thcsc
peoples tlienisetves.
69. By Farthe niajorily OF the popuIation groups or South Wesr Africa live
in the honieIands they chose For thcnisclveslong before there was a Unitcd

The factssctout willat the same tinieserve asfurthcr rcfutationofthe Fdse
notion on whiçh South Afriça's adminisiration of tTerritorykas bctncrintirmned
ti-rii*ioritiesthe United Narirrns.
l'idparil. 62sttpm.
-j Yi& I.C.J. Pfttuditip, SoiCVcsrAjrica,Vol. II(Counter-Mernorial), pp. 31I-
380, andSoiitliW~ef ,4fii.cnSitrsfy 19pp. 16-32. Narioiis, and long &for#: thc South ArricanGovernment'sadininistrat ionof
the Territorq-kgan. Anyone acquaintcd wirh the history oSou11 1 eslAfrica
knows thata century or two a20 the Ovanihotribcs ~hci~isclvecshose tlie ürca
they now inhabitfor iis rainfalIandthe reiativelygood graïing itaffordedfnr
theircattle and for itsrelativesuitübility forcrops. This is truc ulsoof the
pcvplcs of theKu~urtgo:ind the Ciiprivi,and to s kcsscrextent of Kaokofnird.
The peopIes of thcse four rcgiunsaccountfor 58.3 per cent.of the totaof all
the population grotips of Soiith West Africa. These rcgicinçhave always
rewrribledfoui independvntcountries, eachwith itvwn political,ccononlicand

socialoryanization.Their pcoplcs wcre Iargelyunaffectd by contact with the
Cierrnanadministration. Dr with one iinutheror with the populalion grvupsto
thcsouth. Only thesouthcrn"PoliceZone "' was undcrdirect Cierrnancontrol.
'Thenorthem sDcrvrout:;ide this zonc \vas not subject toGcrmancontrol ai,
al1(exceptto a liiniteexierlKaoko!and).ThcEaster CnapriviZipfcloccupicd
an intcrrncdiateposition, Gerrnancontrol king exercised iian indirect ir7aby
iiiakinguse largclyofth€:traditional tribalauthorities,
Keither fhe Ovanibo, nor the Kavango: nor the East Caprivi pcoplcs had
ever accupicd or attcmrited to occupy or laid clairn lo [hose parts of the

Territory where other p<ipt~latjonçrnups now Iivc.The territory of thc Easl
Caprivi people, by n mcrc üccidcnt of history, had becnartificially made an
appendage ofSouth WestAfricaof which theirarea wzu:nut g~~grapliic ally
naiuralpart.
70. In the "Police Zaiic" thcri.werr various population groups which kad
heen in contact with ea~h othcr for at leasia century wheti South Africa's
ad~ninistrition ofSouth West Africa hegan. This çuntact badnot Icd Io the
creationof a çominon st~iety. On rhc çontrary, tribaland group differences,
andconflicti citinistoIand,llad Icdto conrinua1bloodshcd.rcsulring iithe
subjrigarttio,reven virrllalextermination,of thc wcakcr by thesrrongcr.

71. AI1 ihese groups 3Iso ditfcredmaierialiy in ethnic origin, languagcs,
custams, culturcsand le~elsof developnlcnt.For instance, ihcBirs/ittiwere a
nornadic people living eiilirr foym hunting and gathei-ingof wild plancs of
the veld. They kept no r:üttlcand planted no crops. They lived in a statcof
continua1cnrnity wiih other, inore powerfiil, tr~heswho deprivedthem of the
kst hunting grounds,and ivhnse cattlethcy raided.The Brishmcn coristirute
aboiit 7.8 percent. of th:iutalpopuIatian of SoiithWest Africa.
72. Thc il'ntr~orIiarrnrirarsare clasçiiiedwitthe M-called Khoisangroiip
of peoples aiid thcyare amonpt the earficstinhubiianrsof South West Afiica.
it is thought that rhey cwe (kir urigiiito a mixture of HushmcnwitIi early

invadin gcoplcs uf Haaitic stock From whoni rhey aIso acquired certain
distinctive linguistic ;ind cultural fritures. Thcy wtre nomadic pastoralists
who did not practise ab:riculiurebur depended on theiiherds-ca!lIe. fat-
tailcdshccp and goüts-ind, to rccrtain exicnt,nlso on hunting.The Nama
conskituteabout 4.4per trnt. ofthe rota1poptilation.
73. The Dcrnzr~r{~also knwvn as Bergdania)are a mystery ta studcr~(sof
cthnoIogy. In appeüriinci:thcy arc a shorl-statiired,nrgroid people, differing
entirelyfrom theNüma ctnthe one hand and frvm the Banturribes inhabitinp
soulhern Arric;ion thc uthcr. The earliest recordsshow the Bcrgdani aL~
practising cithcr aprimitive hunting and collecting econotriyor, more fre-

'So called because un<:çrGernian adniinistratiothc policcand orhcr officiais
conlrolled thesrea. Gernan outhcrily was ncvcr cffcctivecxtended hond the
"PoliccZonc". 758 NAMIB~A(sou-1-Hw~si AFAICA)
quentiy,as cnslavcd bythc Narna whose langiragcthcy hadadopted, resiilting
in the com~letedisappertrance ol'theirown. The Damara areabout8.5 wr

cent. of the iota1 population.
74. The flereroare a t3sntu people,though distinct from the othcr Bantu
tribesof northern and wstern South West Africa. Thcy were exclusiveIy
pastoralnomads, and for a consideriibIepcriodhad iivediithe Kaokoveld,an
inaccessibleregion in the north-wes'Towards theend of thc 18th centurythe
grciitcport of thegrvup continucd its migrationsuuihw~ardI,eaving hehindin
the Kaokovt:ldsomeHercros and rehted tribes(HimbaandTjimba)whichin
time came to form a distinctpopulation group.
Thc social orgrinizatiunof the Herero isunusual inrhat ir isbüsed on a
system of double desmnt, an individua1belunging to two social entities,
.namely thenrtizoof his father andthe e~iida of his niother. This systern of
bilaretaldesçrnt isunknown arnongst any ul ihe othcr population groupsof
South West Africa. The Herero take an exclusive view of their natiorial or
erhnic group, membership king derived norm;illy frum birth. The Chief's

Council of thc Hcrcrorcprwnts only thc Hcrcro nationc, onstituting5.8 per
cent.of the totalofthe populationgrciupsof South West Africa.
After the sotith,wardmigrationof theHerero tluringthe firstdwadcs of the
19thcentury, war hetween them and theNama becarne inevitable,since both
groups covetedtliesaniegrazing,and intlieearlyclashesthe Hcrcrowcrc on thc
wholr victorio~is;biit the Nama rvcrcsoon sti-engtliened by the Hottentot
groups (the Cfrlams)which had by now returned frum the Cape Province
whencelhey hall wrIicr migratEJand whcrc thcy had learntthe use of fire-
arnls and acquired horses. l'heir superioiams cnabled itiem ta defeat the
Ijerero ina numher of bloody htrles, and thereafrer, fosome dt~adcs, the
Hereru Iivedintotal subjcçiion lthcm. By the 18605,howcvcr,Hcrcroin the
servis ofthcNama hadtheniseIveslearnttousefi fie-arm;nd.aftera successful

retiellion. therfollowed some yeararsof intermittent\varParc in which the
Hcrcro wcrc gcncrülIysuccessful.The introductionof German rule in South
WestAfrica in1884did not of itselend hostilitieTtwas on1y afterthegeneral
uprisingsduringthe years1903-1407 tht pexe catneto thecentral andsoiithern
parts of the Tcrritory.Thc ycarsof warfarchad a catastrophic effecton the
Narna, Hcrcro aiid Damara. The loss oflife\as imr~iense,the peoplesLvere
scatterd Ieaving many areasernpty.
75. Afrer theincepiionof ihc MundaieiiwfistheSouthAfriciinGowrnnient's
iask IorehabiItatethesepeoplesbysiifcguarding andextendin tgeirhomelands
suthat they could consoli&te theirsocial and poIiticalstrucriires.ThWhii~
population. then aboui 20,000 strong, had just begun to dcvclop a modern
economy. T&y thcy constitu ateoutII pcr=nt. ofthe total ppoulation.
76.There wasanothergroup whiclthzsnot yetheenrncntioned:the Rekofmlk

&sl~r.s, Of iriixed Nama-Europciin dcswnt, rhey leftthe nothcrn Capc in
Souih Africi during the lattehalfof the 19th ccntiirand rnovednorthwards
into South -West Afriw. Tn 1870 they settled at tiehoboth, where they have
livedcver sinw. Thcy constitutc about 2.1 pcr ccnl.of thc totiipopulation.
Their languüge is predominantly Afrikaaits and tlwirforiri of govrrnment
consists of a Council, applying theirtradiiionallaws.
77. TIietiiernkrs of thc CoIourcdgroup whu for~hcniost pariart:relatively
recenlimmigrantsfrom the Republic of South Africa,constitiitabout 3.8per
ccnt. of the:nialpopulation.
78. Finally therc arc ahout 17,000 Tsu~mtnand others. The Tswana are
related to the citizeits of Rotswana.This group constitute 2.3 cent.uf the
total. WRIIIEN STATEMENT OF SOLTII AFRlCA 759

79. IIis thus fallaciouio spcak of thc "pcuplc" of Souih WestAfriw in tlie
singular as ifthcy wcrc a ;inalecohesive entity.

80.A populalion ccnsiis was conducted in South West Africa on 6 May
1970 '.'I'heprelirninaryr~su1ts.compared wirh the resultsnf thc 1960 mnsus,
are 3hohi.nin the followinr;tsblc:

'70

Pti.crnrirge
ofrotal ofait
gr0 itps

Ovanibo
Whitcs
Damard
Narna
Kavango
Hererci
Coloureds
East
C'aprivians
Bushmen
, Kaokolantlers'
! Tswnnaand
other
Bastcrs

Total

81. The percentag icrcascs shown inthc table above in respect of the
Ovümbo, Kavango, Coloureds, East Caprivians, Bushmen, Kaokolmclers,

'I'swü~iaand other for the perjodof nearlyten years betweenthe datesof thc
tu.#censuses (Sep~enlber :960,and May 1970), cannot bc attriblitedtonatural
grorvth rata onIy (cxccss of birthsoverdeaths).
The 1970ceiisus niust lie considcred to be theniosr cornpleteand accuratc
census of the popuIation goups that hüs yct bccn conducted, particuiarly in
ihc northern homclands u~lierethe largestincreasesare rcfiected.

jCninciding,as far as tlizyçar isconcerned, ~4th popuiation celisuses in mtist
criuniriesrifthe world, as pariofthe world census of population which was re-
c<irtimendedhythe United Nations.
1970: Populaiion groursasenuincratcd atccnsus.
1960: Population groulis bascdpartlon ccnsusrcsutls endpartlyon estimates.
'Icnsus enurnerationw~s madc according ru home Icinguage in 1960.Damara
end Narna wcrc groupcd together under home lunguage Nama. As has bccn shrixn
in paru. 73. supro.thc Uarnara had adopted the Narnn lnnguage tothc coniplete
disappenreünçe or iheirovrn. Figures for Dainara and Kama prcviously sliuwn
scparatety for1960, representesii~nnredapportionniantofcensiis tutu1 betweethe
two groups. Tlic figurefor 1970rcprcïcnt the firsi separate enurnerationof Damara
andNama.
' Estimare. Thç firspopulation census in theiiurthernhorneiands was conducicdin 1960.
A11 earlier popuIation figures wcrelargcly based on estirnates.Tntensivcplan-
ning and organizaiion for the 1970 census, as ivclIasthe actuaIeniiitterntion.

wcrc substiiniialIy aided by tlie progressaiid advancemcn twhich hwvctakcn
place in the northern hornclands since 1960, notably extensions in the road
network,iinproved comn~unicatirinsand the sprcad of education.
Thcsc factorsresiiltedinlarge increases for1970 compiircd with 1360in ihe
groups in the northcrnarcas, for example: Oviinibo 43.7 pcr cent.: Kavango
79.4 per cent.; East Caprivians 57.8 pcr ccnt,; Kaokolanders 94.9 per cent.
Thes incrmses are Iargerthan couid beaccouiitedfor by naiural increaçca:nd
migration, alrhuugh ghrheIeo factors musi hve played a rolc.
Itis, hawever, reasonahle to afsume that rhe raturar1 ate of population
growth hau ken higher duringthe pasi decade than Cvcr kforc. Everywhere
hirth rateshave remained high, u~hils tcathrares have declinedrr s resultof
public health measures and ktter standards nf living.
82. Evcnwhcn ducçvnsidcraiion is made for the factors mcntiunçd abuve,

the gowth rates reflectedin the tableabove cornparcfavourahlywithgroivth
rareselwwhere in Africa, as will appear from the following table:

Libya.. .................... 3.7
Sornatia..................... 3.3
Ruanda. .................... 3,l
Zarnhia ..................... ?.I
Rolswana .................... 30
Buriindi .................... 3.0
Llnhomcy .................... 2.9
FqiiütoriaGiiinea ................ 2.9
Kenya ..................... 2.9
hiorocco..................... 2.9
Sudan ..................... 2.9
P.Içeria. ................... 2.9
Lcsotho ..................... 2.9
Swii7iland .................... 2.8
C;uinc:i ..................... 2.7
hlalawi ..................... 2.7
Niger ...................... 2.7
biigeria..................... 2.5
Togo. ..................... 2.5
tganda ..................... 2.5
United Arab Hepiiblic .............. 2.5
Mauritius..ubt........................... 2.4
Imry Coast ................... 2.3
<:ongo(Dem. Republic of) ............ 2.2
I'unisia..................... 3.2

-
1 Yi& Liniid Nuricins.Deniographic Yearbricik1968,pp. 85-89, According to a
~cneralIiotriniiiissource, ille figureesiirriatof quesii<inable reliabiIity. cxcept
in the caser~Mfauritius.462 rnhi~nr~ (SOUTIIWEST AFRICP)

It was furthcrmoreshown kt the formal cleliberalionsand consultations
on the constirutionalissties,whichlasied 19months,culminated in procIarna-
[ions issued by theStatc hsidcnt of the KepuhIic ofSouth Africain Ociokr
1968 which establisheda tegisIativeCouiiciland ExecutiveCounçilfurOvain-
boland, AdministrativeDeparlments, and rules of proccdure and financial
rcguliitionsfor ihc Lcgislütivc:Council. In accordance witthe wishes of the
delegations i~presentingthe seven Ovanibo ccimrnunitiesw , hich hha nnietat
Ondangua on 30 Septernkr 1968, it wasprovidcdthat tlic.LegisIarivCouncil
would function un a fcdcrülbasis, cach afthe xeven Ovainbo conirnüniti~r o
bei~preseiitedby sixrepresentatives.

The tirsi.sessioof the first OvarnboIand LcgislariveCouncilwas forriially
and wrernoniously opened hy the responsibie SouthAfrican Cabinet Ministcr
on Il Ociober I968.
The Legislaiive Counçil elects a Chief Councillor,who is the head of the
ExexritiveCiavernment,from among theCouncillorsno~ninateùby each com-
munity. iriitiitlly the followiny Govcrnmcnt Dcpartments wei'eestablished:
Authority Affairs and Finance; Coinniunity Anairs ;Wurks;Eduçation and
Culture:EconomicAffairs;Jiistice;üid Agriculture.
The Chicf CuunciIlur:in consultiition with the bxecuive Council, assigns
thecontrolof thevüriousdepartments to theineriiberof theExecutiveCouncil.
An officer,styIethe Chief Director, is the Aùrniniçtrati\*cHeaof a depai-t-
ment of P.uthorityAffiiirs and Financc andCO-ordination icer of al1 the
dcpartrnentsadministeredby the Executive Council ;and un uiiiccr, styIca

Director, istheAdm~nistrative Head of one or more of the rcmaining depart-
meiits.Ail thcpvsts in thc OvamboIandPublicService wilIas soon as possible
bc filledby Ovambos, but the South AfricanGoverniiientwill assis1by pro-
viding offt~:iawherefraineciOvarnÈo oiiiçials arenot yeravaitable.
The S~x>n>n Sdcssion ofthe OvarnbolandLegislaiive Council waq heId earty
in 1969.It:firsteiiactmentwas approved by the South AfricdnStatc Prcsidcnt
on 13Jiint:1959.
Ina radio mcssagc to thc Ovaniho pcapIcon 29 Septernher 1970, the Chief
CouncilIor,Chief Ushona Shiimi,againeinpliasi7edhis nation's righi to seIr-
determination and toplan its own destiny and future.Hc saidit sccrncdodd
tu IlieOvarnbos that thc SçcurityCouncil iiiNew Yorkhad asked the WorId
Coun for 2.advisory opinion onSouth Africa'spsesenceinSouth Wcsl Africa.
"It is nr right asafuIlypledgednation tomakeourown choice.. ." hesaid.

"TlieOvcisabo'lation has choscn, and nothing hashappenecl tamake irchange
its mind."
85. PreIiminary consultations as to theirfiitureconstitutbiiadevelopment
werr:hcId with the reyirescntativcof the Kavango conimunities as t'rom The
latterpart of 1468onwards.
Followirig uponthe preliminarynietings, the rcpresentativesof the fivc
communitiaî indicatedtheir desire for staurary constiltationas providecifor
in the enakdinglegislaiioof 1968 (Act No. 54 ti1968). hblic iiicctingofthc
leadersand rhc adult n~aIemembers of cach cornniuiiity were accordingly
çonvcncd 5y the South African Government'sadminisr rativerepresentative
in the Kavango I'orrlie purpase of consuitingeach cornniunityxparatcly in
regard io--

(a) the rcl:ognitionof thc cornrnuniiygovcrnment and thedelerniinatinnof
its poivers,functionsand duties;
(6)the es1ablishmentor acentral LegislativeCoiinçil as wclIas anExccurive
C;ount:ilforKavcingu as awlioieand ihemanncr in which such Councils
shoulclheconstituted. \ï'MïT34 STATEMESTOF SOUTH Af RICA 763

As inthe caseoftheOvambo pcoplcs,suitublenoticesof thedate, venueand
purposr:of each meeting \-me extensivdy giwn throughoiit thearea of each
coniniuiiity.Thc nlcetings xerehtid asToIlows-

Gciriku ................ 15Jtine 1970
Mbunza. ............... 16Junc 1970
Mbukushii ............... 17 June 1970
Sanibyu ................ 18hine 1970
KwangaIi ............... 19 June 197I)

'I'hemoetings wre aitencleby the leadersaswell ashy a substanlialnunibcr
of male adultsof cach cornrnunity.At each meeting tlioseprescntwcrc invitcd
to cxprcss their vievs on the matters schcduledfor discussinn, resulling in
spokesrnen of theparticuliircornrnunity expressingtheirgrnup's support for
the envisaged new constituiionaIürrüngcrncnts.
inrcgirrdlu the LcgisIa: Civunciland ExccutiveCouncil ir wasdecided
that the detailscouldbestlieworked oui at agenemlassernblyofdcIcgatcvuf
eüch w~ninunity.
'1hc dc1cga:aiioiset atKundu iitheKüvango on 22 July 1970.ilraft procla-
mations reIatingto theestalrlishrnetndconsrirutionof the LegislativcCouncil

and theconstitution ofan ExccutivcCounciIwcrc discussed in detail with the
delegaiions and irpproved by them. So were other mürterslike rhe Iliulesof
Procedure forrhcLegislaiideCouncil. Effect was given to thesç arrangenierits
in proctaniationsissuedhy the Statc Prcsidcntofthe Republic of South Africa
inJuIy and August 1370.Tlieseestahlisheda LegislativcCouncil and an Execu-
iive Council, administrativedepartments, as well as tules ofprocedure and
IianciaI regulations for rhc Lcgislaiivc:Council. The Ixgislati~e Counci!
would funciion on a federzl basiseachof the Rvetribesbcing represented by
six represcntativt%.hus IF-.efiiCouncilconsists af 30 menibers.There iiiust
be a sessionof the LegisIativcCounciÜIleastonce inevery year,and theChair-
man and Dçpuly Ciiairiiiar:are to lxelecteby the Council. For therest,the

arrangements correspond io those agreed upon for Ovamboland.
The Firsi Sessionof the l<avnngo LcgislativCounçil waç opencd on22 Oc-
tobcr 1970. On the previousday vaiious symtiolsof authority, includingii
rnace,the syrnboi ofauthoriry uf the Kavango LegislativeCouncil.were prt-
sented tothe Kavango Golrernment hy the Minister,Mr. M. C. Botha, repre-
senringthe South African 4;overnmen1.
In his addressat theopeitingaremony, the Ministersaid :

"On hehaIfof thc Siatc Prcsidentaiid the Goveinmeiit ofthe Republic
of South Afriw, 1 wisl-to congratulateyou, the leadersand the pcopieof
Kavango, on the irnpc-rtantdecisinyou have takcn to proceed with the
esrahlishnientof yotir OIwntcrriiorigovernment.
..........................
The step that you are naw taking will bc naturaiandunderstandable
IO al1honcst mcn. for surelyilis the aiinofevery people to exist and bc
recognised a3 a specifir:group sthat itcan livein peace, truc tu ils oxvn

culruratIraditionsand insritutions.
Thcsc aspirationswill now take tangibIeshape through iheestablish-
ment of yourown goqrernmcnt,for you can preserve and develop your
identityas a people only ifyou arc cnablcd todo soyo~rseI\~esT. hide-
cision*yurihave iaken is therefore also message to olher poplcs that
the people of Kavanyo have set outupon the rnad to nationhood."

.Inreplythe Chief CounciIlorof thc Kaifango said:764 NAMIDIA (SOUTIIWEST A~KICA)

"1 spuk onbehalfof this LegislativeCounciI and the people5of Kavan-
go wken 1 say that the RepubIiçofSoiith Af'ricais oiirbest friend. Iis
our pioFo~incwl ishand desire thathese bonds wiIlfrorn roday on bwme
stillstrongcr.That whicIi isiaking phce here toby isbut the beginning
of a niatterofgreatimportance.The people of Kavango are alsoeaçer to
tüke ti~eirplacearnongstthe people of theworld. Wc dcsirc to accompiish
ihis irpeacc andfricndship. In order to achieve thiswe definitely iteed
thc asjistanceandguidance ofügoodfriend. Tht guodfritndis iht:Rtpiib-
licof South Arriw.who will help uson the road to progrcss. 1 thcrcforc
now, on behalf of the govcrnmcntand the pwple of Kavangu, request
youand yourgovernment that. as in the past, you wiH also assist us in
thefuture .. .WC lcarntht oiir afiàirsherinSouth West Africa are still

being disciised in the Ilnitcd Nations Orr3nizalio11.WC havealsoheat.d
that a cascin regardto ouraffiiirswillagaiit> heard in the International
Coui~. tlle, thegovernrne ant the peopleof Kavangowish to stateour
point orview inthis regardvent clearly. The ~peoplc of Kavango havt
always livcd in thc tcrritvry ol Kavarigand te have no desireto obtain
any Ic.nor have authorityin any other par1of Soulh West Africa.Our
landkas greatdevelopmentpotentialitiesand the gnvernmcnt of Kavango
intends to mskc itour aim and task to undeitrrkethisdevelopinent. It is
our desireto live here in peacras aseparate people and to lead our land
and cur people to progress. In Snuth West Africa, in thc Rcpublic of
South Africn, in Africirand thc world peopIcs will befound who existin
thcir rirvriglit.Why cannot the people of Kavango, just asorhrrpeople,
exisl in theiowvnright:!Musr we then be herded ascattlac nd goats intv

one kraalby othcr pcopIe who Iinorvnothing of our aspiratioiis?T'batis
defini-:elnot whntthe peopleof Kavango desire.It is Forrhinreason chat
we toilay addressa reqiiesttotheother peoples in Africa and in thc world
that tlictoo will r~~ogniseand accept therightof thepeople of Kavango,
to th(:irou9 existencejiist as they recognise their right totheir aivn
existence and desirethat itbe accepred.
LVchavc iiguodfricnd inSouik Africawho hasnerzeryetoccasioncd us
anq. harm. We knnw thatthe Republicof South Africa. aî a goodfriend,
witl h:Lpus."

86.Thc ahvc accouni of the cvnstitulionaldevelnpment of Ovarnboland
and the Kavango iIlustratesthe South Africün Government's approxh to the
prinçiple of self-deierminationand the niethods hy which thai principlc is
king implernentedin thc circurnstanccsofSouth Wcsl Afriçawherethevarious
groups hate never formed an integratedriiritAs indicated elsewhere,rhisap-
proach is cntirety in line with rhat envisaged by mandates sysiem, and was
fulIy recq!nized aspropcr in ternisof thc Chartcrof rhcUniied Nations. In-
deed,the British Crimeroons, BritishTogoland and RuandaUrundi, al[ three
former rn:inùaled territoriesIarerpIaced under trusreeshw i7e,reevcntuiilIy

dividedor1an crhnic basis '.

IV. Siimnrary Rrvirh-of'General Ec:oironricL)evet#p~~reiif

87. As iiidicatedinSouthAfrica's Pleading:;n theSuiillWest Africocases

' VideAnncx C,pp. 34-36. [Nol rrprodrrrd.:
I.C.J. .?Ieudiw.~,Soutli WAfrira, VolII (Counter-Mernorialpp. 289-310. M'K1TTI:NSI'A'I'E.WEOF SOUTH AFRlCA 765

aiid in Sorzfh Wtr.~AfrilraSierey 1967 ',the natural eiivironnient of South
West Africa is basicall uiifavourablefor ccononlic deveiopment. it displays
grcat diversityresultininspccial probleinçof administrationanddcvcIopment.
The Iérritoryhs an area ofX21,269 squarc kilomeires including the areaof
Walvis Bay {measuring 1,174 square kin.), which is part of the Rcpublic of
South Africu -.Itcoirstitutinearly3 per =nt.of the rolaIarea of Africawhile
its 749.WOinhribitantsrepresentonly about 0.2 pcrccni. of IhelotaIpopulaiion
of Africa. IIhas one of tlic lowcslpopuiatioirdensity figure is the world.
TnprigraphiïallySuu~li West Africacan he divideciinto threeregions:

(ilThe!\'a~n anbexrremt:lyarid and dcsolatr:desert region strerchinpdong
the entirecoast-linc~oawidth of betweeii 80 to 130km.The major porlion
of the Namib receives an annual rainrallof les3than 50 mm. per annum.
(ii) TheCrnrral Plnreniiis the regionlying tothc cast or ihe Naiiiib. It varies
in altitude hetween 1,iIOOand 2.000 inetresand offers a diversificdland-
scüpc-of rugged iiiounrains,rockyoutcrops,sand-filledvalleys and plains.
(iiiThc Kaloltai-i coversthe easiern, north-castcrn and norttiern arens of
Soiith West Africa. Tlic dominantfeiiture of thisregion isits thickcover

ofierrcstriatsands anil Iiinestone3.

In termsoflandarca only 32.1 percent, of tlie'Ièrritoryrcwivesan average
annual rainfriiiof inore thm 40 mm. The rainfall ovcr rhe p[ütcau arcd im-
provesstradily fronisouth,,west tonorth- cas^O.vritnbolaiid, Kavailgoand the
Caprivi aresituatcd inthe highest rainfallregion of South West Afriw. These
areas are favourednot only by a largea rnnual amount of prccipitation but
also by a rainy =&on of longer duratirin.
Incornmon with othcr üridregions oftlieworld,rhccffeçtivenessof rheSouth
West Arrican rainfalliseveiiIcss rhan that indicated hy the avcmgc rilinlaIl

kcausc ofthe hgh variabiIity of rainfaand thc high rateof evaporation.
Ilense vegetation is conlincdtu the north and rrorth-cast of the Territory.
The areas to thewest ofth: escarpmcnt are so bnrren a5to preclitdc ünyrorm
of agriçiiuraI esploitiit ioIn thecentralrcgion thevtgetation changes-du-
alty from an arid shrub vaiicty to ancipeiithornsavannahand scatteredtrees
towarrls the north.
AgricuIturaI and industrial deveelopntentin South West Africa is seriously
hampered by a seilereIackof watcr. As aresult ofthe low and erraiic rainfall,
normal dry-land cropping can be practised ovcr onIy 1.1 per cent. of the
Territory'ssurface. Tfrcgrzzingareas have an extrernelyIowcstrryingcapacity,

InAnnex A 'it waxshovin that thctnrv bas~cphysicalfactorsof South West
Africa's cconomy are recurrent crueldroughtsand ihe vast distances which
separate human settkn-ient;.Almost aII the needs of thcmodern wctor of the
econoniy niiistbe importcd: aIlfücl for power and transport. mnchine~,
cquiprncnt, ccnicntand rnanyothei buildingmatcrials. iiiost consuniergouds,
and even a great dealof focd. Indtd.[hm conditions,couplcd with the danger
of fluctuaringprices for it5few prirnary cxporl products, makc the econornic
growth or South Wrs~ Africa seemaImost miraçiilous.This can Io a greatex-

AnncxA atpp. 715. /,V?ri.eprodiir~d.j
I.C.J.Plmdiir~s,SoiifIi Ilf fricaVol. II (Coiinter-luietnuriaIl,parp.289,
and para.50,pp. 354-3hS.Th-re arealsoa nuinber ofi'ilandsoff rhc co;rsl orSouth
WesrAfrica wtiiçtiart:parof theRepnblicofSouth Africa.
I.C.J. f'lrrirlinrs,Svtyr.s/IfriniVol. II (Counier-Mernorialp. 293.
' At p. 59.(Nui reprud~c~i:.766 NAMIMA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)
ient k arkcribedtothe intimate commercia1,financial, teetmica[and personal
ititerrelaiionshiwilhSouth Afrim'seconomy.

88. Dajpjtc thelirnitirigfactofi inhihitingeconomicprogrethe Terriiory's
1969 CirrrDomestic Pfoduct (G.D.P.) of R368.9 rnilliowas two-and-a-half
tiinesashighasin 1960hen iiamounicd tu RI45.6million. Evcnwhenchanges
in the pricr Ievelarccliminated, thel'erritoG.I>.I>h.asdoubledduriris Iht:
decadeas appearsfrom lhefoIlowingtable:

CROSS DOMFSTIC PRODUCTAT COKSTAYT (195X)PWICPS1954-t9C>'
(Gros Du~nestic Produçiat facior çosi)

Cunsicrnt
l'rires Prices I
I

89.Re.ilincome per hcad of thcpopulation rose by no las than 53.4 per
cent. diiring 19Gû-1969,Le., froK249 toR382. The averageannuaiincrease
inreal G.D.F. percapita arnounted to 3.55 per cent. diiring 1963-186 9s
against207 pr cent. pcr ünnurn in1957-1963. .fhismay he compared with
the raie of1 percent. üttained by Africaas a whole (except South Af'rica)
during1960-1966.
As thefolIoiving iabIcshowswiih the exceptionof Ljbya wiih its ahundant
resoiirceofoil, South West Africa'sper capitaincomt:ofR49Ior $687 was
thc high~:itiAfricain 1966,highereven than thatof South Africa($569)and
respectivelyienand rhrcctirneas high asthat of Tanmnia and Zam hia.
YU. L'icwedinlonger perspective,itappearsthat South West Africd'sreal

G.D.P. has driubled not only düring the 1960s but also düring the dccade
1950-1959,and evcn duringthe four-ycarperiod 19461 950, when irrosefrom
R36 millionto R72 million(See iable onp. 768.)
Thc factthairatesof growth orG.D.P. of morethan IOpcrcent. perannum
at curreni.pricwsereaçhicvcd overlengthyperiods(1952-1957 and 1963-1969)
witha raieof 6.5 pecent. iithe interniedy ieaarsis l issubmitted.anindi-
cationof thcsoundness of the administrationof the Territory(Sec tableon
p.768.)
-

RepubtiçofSouth r2rrica,Departmenofritatislics. WRiTTEN STATEMEKI' OF SOUTH AFR1CA

GROSS IXiMESTIC PROVIICTAT FACTOR COST FER CAFITA:
I?lTERYATIOKhL COMPARISO'I'
(U.S. dollars)
-
Cuuntr.v 1563 1966 Coutirry 1963 1966

ALgeria 200 hiauririus 271 219
Angola 68 Morocco 168 168
Botswana 94 Mozonibiquc 68
Burundi 46 N i~cr 74 83
Carncroon 109 124 Nigeria 71 75
CentralAfriçan Rep. 100 Portuguese Guinea 69
Chad 62 Réunion 280
Com<irtiIslands 89 Rwatida 33
Cungo {Brazravjlle) 161 Seliegal 183 147
Cringo,Deni. SierraLconc 123 144
Rep. of? 156 98 Somalia 65
Dahomey 69 South Afriça, Rep. of 466 569
Ethiopia 46 59 Southern RIiorltsia 207 210
Gabon 1i25 406 SoutiiWest Africa 410 687
Gambia 72 Sudan 94 96
Ghana ;:07 289 Swaziland 195
Guinea 96 Tanzania, United
lvoryCoast 179 223 Kep. of 64 67
Kcnya 96 II2 Tanganyika 60 67
Lcsotho 7X Zanzibar and Rniba 102
Libcria 238 277 Togo 86 118
I.ihya --21 1,056 Tuni3ia 200 184
Mudagascar Y2 101 Uganda 6R 85
Malawi 50 57 Unitcd Arab Keputi-
Mali 68 lic 1432 167
Mauritanie tOO Upper Volla 43 44

%amhia 165 236

91.These figures reflectdie subsianiial iniprovement in thc niaterial wcll-
being of SouthWest Africa speoplcs,
Indicativeofprogras ittlicsfiguresare.they do notirnpIythatthe econorny
af South Wcst Africa iscotnparabIewith that of a country as advanccd in-
dustriaIIyas the Kepublic <ifSouth Africa.l'hc Tcrritury'scconorny isin its
infancy, and in the foreseelble fulitre \vihe unablc to sustain iisprozress

without the dosest linkswitli tlKepublic of Sout h Africa. TGross Durriestic
Product islcss than 4 per cent.of thnt of ihcRepublic, aiid sonle fivcyeais
ago itsnational inconie war put at 1.9per cent.of rhai orSouili Africa.Such
a srnall market does not p:rinit of substaiiiiarnanufacturing,whilc cxpotts
are largely preçludcd by th:high cost of porwr and file[aiidparticularlyby
ihe gi'eatdistancesseparatirtIocal industriesfronlboth thcirsuppjiersof raw
matcrials and tlieiicustornl:rs.For lhese reasons,the econorny musi rernitin

dependent for thefort~eeablefirurc on prirnaryprciducion-livestock, fishiitg
and rnining-rvhich aocoitiit for about one-half of the Territory's Crross
Domestic Produçt, and iiicsttherebre rernain vulnerableto fuctuülicins in
demand and rudimatic an<.other nnturalfactors.

LrnitedNations. StarisricYrarlwrikf969.pp. 557-558. Every ycarcovers the
periodof 12months comrncnçing 1 July.
Dala notstrict clyparable witli thosfor subseqiientyears.768 NAMlBlA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

COMPARATIVE DATA OS G.D.P.,194-1953 l

Gross Dornesric
Perc.enr~~:cr.urirril)ofriun froducrn! f95.8
icgjouseciorr!rflr?G.D,P. pricrs

Agriculfirr~
Yerir forrstrar.d Miriinfund ,V~znirfuc+ R K prr
.fis/;i~rf uurrFinr iilring niilfion head
- ---
"/O x

1946 12.4 3-9 36 97
1947 15.4 7.- 48 125
1949 21.5 2.8 53 143
1949 26.5 ?.U 58 142
1950 30.4 2.3 32 171
1451 37.9 2.3 91 211

1952 37.6 ?.3 95 213
1953 34.7 4.1 101 220

In sIioi.1,SouthWest Af1.ica.econonly is not unly srnalin si7e:itis highly

vuInerabIcloFactorsbeyonrlits cnritrolIt isalso duaIistic, lia11economies
in their early stagesof devdopmcnt; for sidç by side with ihe invesl~itent-
intensive and Liighly productive economy, trüditionalsubsisrence cropping,
pastorali asinfood gathering persistat variaus levels ofdcveloprrient.The
small moriern ecrinotnl; alone cannot suppori thc higli cost of educationa1,
heillthandothcr scrvices foraIt inhabitantsandis thereforeheavily dependent

uponthe KepubIicof South Africa.

Iy.B~ankin ~ridf'irin:rcServices

92. As indicatcdin Anncx C hcrcto South West Africa forrnsa part of the
Rand nioiietaryarea which. apart fi-omthe Rcpubliç. aiso incrudes Botswana.
Lewtho and Sivaziland.The Terriforssharesin the conirnon pooI cilgoId and

forcign cr.changc rcscrvcs ofthc arca \:hich are administered by the South
Afriwn Keserve Bank operating. iijrcr diaas the Territory'sCkntraIBank.
The Terriiory isentitledio rnakeuseof Sourh Africancapital resourws and

-
Reputlic ofSouth Africa,Departnientof Stntistics.
At p. 0%.[NUI reprurlrtced.j rnay draw from the conilnon pool of gold and Soreignexchange rcxrvcs,
subject rnthe samc conditioiis as are applicableto residcntsuf the Rcpublic
of South Africa.This has in îactcontributcd veryappreciably to theemnamiç
advanceof Sourh West Africa.

93. In respectof rniningoperations,conditions in Soiith Wst Africii.tiiake
partictilarly greademand:; on modern technology, itndsine al1 mines must
still provide theiown wariir,power, housing and civic amenilies.and hear
the çonsiderabiecosts of skilIedand orher personnel,only highly wpi(a1ized
and tcchnimtty proficientcompanies can conduct operations oiia scalc to
niake niiningprofitable.Vast distancesfrom supplicrs of srorcs, sparer;,food,
etc.are additional coniplic:alinfactors.
Ofthe varielyof iiiiiieral:;knownroexist theTerritory,only diamondsand
afew base nlincralsareat çire.wnbcing extractcd ona major scale.Apart from

diarnond~, only 9 largcr miries were in operation in 1969 ivhilstthei-ewere
13 srnalicr,and 34 small I-iiiningandquarryiny ventures. A fcw new mining
propositions are approacliing thc production stage,and orhers arc king
cxplored.
In 1969 ,niningand prospecting crnploycd about 17,000 persons, paying
tlien1114.8million in cashalnne, apart fi-ortheappreciable benefitin kind.
The induscry cnntributcd Iieiween one-thirdand tii~o-fifthIo rhe Ten-itorv's
G.D.P. (38.6 Pr cent. in 19651,and approxirriaiclyRI4 million to public
revenue inthe formofexpwt diityarid profitax.
Tora1investment in rnining was cstimatcd aiRjX.3 rniiljonin 1966.

Diamund mining involves thc strippinguf viisquantitics of overburden
(20.7 miltioncubicrnctrie ns1969, incliidin2.8 millioncubic metres inrespect
of foreshose activities).Coiisolida~edDiamund Miries.the principal prnduccr,
operates a huge fleetof earrh-siiovinvehicieç.reputed rok onc of tlie largest
in the world.

The '1-surneand Komb2iijnineo sfTsrimeb I;brporatiuriI.td. produccdthe
Tcrritory's total outputof blisterçoppcr, reiincdlead, lcad!copperizinccun-
ccntratcs, çadrniuin. and white arsenic in 1969. The Tsumcb Coiporatioii
I,td.'s smeltersand ancillar-yplancan prodiice36,000 tons of blisterçopper,
100,000tons of refi~iedleatland 90 tons of cüdrniuinnietapler year. fn1769.
595,298tons of ore were niilltd.
'I'heMütchlessCoppcr 3Iine was broiighrinto opcriitioiii1970by Tsiimeb
CorporationI.td. in an area 16 miles west of Witidhoek.
The South Wesi ACrica(.:ornpany 1,td.opcratcs the IIerAukas Mine near

Grrioifontein and thc BriinnibergWestMine. The former suppliesçonentratcs
of zincsilicate,zinc!leüdsuiphide,lesd~vünadiurri,iid thelaitercrincentralesof
tinlwuifrarn.
The South African Irvn and Steel TndiistriaiCorporation Ltd. ("1SC:OII")
brouglitits zincmine atKojh Pinah into fulproductionin 1969,rnilIina total
of236,944 ions of ore. At Lis, the Corporation ivorksa large body of low-
grade tin-haring pegmaf itc:.
Situaicd in theRaster cc-iintrof Rehriboth, scit;lof Windhoek, thc Klein
Aub Kopermüalskappy Rpk. srartcd working in 1966 a copperdeposit ofappreciablesize. Conceniratesof approximately53 per wnt. copwr are king
produccd.

Coiisiderableknefitsarederivedby theBasiercotninuriitîrom theoperaiion
of rhis mine. Atrcntionmay be drawnhere to the correspundingadvantages
accruingIO the peopleof Ilarnaralarifrom theVis and Brandtierg Westmines
Iyingin ilieihorrielanda,nd ihc Rossing minc localcd onitsbordcr (50 miles
from Swakopmund).
Referene mayalso bemade totheIarge-sale productionof sat (30,76i9ons
in 1969)by cviiporatioof scawiitcrinlargc pansscvcn rnilcs north of Swakop-
iiiund. A product ofIiigh puritysuitabte for the chernicalindustryis king
obtained.

94. Altlioughagriculturenow contributesno more than ahoutone-eighth of
the Territory's GrossDonresticProduçt, iiconstitiiles tcountrye' conomic:
basis and will rcrnainso in the foreseeabIFuture.Yet drought. epidemics of
stock diseise,and marketingconditioiis abroad-factors IargeIybeyond [ocal
contrnl-retider ihisindusrry liabletosevere selbaçks Several such setbacks
havc occurrcd inrcccnt ycars,the Iatest oncking s scrious drought in 1979

and only fürm managementof a high order, sübstantialsupport from the
anthorities, and the exxpansionof IocaI rneat-çanningfacilities havIirnileù
stock lossi3 undsarlccthc industry frnm utter ruin.
95. In1968/196 a9 iiiahusbandry accountedfor 98.1percent. of the total
gross value ofcommercialagriçulttiraloutpi11which wasestimatedat R58.6
million as cornparcdwith R44.4 miIlion in 1965. CattIc alone contributcd
60.1pcr cent.of the totaIand sherp ,ioçtlyKarakul,34 percent.

Animal liiisbnndry

Car:/P
Slaughter stock
Dairy products

Shrep
Karakul pelts
Wool
Slaughtcr stock

Pigr
I Slaughterstock

Fieldcrops-totalandv
l Horticulture

VideAnnex A, pp.61-68,and Anncx C, pp. 55-57. [h'ur reprudz~ct?d.j
* Repubiic of South Afriça, neparrrnent of AgriculEconomics and Market-
ing. (a) Culfie
95.Ditc tu thc Tcrritory'~ extrcrnely Iow carryirigmpaciiy,onIy extcnsivc
caitle l'rrritiispossible,;,nd thisentailsconsidcrablc capitaloutlrtys on the
fcncingof farrnsand rhcirs?ibdivisivninto camps. The provisionof warer hasa
critical bearing on the ecanoini~~ of cattlç raising,ntitto mcntion thc vast

disiancesto inarkets '.
Livesrwk sraiisticscovering tfieyzars 1966 to 1969show thatcattIe{andalso
goats,Karakuland athcr rhccp) showcd a substantialincreas-24 per wnt.
withirithreeyears.
The largemajority ofconiniercial herds produce kf. .Milk is almostentirely
incidenraland sccondary, c<cept for frcsh-milkprodumrsnearthe towns. Thc
Territory'ssmall populatiortcan absorb only afraction of rhc meütproduced
(7.9 pcr cenl. in1969 as co~ipared with7.4 per ccnt.in 1965and 1Il.3percent.
in 1952).For the reniainder. extcrnal markets have to k round.

Unforiunately. however, the extensive mcthods of stock-raisingnccessi tated
by the physicalenvironment, cannot yicld regularsupplim of high-gradebeef
for the verycornpetitive overseas markets.Thc anirnals must dcpcnd almost
cntirciy on naiurül yrozing becaust:addiiicrna lodder cannot be grown Iocally
whereasimportation from the RepubIicorelsewktere ispracticaliyruled out by
ver- appreciabIetmport costs. Aliogether2,853.1tons of bccf wcrc cxported
#verse- or to othcr African countrics in 1969 as against 389.6 tons in 1965.
011 account of the iitdu:itry'shigh cost structure, al1 exports 10 overseas
rnarkttsentai1 financiallorses,and for al1practicsl purposcs, thc Tcrritory's

cstile industrywiII bcdoomcd unlcss thc Repu blicofSouth Afriw continuesto
purchase the buikof the br:efniarkeied.During the period 1965 ta 1969, the
Republic bought between two-thiràs and four-fifths of the iota1 animais
marketed, ihatiis.from240,1100tri 260,Wû ayear. Around17,00 areslaughrered
Torlocalconsumplion, and most of the restiscannod-apin mainlyfor sale in
SouthAfrica.
At presenr, the bulk of the cattle israiicdon the hoof to markets in South
Af~ica.If this market weri: to faIlaway. thc onIy aIternati\*ewould be ta
slaughtcrthc animais locall:,, and tutryand sel1the carcasses or canned nieat

overseas. As the 'lérriiory'scosts of prodiictionare higlidespite the scientific
inethodsappliedinthe inod:rnsector, cliilcdor frozen beef couidonly be sold
ar a considerablc 105s.The canning factories cnuld process at best one-third of
the 350,000 tn400,000 animaisthat are availabie for saleevery year.
Ithasbeen establishedthai theiierdof cattleof theti-trecnorthern homelands
(Ovamtwland. Kavango andKaokuland)can be raisedfram thecurrent 844,500
to appraximaieiy 1.5 inillinn once niare watering pointsareavaiIahle.At ail
outputof 20per cent.,thesehomeIands alone coiiIdihcn produce 300,000 head
a ycar, about half forlocal -:oonsumprioa nnd rhe rest forexport 2.

(b) Dniry incluustrj~

97. The production of creamand the manufacture of butter reprcscnt thc
main dairying activities. The industry'soutput is particularIysusceptibleto

' Thus, tonamt just one example, scientific study hcstablishrdthat oxen railed
from Soulh West Africa toCaoeTown Forslatightcr. luse apprtixinialel10prr çenl.
more in Iiveweight than rhose sent to ht sla~ighiered wiihin the country.t'ide
H~rzel, R..Louw. D., and IfeydenrycFh.,. I.ossof Wei~~hrin Tfuizsifuf Oxrn
Tmvefiing tiRaii,frotn SouihIYestAJricutuCape 7own (I949), table1.
Vide Lauw, D. J.,FitIitPorenririloj nimal Pror/uctiuin Soutli Wesr .4fri.cn
(19b8) p.4,772 Y\IAM[BI(S#UTH WFST ~LPRICA)
clirnaiic conditions,and aIso relies on rhcRepirblic of Soulh Africa as a

niarketfor its siirpItisbu[terand dried hutterrriiIk.
Local hutter consumptivn hiisbccn rising si~dtly over the past few yrars,
from 2,382.932 Ib in 19fiOj1961to 3,030,218 Ib in 1968/1469. As rota1 pru-
dlictionkasshown afaliing trendover thesame period,exports to SouthPifric3
have decrezqed accordinglT y.c 1968/l96 c9pori figure of 68,400 1b was
exceptioniililow andcornpareswith aii aniiual averaof about 1,612,000 for
the previousthree years.
Overseas sales ofsurplus buttcr art:pussibleonly uta Ioss karise of high
production and transportcosts, and theRcpubIiç'srriillingncsiopurchasethe
Teriitory'sstirplus,albeir at a higherprict tharitof New ZeaIandbuttcr, is

of substaritiavalneto South Wcst Africa.
(c) Shefipatzdiclrfsrnulistock

98. Those partsof the-1èrritorywithiins\,cntge rainfaoflessihan tO inclies
(254 mm.) ü ycar,which coiiiprisesvirtualltliwhoIe ofthesouthernhalf and
portions cfthenorth-westernregion. arc reasonablywelladapted to smallsiock
farming.Tlie hardy Karakul sheepin pürticularhasprvved ablc 10 mnd up to
thearideilvironmcnt of thcsc pariswhcre rnost ofthe 3 million headarekept.
The ris~ngprnceedq rmlizedby exportsof KarakiiIpelrshas provided some
welwme relief amidst the problems hesetting agricuItme. Dcspitc thc scvcrt:

dimatic conditions, thnuinbcr of peltsexporteilrosefroin 2.24 millioin1965
io 3.74 rriillioiq 1969, thus increasingtotütvalue from R14.03 rriillion to
R72.21million.
Thus, although thc indiistryisprogrcssing,it is noi rvithouits problems7
producinyas ii does a winrnodity,rhe demünd for tvhiçfdepends on îashion
and issensitivto econorriici~uctüationsinoverseascnuntrics.TIiclighi xwighi
and the specificcurlsof the South Wcst African peligive it a coinpetitive
üdvantagc ovcr ihose l'rom other sources. IIo\wver, these advantages were
achieved as a rcsulrof continuoiis rewarch andexperirnentation,and on1y by
constantGare in resFct ofthe intricatebrccdingtcchniqucswillitbepossibleto
mainiain the highstaridrrr.dçridtlie coiiipetitivenessnf the indiistry.

> KeguIaispecializedcoursesfor Karakulbrecders arewell attended. Advcrtis-
ing 'cani~aignsisre king intemified, and the growing intcrcslof overseas
buycrs iws vindicütcd the large sutris spron salesproinotioi~(RGIO.000 in
196819169 asitgainstR50?,00 in1964il965).
NoivGays Burghers(citi7.ens)of the RehnbtithGcbiciarc buying regularlyat
auctions of st~idrams, art- rcgisicring as breedeis,andare improving their
kno\vledge of techniques. [n 1969, noIcss thün 128,667 Karakul shccp wcrc:
recordedin the Rehohoth tiebiet-more than three timesas rnariyas in 1967.

(dl Crop.5-

99.Owing to jackof \riter. graigrowing cariplay only ü rninorrole in the
southcm scclur. whcrc 63.00 0üysof n~aizeiind 16,41[1bas of other grains
werc reaped in 1465 In gond years, thenortheinterritoriesareself-suficicnin
grains,bit1in badyearsrhc Adn~inisrrationprtividelarge quarititiat heavily
subsidi-xi1 priccI.short. thc sou1hcrswtor niustrepulai-lgetthe biilci!its
maize from the Kepublic, whilethenonh kas to doso iinterniitte Intpui'ts
anioiinted Io 858.008 bags in 1954/19h5 and 424,370 bags in 1965:1966.
Furthcraorc, about 75 pcr =nt. ofthc soulhcr neclor'srequirementsciffruit
and vcgei.ahlecrimefroin the IZepublic--üpproximately6,XM tons a yciirat
a totalccst of R453,000.
Ficid c:ropsestiniatedüt R765,000 and horticultiirrrlprodiicts vaiued at K361:QW wcrc pruduced in1.90811969,thatis,onIy 1.9percenl. of thaggwgatt
valueof al1agricuItu priiduçts.
The production of maizi: icloxly associatedwith cliinaric conditionsünd
varicçsonsideriibly.Wheti:as about 125,00b 0ags were reaped in 1967, the
frgure for 1969arnountcd to approximately 234,000 and in 1970--for which
year a figure isnot yet alrailahle-outpui can be expected to have skrunk
considcrably bccausc of drriught.

In respectof rhtfirslnice ntonths of 1970,wc1Iowr 300,00t)bagsof niai7e
had to heimported from the Rcpublic of South Africüinorder 10 çover rhe
shartfüll bctween local production and actual needs. The recurrent drnughts
would inevitablylcad ro faminesof serious dinrcnsionsif itivcrenot for tlie
wady avaiIability of emergcncy suppliesfrom the Republic or South Africa
and thc spcciaIrneasures taken to distributethesesuppIjes.

(e) Dixtr~ssRdit'j.

100.The whoIe of South West Africa is ar presenr listedas a drought-
strickenarea, and on i July 1970 cxtensivcrclicfmcüsurcs iwre announced.
Farmers in South Wesi Africa are granted iiiore favourable conditions than
those inSouth Africa. inP.prit 1969the Government had alreadyannounced
certain discountson the triinsporol rnaize by rai[to thc Tcrritury (37. 5er
cenl.) andas from 1July 1970,al1focdtraiisportedto the'Ièrrito- fordtought
reliefqualifiefor a railrebaieof 75 per cent.
The roiIowing amouilts M-er pent on distrerseslicf inthcTcrritorq.:

--

' Rçpuhlic of South AfricDepartinent ofStatislics.
"ncludes niillct, ciiltivnte< iinnorihern homclands.
' Excludiii~,Karakulpelts. Furthcrrnore arrangements were iiiadetosiaughtcr cattlc atOkahandjaand
Otavi inaddition tothose a1 theWindhoek abattoirs. From May 1970,approxi-
rnatcIy450 cattiewereslaughtered driilrittheWindhoekabattoirs-an increase
of alinost 100per ent. on Ihe normal figure.
151. A table shoivingcornparativc daia on rneatproduction in a nuriibcrof

African countriesfollows,,

MEAT PKOL)C~C~.IOF;368
COMPARISO?I WlTH A NUMBEK OF AFRICAI*;CO1:NI.RII'S

(Beef; C'eal.Muiton and Lamb)

Producrion Prodttcrion
Counrry Popitlarion (in iirt'tric) i~irrrir!uns
(ini,OO.Oj tons) peu1,0110
qfpoprifarion

SvutliWest Africri 709 62,000 87.4
RepubIicof Soiirh
Africa 19,167 550.000 28.7
Swazilarad 395 12:OW 30.4
Botswana 611 11,OoU 27.8
Cganda 8,133 153,000 18.8
Khodesi:~ 4,940 69,OOU 14.0
Ethidipia 24,212 327.000 13.5
Tsnmnki 12,590 162,000 12.9
Cenirat Plfrican
Repuiilic 1.488 13,000 8.7
Unilcd Arab Kcpubliç 31,693 234,000 7.4
Morocco 14,580 107.000 7.3
Camerocin 5,562 32,000 5.8
12,943 70.000 5.4
Algçrin 14,770 74.000 5.O
Sudun 3,685 1?,,O00 4.9
Seneçül
Chad 3:460 f6,000 4.6
Zambia 4:OM 14.000 3.4
Nigcr 3,806 12,000 3.1
Kcnya 10,709 31.WO 3.O
Angola 5,362 IS.IKK1 2.0
Ni~~ria 62,6s0 160.Ci00 2.6
Upptr Volia 5,175 13,000 2.5
Gliana 8,376 17,000 2.0
MozamI>iquc 7,274 10,000 1.4
Mali 4,787 6.000 1.3

102. Six basic Tcatiiresof l'neTerrirory'sagricuIturaI econoniy stand out:
first, its v~ilnerabilityto cIimatic factors stock dixase;

second, its dcpçndence un wttIe and Karakul shcep;
ihird, the inabilitof Soulh West AFrica'srneat and dairy prnducts to cnnipete
regularl:~on international miirkcts. aiid, because of the srnall interna1
market, thcirrdiance on sales to theRepublic;

Republicof SouthAfrica, Departmenrof StatisticsUnited Nations, S!ntislicui
Ycucnrhoo1Yi59,pp.206-212.Opportunitiestoexpand fishg opcrations furthcrto thc nnrth\vil1he provided
by rhe develripmcntof tiarboufaciiitiat MoweIlay,about 170miles(270km.)
soiithof ihe Cunene River.mouth.
Dirring thepast two demdm, cornrncrciaI fishirihas grown to beone ofthe

Territory's principal industries. Totacapital invest~nenr.ainounts to over
KZ0.5 million,ahnut 1<13nlillionthereof inbuildinrrsrnachineryand houdng,
and more than R7.5 million in fishinvcsscls.
The industry ISproviding directemployrnent forabout 3,300 persons, and a
furrher720 areempIoyedas crews on fbhing vesselsTn 1968.abour R2.5 rnillioi~
was paid in salancsand wagcs to factory pcrsonncl,anda furtherR9 million
was earncd by boat owners and theircrews from the fishcatch.
105. The total carch for rhe inshorc peIagic hh F~çtoricsduring 1969
arnountcd to 954,082 ions as compared with 527,00i0 n 1958. Itis anticipated
that the catch for 1970wiIl riot e~cred 820,000 ions. Aiter reaching a rccord
totalof R49.3million in 1966, thc industry's salehave dcclined since then,
rcüching R35,9 million in 1969.

Thefishinngindustry's highs~andardsof quality and iiseficienl opcraiing and
markeling iechniquets opther with thc powcrful financial and technicd
backing givcn it by SouthAfricanfishingcompanies, have placed theindustry
oita sound commercial basis.
A serious threat to the long-termexistence of'the industry is king posed,
howcvcr, by the activities, just outside territorial waters, of trawleis and
factoryships from non-African couniries. The wwilhdrawalToctilleçtivr:mua[
quota or 156,000 Ions pclagic fishfrom inshorefactoriescanbe attributed
mainly tr,thefishin actjvitiof thesevessels.It n=d hardlyheemphasixd Lhar
the livelihc ofithousands of persons of al[ population groupsand ihcir
dependant% is thus beinjeopardized.
For thcir lmrt, thresponsibIeSouth African authoritiesaredoingeverything

possible to safeguard the coniinucd existcnm or ihis industry. Intensiveas
weIl asexre~isiverescarchprogrammes are king carried out, and areto be ex-
pandeù furtfier,undertheguidanceof the Marine Research Laboraroy of the
Republic of South Africa.
AIthoiigh the fishing industry exportsa large portionofits products, it is
expcricncing a rising demand for its med and othe rrodiicts in Southand
South West Africa.It isabovc al1the lesscdcvclopcdpopulation groups who
appreciate thcschighly nutritivebutyet Inw-costproducts.

106.In 1<16 11!63thc buildingindustry reachcd itlowcst cbb of ihc dccadc

bu1 was booming a year later, and hasdoneso eversince,IargeI as a resulof
thc Administration's çonsrruçtion programnies which have deliberately
maintained:rhighIcvcIof activityduring aperiod whciiùrought andfuoi-and-
mouth diseasescriouslyafîectedtheTerritosy'seconorny.
As administrative and cornniercialcapital, Windhoekrnirrorsthe-1erritory's
econornic Lie,and thc value of building plans approvcd by theMunicipality
of Windhoek is particularly significain this context. III 19thex amounted
to RI ,661.O00 and rose by an anniial average of RY24,WOto 114,432,OIKi)n
1965. Durinç the ncxtthree years, the averagannual incrcascstrnounledio no

Vide Amtex A, pp. 72-73and Annex C. p.GO. lNnt rrpu(rrlüced.1 WRI- EN STATEME~YOF SOUTH AFRICA
777
less than R2,134,<10 aI) in 1969,thc total vaiuc of building planapproved
arnaunted Io8 record O< Ri 1,084,000-a figurtewc-and-a-half tirnesas high
as in1955.The inhibitantalritostdoiiblçrror 4n4.000in1965 to80,00i0n 1969

whiIethevalueof rateahli:property roscmorc than thrccfofI rdm R55million
to RI83 million.
The growth of building and construction is equaIIyapparent from the
Territory'sconsurnpiion of ceinent. In1957;1963 this wss onIy 76,138 short
tons,androse byananncal avcrage of11,022tons to 131.247tons in1967!1968.
In each of the folIowin two years, consumption increascdby almost 34,000
tons. brin~ingthe total1.IY8,811 tons in1969/1970.
Prüctical alycernenl irsedin the 'lèrritorybrought iifrom the Kepublic,
tlie bulkthereof hyrail.Thebuilding induslry'sabsolute dependenw on rhcsc
supplies king prodirced inSoiith Africa and mrried hy rhc SouthAfrican
t<aiI\vaywas vividly dcrnonstratcin the Iattehaif of 1970when no cerritnt

reachedWindhoekfor one week becauseal1 available trucks were neededfor
emergençy rnarkei tngof ~:altnrcessitated by the seriousdrought. Abuilding
activitiein the town canicto a complete staridstilt.
Formanyyears the par= inthe industrywas set bytheAdministrationbut as
of laie theprivatesecioi kas becorne no less important than the publicone.
That is not to say thüt thcIattersector'sswnding has IeveIIedout oreven
declined-qu ite the contVary.
Cumparcd wirh RI 1.80million spentby the Administrationon its principai
cnnsrructionactivitii ne1962/I963,the figurehsiairnosiirebledby I966/196:
wlien itstood at R33.17 niillion. In196qi197t0he Administration's activities
reacheda record figureof R4I.68 million,more than one-halfthereof fnr road

ccinstruction.
Currently, buildiiigsta totalvalueof R19.96nlillioriareiinderconsiruction
for theSotithWest Afriçii Administrationalone,thatis ,xcludid negpartments
of theoothergnvernmentalagencies. Inaddition,a numbcr of majorprojectsare
king çrcçted or will & c:orr~rrwnc zdthe near future.'Theseincludcfivcnew
hospitalç at a lotal estimxtcdcost R29.61 niillion.
Furtherniore, andapatt from thc considerilblcconslructionactivities in the
norihesn and oiher horaelands, housing is being proviùcd by focal iirban
authoritiesin thesourh hr the non-White peoples.Thus 846hoüses have becn
builrfor urhanChloured wople duringthc pcriod1967 ior~iid-197at a costof

R2.27 million (includingsingIe quartersfor 350 pcrsons at Lüderitz). Atthe
same iime,R2.03 miIlioriwas spcnt on urhan houses for othernon-Whitcsas
weII as K1.9 niillion for single quariers. In Scptçrnkr 1970, thewere 195
houses for CoIouredsuniler conjtruction,175 thereofatWindhoek;the restai
Swakopmiind.
At present. the -1-erritis beingscrvcd by 150 building and coiistiuction
firnis.33 electricaland I:!plurnbingcontractoras weIlas thefullowing oiher
specialist wntrüçtcrrs: .team installations12; mechanical scrviccs,8; and
heating,ventiiationand :iir-cnndilicini7,.
III196UjI961, u toial il116 iirins in privatecoiistructiunwere recorded as
against 151 sevcnyears IatcrWhereas total eniployment doiiblcd duriny ihe
pcrjod, frorn4,303to 8,:;14,thenurrikr of Whiii: enipiayeedeclinedslighiIy

n~hilerheiiuinberofColoureds alnrostrrcbledandBantuaboutdoubled. 'I'henct
wIue of output rose froinR5 million in 19M)/1961ta RL2.7 niillion in 1967:
19m. VAMIRIA (SOUTH WEST AFRXCA)

107.Leveds of activitiittheforegoing sectoi-s,particulai-lyin tlie Iivestcxik

iiidustry.substtantially aiTeclcommerce.Neverlhelee ss,nsevere sctbacks,
such as drriiightandepidcmics af stock diseases havnot represwd economic
advancc in !;outh West Africa.
'I'hevüst infras!riiçt auraother deveIoprnentprojects iindertakenin the
Territory by theGovernment ofthc Rcpublic of South Africa, have acted as
a powcrful :;tirnulantot only to Construction but alm to Conimerce. Expe-
riencein 1970hasshown again thatthow projtvr and lheirwçondary cFïccts
çonstitutean important economic stabiIizer when iigriculure is ht by crises.
Hencc ciIailailabIeindicespoint to a pei'sisteiitlong-terni ewnorsiic grciwth.
G.D.P .c current priccs increascd at aaverage annuai rate of 10.23pcr

cent. between 1915a3nd 1959.
SriIcsof moior spiritrose froiii 15.8 iiiiliri1964to 24.9 million gallons
iii1958.At present, sale sunat an annuaI raterif29.4 rnilIion gaIIons.
A toral of 7,183 new motor vehicle'were registered in1969 brinçing the
tata1of al[ ;~chicIcsrcyistered ai the elidof 1469to 55,476.
The turnover of the Territory's retaiI tradc csrablishments amountcd to
R55.8 rnillion i1966/1957 a5compared with K40.7 miIIion six yearsearlier
(1960!1951).
Despite the rapid expansion ofthe past fcw years,consume prria? indices
incrcased only moderarely cornpared with soine other African States. Thus
food priccs rosc byonly 15ptr ceni. beiwecn 19ti0and 1968 ascornpnred wilh

an increase of 45 per cent. in Zambia and 237 per cent. in theDernocratic
Republic of the Congo.

XII. itlanilfncruri'g

108. The scopc for manufacturing and prwcssing industries is sevçrely
restrictedby fhree factors. Firstly, the Iimiaggregate local demand from a
small, widely scattercd popuIation; stcondly, thnature and Iimitedsupplies
of IocaIly produwd agriculturaland other raw niatcrisis; and, thirdIy, thc
high costs of transportationpowrei,water and permnnel which,togetlier with

the aforemcntioned factors. render most of the Terrilory's manufactures
uncomwtitive on world rnarkcts. Thcrcforc,thc rnanufiicturingscctor isIargcly
confmed to the processing of perichable products for consumption in the
Territoryaiid in rheRepubIiç, to finishing andirssrniblinnialeriais otitained
from South Africa, or to specializ rcdair and rcIativclsrnaIl-xaIc pruduc-
tion work.
109. The growrh of this sector is IargeIydepzndent iipon developrnentsin
agricuIture, fishingconstructionand, toa lcsxr cxtcnt, rnininy.11buisIittle
prospec of becon~inga leadiiig and growth-prclmotingsector, aIthough low-
cost hydro-eIcctricpoiver ïrom the Cunene scheme could chnge the whole
situation.

Of the 217 industrial establishments recorded in 196711968, no lessthan
100wcrc çunçcrned with the nianufactrireor processingof agricultural, sylvi-
cultural and marine raw products. Thc rcmaindcr was madc up rnostly ua
large diversiiyof sinallestahIishnients ancillary to the need~opopulation.

-
Vide Anncii A. pp. 73-7and Anne?:C, pp. 69-70.[Nef rcprodrrcrf.
ViilAnnrx A, pp.7 1-72aiidtableon p.73,hrinex C,p.64. !Nor rrprodüced.l N'HI-tTEK STATEMEm OF SOUTH AFKICA 779

The developineiitof the~naiiufact~rriigdusrryduring the pcriod 196û/19SI
to I967/1968 gave rise IOa 57 pet-cent. increas cnaggregateemployrnent.
However, C8loitreds, wlioplay a purticularlyimportant rolc as skilled and
scrni-skilledwoikers in ~nanufacturing and cons!ruclion,doubled in nitniber
wliile rheirtotal ç~tlariesawages more than trebled.
ln19Ci7 j968,the8,818 cmployces of a11populationgroups in rrianufacturing
carned a iota1of RK.8 r;iilIionas cornparcdwith R3.7 million earned by al1
eniployees in 1960/1851.The net valueOF output rose byan averageof R2.53
million annualIy, reachingK30.8 million in1967iI968.

XII!.Rnihvay. Rond Trunqurr, Ilurfi~tmidAir Servir:es'
(a)Kailiuayseri:ices

1IO.As n7as statedin Anncx A ', rhe heavily subsidizcdservicesprovided
by the South Af~ican Railways and Harbours constituted a major Factorin
the devclopmcnt of thc Tcrritory'secoiiomy. Vast distances and a very srnalt
population. coupled witIia seriouswalcr shortage and the absence of IocaI
fuel, rcsitin disproportionately high capital invcstmentand financial losses.
Yer, Sriurh West Afri~d1sby Tail-he bestequipped On the Akican continent
in raiandrozd transporrfacilities, rneasuredindistanccrun pcr 10,000inhab

itants.The lalest availablefiguresargiwn in thc tableoit page780.
1II. 'fhe railivsystcïnin South West Africahasthe bertefitof al1 research
conducted bytheSouthtifrican Railways,and a greatmany other wnirali~ed
facilitF iers.nstanc tee,civil andelectrical staff cstahlishmintthe Terri-
tory islimited tothe rniiiirnum nquired forthe ntainltnance and renewal of
equipinent. This ismadi: possible by the Iarge enginocring tsiablishnienrin
the RepubIicof Soiith .Xfrica,expert in fields such as research, harbours,
structural design. bridgi: and pcrnianent way engineering. soi1mechanics,
organizationand mettiorlsand the designand purchasc of cquiprnent.
Technid resourrxs, personnef,eqnipment and storesrtre transferredfrom
the Kepublic to rhc Tcrritoryfor major construcliona1 work. 'I'hesearc

readily avaiIable.as are communicatio en uipment, cIeciricalsu bstation
cquipment, power cables. spares forconstruction and bridgesteelwork and
permanent way materialrcquircdfurordinaiymaintenance and the restaration .
of thewashawayswtiichoccui in the Territury3.
Interçhan~ability of ::raftfetween the two countries is also an important
factor, hause, duc to IoncIinas and other pi-oblems,South West Africa is
a dificult area for Railuay jwrsonnei IO work in. Abiiut 7,700 persons are
employed by the Railways in theTerritnry, andunder the Railways housing
schcrne niore than 2.000 houxs have been purchased and erected for Riijlway
ernployees. The horisebr~ildinprogrammecosts apprvxirnately R550,Oû ûcr
annum.

1.453 miles of railwayIincsuppIernented by a few hundred milcs of loops
and sidings havebeen laid.as cornparcdwith the Republic'slotaltrackinileage
of 19,436 T.hiis, although thSouth West hfricasystem isvery Iarge inreIa-
tion tothe population itservcs,itconstitutes only srnaIIfractian of thc total
network operateciby th; South African Railways and Harbodrs. Irnprove-

{No{Fr~prudttc~d-jdinformationsee Annex -4,pp.79-83, and Annex C, pp.57-59.
Al p. 19. [Kaieprodrrced.]
- For further detailritiAnncx A, pp. 79-83.aridAnnex C. pp. 57-59lNo'or
veprocfuced/ Lengih ofrail-
P,>priiution ways inkm., gev
Corttttry rrtiin,i~rs (inIIl,tt00) IO.OUUofflre
iikiri. pnpufntio~r

SriuthWest ~frici 2,338 63 37.1
Republic or Sriutb
Ai'rIca 19,635 1.746 11.2
Congo (People's Republic) O00 83 9.6
hlauritania Ci75 70 7.5
Angola 2,776 508 5.5
1.iberia 518 104 5.0
hlozarnbique 3.218 687 4.7
Tunisia 2.012 457 4.4
Algria 4.248 1,098 3.9
Sudan 4.479 1,318 3.4
Congo (Denlocratic
Kepublic) 4,479 1,530 3.3
Togo 493 160 3.1
Sencyal 1,035 341) 5.0
Zamhia 1,038 361) 2.9
Sierra Leone 597 220 2.7
Dahomey 579 230 2.5
2.4
Tanganyika 2,351 999 2.4
GuInca 825 342
1-iba 362 156 2.3
Kenyu 2,085 910 2.3
United Arah Republiç 1,780 2,890 1.7
Morooco 2,029 1,296 1.6
IvoryCuitst 558 37.5 1.5
Ugaitda 1,w 137 1.4
Madagascar 863 618 1.4
Mali u45 449 1.4
Ghana 948 754 1.3
Upper Volia 61 5 475 1.3
Malawi 508 390 1.3
Carneroon 517 510 1.O
Nigcria 2,865 5,640 0.5
Ethjopia [:O90 2,220 0.5 i

ments are in hand ai a cost of Ri3.66 inillion of ~hich more [han R 1.88

miIIionwill be spent duringthe 1970!1971financial year.
The liailway Administration is at prcscntgiving consideration tothe inclu-
sion of an item inthç 1971 31972CrtpitaIand BetterinentEstirnatest# provide
for the erection of an acrial CU-axialcabIeover the entirc scct~onof railway
Iinc betweeilDe Aar in the RepuhIic and WindIioek in South West Africü-a
distance of approxiniateiy382 miles-to rehal~ilatc the existing old open-

wire route. Apart from the n~anifuId advantages of a co-axial cablc it will
faciIiratthe installationof automatic telephanes atrailwayoutstations where
nopower isa\*ailablc.The estirnatedcostof the projecwtiIIlx OT the order of
R3 miIlion. . -

' Republic oï South Africa, Dcpartnientor Siatistics; Soiiili AfricanRuilwnis

ontfHurfrnzrrsAnniinCKcporr. IQB8[1969. WRITTEXSTATLMENTOF SOUTIIAFRICA 781

112.Thc upward Irenll orrectnt years in the ewnomy isclearly seen in
therising freightshandled by road, railharbour and airservices,aswelI as
in passenger trairic,asrellectedinthe following table:

Taainage
con vc)cd
!?uns,'

196211963
1953j1964
1964/196S
19651966
19661967
196i11968
196Rf1969
19691970
JuneI1470

Most of the incoinitn rgfic is from South Africa, mainly the 'l'ransvaal,
and consists of consumer goods rnanufacturedin, or obtained frorn, the
narrhern part ofSouth iifrica. Thc rctum load is chicfly liuestock, reqriiring
adifïerenttypeof wagofi. Thus bothtypes of trucksare hauled empty in one
directionover a distance or abolit I,UU(miIes.'l'hisis costlbut inevitaliie.
In the same way ftsh,fruitand rcfrigcrat trocnksareretiimcù empty in ont:
direciion,ttiuadding to .>perrtticosts and thelossesof South African Raii-
waysfrom irsopcratiun in Sourh Wesl Africa. A similac situationexistsin
the conveyance of ores for shiprncnt 8t WüIvisBay, and inthe carriage of
Iivt.sicickfrorrirenioterarmitigareasto the rnetit-cannfactories.
Truck Ioadingsfor the financiayear 196911970amounted to 235,27 6hort
trucks compared with 22:;,52for the previouss'car.
II?. Up to 31 March 1970, ir hadcos{SouthAfricm Railways and Har-
bours Kt07 million tobiiildup irspreseni assetsin South Wst Africa.This
figurewould be much higher ifpast costswcre to be exprcssed al today's

prias. The total spent izicapital works,improvmmt~ and reneivalsup to
March 1970,amounrcd tiiR98.03 million: R61.26 millionwasfor permanent
ways and works, K 17.42rnillinnwas for dicscl lucornotivand RI 3-56milIion
for railway and harbour ins!alIs~tioat Walvis Bay. Rolling stock for pas-
seoger transpurt in the 'Territorywa vaiued at K8.38 million,and goods
vehiclesat K36.80 milIior;.
The systernisrun ata los which, for the period ApriI 1922to Mar& 1970
totalledR63.08 miIIion..%gairnhefigure wouIdbe farIiigher at present-day
prices. Thereasonfor the loss mustbcsought chieflyintheeconomicstructure
and the low population density of the Territors,which involvc Iong hauls
fhroiigh arid, unpruductiverepions.TlieIoss woutd have been much çreatcr
had the sysfem not been integratedwiththat uf theRepublicof Soiirh Africa.

South AFricanRailway:;an3 I-Iarbours (b)Roud rrrinspriservices

114. Rwsd irrrnsport servicesare run at a lnsswhich for the eighi years
cnding 396939/197t0talsR1,599,434. Thcx scrvicesare. Iiawever, essentialto
the wetfareof the peaplcs: pariicularlyintirnesof severe drouçhts, such as
occitrredin 195911960 and during 1970 when the situation was savcd by thc
dailyffuw of foodstuffs brotightbyrhe liailway roiidvehiclesto the stricken
areas.Ovarnbolandis the major bcncficiary.
No fewer than 71 points inland arc scrved weekly hy schedu1cand spocial

trips,and during 1969j1970a total of 3,978,380 vchicle-miIesand 3,735,183
trailer-mileswcre covered. Durjng the sanie period a total or169,575 pas-
sengerswerecarricd, and 313,577 tonsof goods, 88,753 gallons of crcarnand
183,640 uni~s of [ivestock weretransporied. Thc plant in servicecomprises
29 düal-purliosevekicles,13 passcngcr vehicles60 ten-ton gouds vehicIes,16
heavy haulersand 167 irailerbased at I7 depots.

115. South African Railwuys also run theharbour sr 1-üderiizand WaIvis

Hay. 'l'tforirier caonly bcrthçwaster up to 18 fcct draughla,nd is there-
foreof Iiniiiedusc.Walvis IIay has bccornc SoiitliWest Africa'sgatelvay to
the oiirside wortd. Hawcver. this is South African terriiory, anwas ncrcr
part of Gcrman South West Africa,or of the artxi undcr Mandate1. This
rneans thatSouth West Africa's on1y effcciio vetlets hyiril and ship are
throughSouih African tcrritory.
-1'herrcnicndousincrease intraflisince the Srcond World War has neces-
sitatedextensive improvernenrs atWalvis Bay which now has 4,600 ft.of decp
water quays, three tinics ainuch as in 1929 7.There is also a tankcr bcrth
for vmsclsup fo 630 ft.length. Thereare 29 wharl crancs; 5are shortly tobe

replacedhy modernequipnientand 4 additional long-jih wharf çranes are on
order. Therc isoiJer 110,000sq. ft.of flaorspace in covered storagc shcds;
one cargo sb.edisatpicsent being rnoderni7edandrcbuilianda new mechanical
workshop kas been erecred.A inudcrn signal statioii in coiirx of erecrion.
Façiliiies aradequatc forprcsent needs butplanning is in handfor dcvdup-
ments to m~xian~icipatedfuture nczds. Operaiional losheu during the nine
years 1961i1962 to 1969!1970 averaged R?50,000 peraiinum.

(d) AirServ.iccs

116. During the 1969!1870finrinciaIycar 49,383 siandard dass passengers
and 13,065 Skycoach passengtrs were conveyed on the servicesin andfroni
l'neRepuhlic, invdviny a lotal o47,719,521 passengerniiles, aswetlas 885.39
tons of freightand 184.85 tons of mail;and 6.528 passengers, 95.629kilos ot'
frcightand '7.272kilos ofinai1wcre çonveyed on inrcrnatinnalroutes.
The revenuc derivedfronithestandard classservices bct~rocnJohannesburg
and Windhoek during this ~riod arnauntcd lu R2,074,249 as againsiexpen-
diturcof R2,086,53 8<evenilcfrum Skycoach sercicesanioiinredto R500,756
and expcndiiurc lo R9<iS,I)YZrefioctinga IOSSof K494,336 which is absorbcd
by the SoutliAfrican Railrvaysand Harbours.

Tk total capitacnstnf airficïdsamoirntedtO more han R13 million.

Nor. Forthat mattcr, wcrcanumber of islandsoff iheCoast of Sotith Iki
Arric;whjchform an importani centrof the gtiano industry.
DitringIY6Y1197 0,,41,089ions ofcargowere I~andlccompared iviil905,313
tonsin 1Yblj1462. WtlllTEN STATLvfENT OF SOUCH AFRICA

117. Civil adniiriistratofnthedistribulionof storesisdependeni on trans-
port. For thisand other purposes the various administrationhranchcshave a
deet of more Ibn Z,I10 vchiclcsof'varioustypes opcrating in the Territory,
with maintenanccand rewir faciliiiat fullycquippedgaragesat a number of

centres '.

118. trnpressiveadvariceshave becn made in constructing roads, bridgcs
and airfields,despite th+:formidableprobIemsposed by thc Tcrriiory'geo-
graphica1, physicaiand :;eologicalnature, natiiblilslow population densip

and the ievasdistancesbi:iweenrowns and settleinents.
119.Ciood progress is being made towards the abjectivc of connecting
border pointsfrom souih to north and From wcsi io eastby bitumtn roads.
From Oshakati inOvambolandin the north through Griinau in thcsouthtu
Nakoponthe south<asti:rnbordcr,thcrwadhasbeenhitumcniz~rl , ndalso the
roüd from Grunau to llioolsdrifton theOrangc River.From wcst tu east
thraugh thc centralpart of the Terrjtory,ihe roadhas beenbihmenized from
SwakopinundthroughOkahandja and Windhoek to the1.Ci.StrijdoniAirport.
The construcrionof a Iiitumenroad from this airport to Gobabis is to be
compLeted by August 1371.The construçiion and improvernent of roads in

othcr sections of the generalnetworkcontinue without interruption.
Two large bridgesha~e bcen cornplercd. The one ovcr the Swakop River,
2.155 feet inIcng~It,ai Swakopmund was wmpleied during 1969. Anothcr,
1,762rcei iilengthwas çonrtructedokterthe Nossob Ri\*eronrhe main road
close to LoonardviIle.
The following are sotriof the achieverncnisin 1969:

153 nliles of bitiimcrmid carnpIcted:
twenty-one hridgcs as wcll as2 10%-levelbridgcs cunsiructedor improved hy
thc Roads Brancliof the Adminisiralion, as well as a largenumhr of box
cillvertsslabsand ret:iiningivalls;
a total or 13hridges completed by contractors, includingtlie3 largc:br~dges
mentioncdabove and aIso5 road-ovcr-rail bridges:
576 rniIesofgrave1 road constructcdand re-gravetled;

mainienanc oegrcivclrtiadscnrricdout ovcr 18,989niile 3s
'I'hcKcclmafishoop Aci-odromewas conipleted diiring 1969, and SV was the
Karnanjab AirtieId wherc work had starled ofiy at thc brginning of the
year.
120. The foIlowing niajor projectçwere underçonsrructionin kpternkr

IY70:

l'ide ftirther,Anncxpp.65-66.; Nuircpradiiced:
VideAnncxA, pp.83-84, and hnnexC. pp.63-65[ .Nolrcprodirce!.
This comprises774 r.?iles of triink roads, 5miles ofniain roads, 12.283
milesofdistrictrt~aand 209 milesofganicrcstrveroads.784 NAMIDIA (SOUTM WEST AIXICA')

Projrct COSI {Rand) Dare of mnipf~tiuii
1.(a)Du;iIcarriageway:
Wirtdhoek-Kupferberg ' 1,380,733End 1970
ioad
(bj Eros Airpori i
7.Swakopnund-Walvis Bay-Rooikop
road 3,745,982 End 1970
3. Otavi-Grootfuntcin road 2,946.846 First half o1971
4. Ksrnanj:ibKuacana road
(Northein IiornelanQ) 5,538,757Firçt hall of1971
5. {a)On<Lekarcmba40babis road 5,055,82 3nd 1971
(bJ Bridgeson Gobabis road 445,155 Firsthalfof1471
6.Tsuiiieb~GrootfuntcA inu-B?erg
road 3,796,857 Latter half o1971
7.Hardap-Stamprielroad 2,042,723 Firsthallof 197I
8. Windhoek-Kercsroüd 2,581.320 First half of1972
9. Orji\liarcango-Outjo-Pforead 748,492 Recently cnrnpleted
10. (ojOtjiwarongo-Kalkfeldroad 3,20il,(XXLatterhalfof 1972
(bj Brirlgcs 500,000Latterhalf of 1972 .

Toral R31,982,688

A rvad fr3m Keetmanslioop to Belhanie, txpoctcdto cost approximately
R8.3 million (including bridges),and schedulefor completionin 1974,\as
put out on ti:nder in Septembe1970.
121.The i'ollowing projecwcrc in thcplanniiistage:
Projet: Approxirririle Expecred dureof
cos!(Haiiùj coinpierion
I. (a)Kalkfeld-Epakoroad 2,701),0 1974
{b) Bridgeson thisroad 5ai,m0
2. Ornaruru-Damaraland

homelandroad CiIl-wciithcroad) 1.(X,-.IHX) 1974
Total --4.2W7000
The following further projects appcaon the Road Branch's programme:

1. Pfortc-Okaukuejo road
9.Okaukueic-Naniuroniroad
3. Liideritz-Auroad
4. iVcstcr Link Kriad (Preeway)
Komas Ilochland Intcrchangeto
Brakwaitr Inierchangc
5.Flood protfctio norks,
Marienta1
6. Keeimanshoop-Aroa b road
7.Stampriei-Ariinos rriad
8. Aiais-Fish Itiver Canyonroad
9. Windhoek-Keresroad
(fir30 ~nilcs)
1O. Ondaripa-0s hikangoroad
(Ovambdand) 122.The extrcrnevariations in cIiniaticconditions and geological formations
posc considerahle problcms in the construction of roads. Most of the specific
ImI problcms encountered during cansiruction workare dealt with by the
staKof the KoadsBrand~. but whcrc necessarythe assistance of thNational
Tnstitutefor Road Kae;!rch of the South African CounciIfor Scicntifiand
Industrial Rcsearch is entisted.
The following are aFewexarnplcs of iheproblemsencountered:

On thecioastalroadbetwtrenSwakopmund and Walvis Bay, IheprobIem ofsand
encroachent was studied in dctaiiby the National Instiiute forIioad
Rescarch,and after conducting wind tunneI experiments the Inslitute was
able to recornmendco~istructionmethods that rcducc ~heforniation ofsrind
duncs on the newroüd .
On tlie Usakos-S~akoprnundroad. the presenccofgypsumin theroad building
grave[ presentcd seri<lusdiRculties. Stabilizingrhç local grave15 with
ccrntnt was technically unsatisfiictoryand alsotoo costly. By hlending
various soiIs found cm the works, the gypsiim content eventually was
redutkd tn a tolcrablcmargin.

In Ovaniboland,the non.-availabilityof gravcl posedmajor problcni.Spxial
techniques including iierial photograph yn prospecting for thcvery fml
grave1 deposits had tu be employed. Eventually, material wsere hauled
over long distalies afi.it had bccii cstablished that bitumenstabiIization
of local sands wouldbe too costly.
. Most of the profesional and technicalmanpowcr needed inconjunction
with thcstprojectsmus1 bcdrawnfrom the Rcpublicof South Africa whiIethc

aid of research orgmi7î.tions in iheRepublic is pfayinga crucial rvletoo.
Progress ishowever bcin,gmade in training local persans to pa moreactive
roIe inroad constructioc.
This is particuIar1ythe case in the northern territories inhabitcby -the
indigenous populationgroups. Th* training isconcentratcd on the operatio' of
modern cornp1exniachinesand work in suwcy tearns.
123. The Tcrritory's i:conorny is benefiting inmanyways from the vast
improvements madc to the roads system durjng the past fcw years. TravelIing
tirncsandaboveal1niain~enance wsts for vchicieçhavheen reduceddrastically.

124.As the Post Ofict. rendcrsessentiscrviceto alt papulation groups, its

revenue figurcs mn servtas a reasonablyreIiabbstandard for measuringthe
ratc of the Territory'sdevclopmentiind the progras of its peopies.The rcvenlie
erirnedby thePost Ofticein South West Africaincreawd from R65,01 5n 1920
io R4,I26,45 i2n1969119-70E.vennow, whentelephone fwilities are availahie in
airnosieverypart of thFastTerritory, iis noeasy taskto keep ahreastof the
ever-jncreasing demand!i> te~ecommunication services.
125. The vaiuc of telephone, teiegrapii and radio instaIlotions in South
West Afriça amounted ttR24,044,1 on031March1970. Tfthevalueof buiId-
ings and other eqiiipmi:nt were added the amount would bc cunsiderabIy
higher. Postal and tclcc.~mmlrnicdtion buildjnçs at a tutal estimaCOSI of
R2 million were in the course of construction inthe second half of 1970-
'I'heparticularol capiraiexpendituse on the development and renewal of
telecornmunications during thIastthreeyears are a?follorvs:

Yi& Annex A. pp.84-35,andAnnexC, pp.60-53fillnt reproduced.]780 N931IRIA (SOUTH WESTAFRICA)
19-57/19681968jlP69 1969jf970
A R R
578.757 82 1.867
Trunk liiies 564,353
Farrnlines 434,748 504.088 421,512
Cabres 200,563 350,701 297,201
Carrierinstallations 454:I38 465,546 594,808
Exchangeconnections 176,417 285.457 352,143
Switchboardiand exchanges 393.020 005,833 ,805,185
Telegraph services 159.496 159,576 217,[90
Radio servicss 67,636 99,575 7732 1
'1-oolsandetjuipment 62.218 96,201 78,216
Trqnsport - - 179,325

Total 2,517,089 3,133[3,744 7,840,368
--

126. Mail iscrinveyedthroughoutthe Territorand fronitheTerritoryto the
Republic by rail,road and air. Inlcmal airmail isconvcycd by Suidwcs-
Liigdiens andair-mailtotticRepubli by South Africa Aiiways.?'heexpendi-
turean convcyance amounted toK31 1.813ditringthetimcial year I968/1969.
In IY69JlY70allogether2,7I3,372 parmls and rcgistcrcù articlcs wcrc handlcd.
Therc are at prcsent 32,127 telephone connections in SouthWest Africa
compared with 22,!H#) fiyears ago. This rtprewnts an incwüseof approxi-
niately30 percent.and is an indicationofrherapidgrorvthafcommiinication
faciIitics.
In August 1970 seven autornalic exchangs and 55 manual exchangesrvere
iiiopcration.
Renlers of telephone comectians iiitowns made 23,500,0I0 O0=[ calls
during thepast yerir,whileanothtr 2,500,000 IoçIallosriginatedfrom farm-

line telephona.
Thenumber of truiikcalsincreaçed from 2,800,0 i01964 to 4,414,032iii
gfi9r9x1.
Physicallrunk routcs now installedin SouthWest Africa totalI1,go O iles
and carriercircuitsinstalled76.565rriiIescornparcd with 8,500milesof physical
trtinkçand 38,600 miles of carrier circsixyears ago.
The followingradiostationsexistinSouth West Africa at present:

Postcifficcsiatioii................. 13
Very Iiigfhequency s~aticins............. 440
Privaie fixestatiun................. 149
Privalc mobilestation................ 713
Shipstations ..................... 179
Airc~iftstations.................... 88
Arnatcurstations .................. h2

Thc vastncsof the Tertarynecessitateihc extensiv~isof motor transport.
The PostOfficeowns a flccof tvcll ov300 vehicles,ranginfrom Iighlsedans
to ren-ton trucks.Many of the hertviety~s art. equippedwith cranes and
other mechanical aidsto facjtatcthe haiidli ofngeavy equipment.
During the financiaycür 1969i197t)atotalmiIeage ocif2,872,51miks was
covered;and transport costs.includingdeprccialia on,ounted toR442,277
in 1969cornpared withR280,469rhc previousyear. --
Ns11niwrof
re!ephonrs
per i,W

SoirthWest Aîrica
: Kepuhliç of Souih

Africa
SpanishNorth Africa
Rbiinion
Rhodcsia
Mau~itius
Libya
TrinIsIn
AIgeria
i Zarnbia
, United Arab Republic
Swaziland
Morocco
1 Congo (Brazzaville)
1 Gabon
' Senega t
Kenya
lvory Coast
Botswana
, Angola

Madagasciir
1.ihriaa

Ugunda
Moratnbiquc
Sudan
PortugiieseGuinea
Sierral.tt>nç
Malawi
Tanzania
Lesotho
Centra1 ~ZtricanHcpublic
Dahomcy
Somali
Guinca
'I'ogu
Mali
Ethiupia
Coiigo (Dem. Kep.)
Nigeria
Chad
Burundi
Cameroon
Niger
Upper Volta
Rwanda
-

United Nations. Sioti:;rirYenr Book 1969, p. 464, and Repiiblicof Sourh
Africa, Department of Stalislics.788 KAMIBW (SOL I-H WES-~.AFKI<X)

127.South Wcsl Africü'rvas! expanse? and itssparse population divided
amorig sinallcornmunitieçup ta 150milesapart,pose unusuaiproblemsin thc
construction. installalioand maintenance of telecommunicati~ns. These are

king tackled with great ingenuity bythe PostOfficeengineers and theiraides,
th~ teIecomn-.unicatiunteckriiciansand telcphonc mcchanics.The lask of this
goup oioffir:ersi10 provide and maintai ansefficientlyand ccononiicaI1y as
pmsible a rnodcrn oornniunications network betweenal1 comniuiiitiesin eilery
part ot the country, noinalter howrcrnotc,and. riwilIappear fromihc Follow-
ing tables,this nctwork compares favourably witfi those dsewhere inAfrica.
(See table on p.787 andIielow.)

MAIL TRATFIC,1968 '

irrnisent ur
Contitri- received, dunrus- Pupulu!ion
I tic and forei~n 1"
(inr:ouoJ

SoiithWest Africa
RepiiblicofSouth
Africa
Ghana
Zam bia
Gabon
Lihya
Mauritius
Swaziland
Tunisiu
Madagascar
Ivory Coast
United Arüb Repuhlic
Alneria
a go la
Malawi
M<irmct>
Moram bique
Liberia
Nigcria
Niger
Rwanda
Btrrundi

XYII. Econoriiic Adx~atrcetnenlfthe hidigcwous Pcupies ufXoirrh Wesl Africa

118.The i;rowth of cducational faciltiesand the raisins of eduçational
standards arc having a profound influenceon thewonorny. Of special signifi-
cance in the present coritexlis the trcmendousprobg-essmongsttheindigenous

'Republic of South Africa,Department of Staristics: and Unired Nations,
S!rilisriYCCV Book 1969,pp.453-454.
TIie figuresçciverlcttcrs(airrna~ordinary and registertd mait), postcards,
printed inatier, merchanùisc samplcsmall packcrsand phonopostpackets. They
indiide maicarriedwithout chargc, bucxclüdc ordiiiaryparcclsandinsuredlerters
and boxrs.
VideAnnzx A, pp.89-10: A,nnex C,pp. 70-76. jAro'orleprodwjed. WKI TTENSTATEMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA 789
population groups in rcccnt ycars. Their former laçk oî interest in modern

educarion tcndcd:doconfine ihem largelg to taqknot dernanding a high level
ofskitandprolongeùictining. Rtitthe picture is rapidlyclianging,particuIarIy
because of the jncreaseil ux of the vocational trainifacilirieprovided ai
WjndRmk iind riOngtiediva in Ovamboiand, the rising dcrnandIor skilled
irtanpawer in the homelands and the numerousopliortunitics for in-service-
training created hythe prowthof the Territoryeconorny.
129. In the urban an:a of Walvis Bay the aipcrufe wagw: and allowances
(includjng knefitinkind)of members of theindigcnousgroups are asfollorvs:

CIerks ....... ......... K58 pcrrnonth
Municipalworkers:
............ RIO4 per nionth
clcrksand ~lsliiers.
lorrydrivers.... ............ K75 permonth
nlaintcnanceartisans ............ R88 permonth
nurses. ...... ............ K88 pcrmonth
caretakeis..... ............ R89 permonth
ordinarylabourers . ............ R48 per manth
Iabourersin indusiry . ............ K72 per month
Labourersin conimxcc ............ R74 permonth

As noted inAnnex C ', ;iever-increasingiiumber of workcr srom the in-
digenoiis groups are av~ilingthemselv~sof the opportunities for gasiinfuleni-
ploymcnt ad, in resporisto econornic incentivm,improving iheir qualifica-

tions and performaricc'.Thus,a wide dillcfiitofskilledor semi-skilledwork
IS at present being carried outby thcm. For instance,OF#,672 indigcnoiis
ernployccs in1970 in thcpublic sector,mining, industryand coninrerce,4,222
were skilled workcrs(inr:ludina ntimber of cIerks;10,683were semi-skilled;
and 31.767 were unskilli:d.Tu thcsc siiuuld beadded about24,000 farm em-
ployccs and 4,800 domestic servants, ol ivhnm virtuallyulIthe latter and a
large proportionof [heIOrrner can beregarde adssemi-skilied.
The wages of worker:;from thc indigenous nations in South West Africa
cornparcfavourably wirh, and in niany casm are considerably highcr than,
n7agesinotherAfriçancountries. This ispar~icuIarltrueofumkilledIabnurcn,
who rornithe bulkof wagc ccarncrsinAfrica.Apartfrom wages,thc:immediate
supplementarybcnctits of employinent in the ntodernscctor ofthe econorny
are obvious and important: better housing, fwd and clothing; irnyroved
health; a generalIyhighcrstandard of livinganda more secure existcncc.
130. As was pointed out in Aiinex A '.these arealso lcss tangibleresults
which rnarkedly infuencc thcworker's riioivüiion,habitsaptitudes,and out-

Iook on Iifegenerallyat~dso have a profound effecton the rate and thc direc-
tion of furthcrcconorni~ andsocialdewlopnient. Itis in this cliniaieanfin-
crkasingly enlightened~lndcrstandingthat thc Soulh Afrian Government is
introducifnig~rihermeasures to prornote materialand niorat well-being.In
uiewd the grcai divcrsiiyand thewidelydiffering stagesof dcvtlopment tobe
found aiiiongst the indigenous poples, suchmcasures are corrcspondingiy
diverseand flexible.
As has bccnshowri ahve, interrnsof the policy of sclf-determinationfor
every population group, more elTeclive and maningful poliical machincry

1 Ar p. 71.j,%i rcprud&cccl.j
At p.93.fNot rrprodltced.] WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SOCM AFKICA 791

A capital iilvesimentby the Corporatiun of RI8.2 inillioii duriny the nexr
fiveytars is called forhy this dcvcIoprnentprogramme. The amount of R18.2
million prcsuppoxs theiirrvestrnentof a furthcr R36 miIlion in reswct of infra-
structure (=rater, power, roiids,housing, etc.) ivhichariiifact bcing plannvd
aiid in~plemented by variriiisgoveinmenral agencies.
As pointcd oui in An~icx L ',there arx,ot prcxnt, about I,500 Ovamtio
traders who own rural s:ores, and. who çan receive advice about consumer
1-equircments,purchases, :;rockcontrols, calculalion ofçosts,saIestechniques,
srore management, ctc. C:oursesin cornmcrcc are a150offered whiçh are at-

tcndcd by us rnanqa's200 to 300Ovambo traders at aiirrte.
The Biiilding Deparlmcnt of rhe Corporation isar prescrit constructing
biiildingsro the value of K4.5 million. Thcse buiidings coniprise fat;toryand
comtiierciat prcmises, oiIiccbl~cks, housing for personnel, ctc.Cinvernrncnt
buiIdiiigssuch as schooIs, hostels, clinics, hospiraofficas,housing, sewerage
installations,etc., are alsciundcrtakenunder crintract.IIis estimared thai the
Corporation will be mga!pd in the construction of buildings to the rdue of
approximatel y Kh million towards the end of 1970.Construction works offer
opporttinitieçfor in-servi,x training in a largevarie& of tradcs. En~ployees

are trained to hecome inüsnns. plastercrs, çarpcnters, plurnbers, painters,
cluciricians. etc. Whenthi:yreach the necessary degree of proficiencythey are
organized intO sib-contrat:tor groups. Thesgroups areihrn givensukonlracts
in the building works of thc Corporation and opçratc for their own account
under the guidance of tk,eCorporation. Tf ilecessary, they arealso assisted
frmncially.
The Corporation's buiIrIingactivitiesrriakcit possiblc for the citixns of thc
homelands 10 participate in the physical development of their own countries
and in sodoing. lo carn 2.livingand irnprove theirslandard of living.

These operations hcjp IO rciain incorne and profitsfruni biiiIdingactivitirs
in itw homekanrlsin which they hve becn earntd. 'Theycreate a market for
the produçts of homeland manufacturingventtires suçh as wood prrxlesqing
Factories,light steel inductries, brickworksctc. 'I'hebuilding industryin thc
Sorith West Africa homel;.ndsdoes, iifact, stiinulathon~eland rrianuFücturing
industries inmany ways.
Sincethe Corporation zomrnenced building opcratians in 1965, its labour
forcc in the building department hasgi'own steadily to the preçent Ievel of
I,314 indigenousworkers of whoni 3ûûhave reaçheda fairdcgree of proficiency

in various trades.According to mcnt. thcsc tradesmen earn from 70 ccnts 10
R1 pcr hoiir.
A nurnbcr of mcchanical wrk-shops and petrol fitling stations arc king
operaledby theCorporation ivhich provide valuabIetraining opportunitics in
thc mcchnimI Iield. Furtlierrrtoi-etlie Corporatiori's wIioIesaleestablishments
and distribution dcpots arc playing a significant roIe in the development of
soiind retailshops. The arinuaf turnovcr of thew whrilesaleconcerns hashn
risingat an average iinnii;:rateof R0.5 iiiillioover the past few ytars.
Retail businesses are rtin by the Ccirporariononly whcre the community

mncerned is not satisfact~3rilyservcd by cxisting ventures. Where retail busi-
nessts areoperated, intensibtein-servict1-ainingis providedinorder to preparc
entreprcneiirsto takc o~r. the business inwhich they are cmpIoycd.
l'he Corporation is dcvcloping a bunking and ~nsuranccorganization whichwentually ihiirendera cornplete banking and financialservic oe,ned by the
inhabitants ofthehurrie[ands.
The wood-processing fiictory atOshakatiin Ovarnbolandproduces a Large
variery of furnitüre and building requirements. richno1 desks and benches,

cifi, furniiurc,bcdsteads, tablesand mmponenis for prcfabrimtcd hoirscs
are some orthe majorIines.

TOTAL EXPLFI-DUHE UN UC>Al>SAND AIRFORTS
IF; HDMEI.AXI)AS AT 31 MAFLCH 1970

Bushnianland ................ 664.283
Daniaialand ................. 519,226
Nainaland.. ................ I.943,208
Kavangoland. ................ 818,072
Ovamboland ................. 8.850,128
Rehoboth Gcbiet ............... 434.386

Cindangwa ................. I,351,545
Ruacana. .................. 540,896
Rundu ................... 489.149
Tsumkwe .................. 111,839
KatimaMulilo ................ 775,015

Sub-total. ... R3,268,44

132. InAnnex C itwas dernonstrated that une of the niijor problems of
South West Africa isthe scarcity of wateratid the sparseness,irregularityand,
thercfore,the iinelTectii'enessf rainhll. Huwcver. inycnuity.cfrortand rnoney
havebcen injcctcd into watcrdevelopment to such an extcntthat altho~igh the
total assurcd yield of both surfaceand lincierground resources is ertirnated
ai numorc than 500 million cubic rnetrcs pcr annum, samc 330 million cubic

metres (or 66Fr cento .fthe avaiiableassured suppIy) is alreadybeing utilized
ta supply water for hurnan, anima1 and indiistrialconsumpiion and, on a
Iimitcdscaie, alsu tu supply watcr for irrigation*.Thcsc schcrncs hiivc ken
expensive 'etconstruct and operate, as isevidened bythe fact thatin order to

' Vid~,Atmex A, pp.77-78 anriAnnex C, pp.768 1.[h'o~r~produced.j
The mean annualrun-offof the iniernul riverofSouth Wesr Africa esclusivc
of thcnorrhcrn rivcrs icstimated at1,500 niillion cubic merrof watcr a ycar.Of
this,sorti7.50milliun cubicmctrcs or 16.7 percenr.of thc avaitablcrcsoiirces art:
currenrlyhçing utilizrd thc variaussuppjy systcmsof thc country.'Theflow ufthe
infernul rivcrin SoulIi West Afri~d is so irrcqular, oftking iimiiedIo 0nll:n
shortstrctclof the riverand evapurütionfrom riverberisand atoragedains so high,
ihat assurningsforagccan bc provided econoniiçnlly, it is likely 110more than
350millirincubic metrescan bc ob~aioedannually cina rerisonabllonftterm kasis. WRITl EN STA~l~thli#OFSOUTH AFRTCA 793

achieve eeventhisIevelof rfevelopment ithaq been necesary toexpend a rota1
ofno lcss [han R8l million OFgovernmenl funds ovcr a pcriod of 20 ycars as
indicated in thetabte hert:un&r.This expenditure isexcIusiveor expenditure
by localauthoritiesand privat eneterprisewhichmay wellbe of thesame order
ofniagnitudc.

AYXUAL E:;PE.UDII'LUN IVATEK UEYbWPMEXT '
tln Rand)

133.Waler deveioprnent ro date kas gentrally bcen in theform of stipply
schemcs which by their veiynaiurc notonly rcquire relatively high uncapilal
iiivestinents butin addiiion entail ansiderahle effort in the investigation,
planning, design ünd çonsïrticrionthereof.As of 1970 thcrc werenoless than
177 domestic water supply schcrncs wnstructed and operated hy the Stale
throughou he Territory,.;ripplyingwaterto towns. iillagesmissioristations,
country schools and community centres. centraIizedçattlewarering poinisand
hospiials. Thcsc xhcrncs do not. incIudc thvast numbers of borchoIcs which
are equippew dith handpii~nps,windmills and power-heads to supply iater

for hiintansaridcattltin c.utlyingrireabiitwhich, becauseof their simple in-
stbilliitions,arc not rcgularIy serviceciand maintaincd by thc central Setvice
andMaintenance Group attachcd tutheDepartment of Water Affairs.
tnorder to giveMme idraof the magnitude of the taskof water suppiy from
theabove-trientioned177 >chmes the numkrs in various ca~tiiegoasrelisted
in the following table:

Kepublicof SouthATric:iDepartmentof Water Affairs. CLASSIFICATlD01'WATER SUPPLY SCFIEMES ACCORDIYCI TOSUPPLY CAPAClTY INCUBIC MEi'KW:
FER ANFUM
A tJ a )a
- ,dN-PN-JP- p.+
5:= 030 8 'o.ZO8-8 3-3 â5.E sô$ $ôg Oz"*
8- g O, 'ras- yg -g o c c c cr
1.: 3 gogc %2
Municipalities 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3
VilIagemanage-
nientboards 5 5 3 2
Mines I t 1
Touristcarnps 2 7 1
Ruralareas 12 11 2
Homeland
areas 56 49 6
TotaI 10 73 15 4 5 2 3 2 3

Thetotalcapacitofthe 177schernesarnounts 34U00,W.Mmi.
Srlurce: Repubtic of South AfDeportincntof WaterAKairs.

In spitc of rhe magnitudof ihe taskas indicated by the sratistquoted.

ithas always ken oficialpolicy tasupply wütcr to consumers for prirnary
purposes,i.e., fodrinkitig, cooking aiid essentiaf heafservices,athiglily
siibsidizerates.Whereas mcmbers of the White grotip are exwcted to pay
asmuch as34cenis percubicrnefrein theurban arcasin thcsouth, non-Whitcs
enjoy consurnptionof waterfor domestic use freeof charge in althe home-
land ss wcllas in mostothcrareas.WhcrecattIe-wateringpoints are serviced,
the costofthe servicisdefrayed frorn officia1funds.
134. For severalyearsnew econoiiiic deveIo~inientsaiid the raincreüsc
inpopulat~on have cornbincdto changc thcpatiern ofthe country'seconornic
lireOne effecof thischange hasken a cornpound influence on water dcniand.
Nvt only is incccssav tu proviùc foran incrcaxd wuter demand because of
an overallincreasedstandardof livingbut inaddition ivatcrequire~nentsTor

mining. indtisrry,recreatiand nther useswhich cannot he regarded as
tu hunian cxistcncc, butncvcrthclcssapart iindparcelor econoniicdertelop-
ment. iiowcumpeierviih primarywaterdeinan&,
The= additional denlands have bccome w insislentthal schernessuch as
that whichwas intended to supplyWindhoek withadcquatc waler forat least
15 yeais. is known-veii beforiiiiscomrnissioned-to be inüdeq~iate-tmect
futiiredemands for mure than 10 ycars ar Ihe mosr. Schen~eswhich anly
5 years agwere considered adequateforat least IyearsarcaIrcaJysupplying
water ati~iaxirnuriesignedcapacity and inore.
Throiighout the Terrjiory,growth rates and consequent increase in ~hc
dcmand for water are continuallyexceeding cvcn thc mvst liberaipredictions.
It isagainst thbackground that tliefollowiiigprojectioiswater deniand

have ben :jet iikaring in mind that even thejejudging bypaqt expericncc,
arclikclyto be highIyconservative.
During recent investigationsit=,as foüiid rhat developmenialaclivityin
South WestAfrica is likelytoaccderate sothat thepopulation wiIlgrow and
wrrterdeniands wilI incrcasc morcor Icss in acxurdancl:withthefigu~s set
downin the tableI>elow. WRITI'ES STjA'I-F.MFOF SOUTH AFRICA 795

ESTIMATED Whi'ER REUCIKEHkbIS FUR SOLTH WESI. Ab-KICA'
{in milliocubic metres perannum)

.-
Population al1groups
Consumption (including
consumpiicin forindustriaand
mining development pirrposes)
Large-s~ockunits
Consumption
SrnaIl-stockuniis
Consumption
Irrigatcdarcain hcctarc~
Consumption
l'citiil crinsumpticin

~roni this tablil içIe2.rtkatthe peoples of SouthWest Africa will requirt:
water frnmthe northernriversin thc vcp netrr futurcAs shown in AnnehC2
an agreement wa concluded iriJanuary 1969 hetween theGovernrnents of
Portugal and South Afric;:,for thebenefit ofthe Terriiory, iniermsof which
South Africa has beengr;inted !ite rightto absiracl as a frrstphase up to 6
curnecsof waterfrornthe Kunene River at Caluequein Angola. and totake
rhiswarcr across the border into Soiith West Afriqa. The construction of a
pumping schemeanda carialIO rhchrdcr, as wcll as an intcrinpowcr slation

at tIiRuauna Falls, iit aiotacost of some K6niillionis atpresent under ivay.
These funds are king providedentirely by SoiirhAfrica. II is hoped Ihatdis-
cussions can beconiinucd :riween theGovernmen tsof SciuthAfricaand ncigh-
bouring countriaronthe uie,formiiiual bencfiiof !hewaters of theOkavango
and Kwando Riveis inwhich the Kavango, Caprivi, Hcrcro and Bushman
peopIesIiave a special interesi.
Howcvcr, thc probïeni offinancelooniç large in al! projectsto wrry water
froni distant naiuraloccurrenc tethe areaswhereit isnccdcd.

The average cçosof capitalivorks ta supptyan assured flow of an additional
onc cubic mctre of water a yearin buIk(exclusivt:ordistribiition coststocon-
suiners in South West Afi.ica isof the orkr of R2 at 1970 priccs.This unit
cos1 is conxrvative wilh ~:gard to futurescherneshecause the bettcrschernes
have alrcady bccn fuII ycvclopcd and in addition iiisincreasinglyneccssary
to drawwatei froniniore i-emotcsoiircesof suppiy.
In additionIO thecos[ cf sirppiv, the cmz omajor disrrihitriosystems adds
a furthcr RI to the co~t ofthe wwaterwhenused for general purposes such as

domest ic,inunicipal,miniiig,industrialand stockwaterjny purposes.
A furtherconsideration isthe cansumption of xwatcfror irriyali uone.At
present. very IittIcof thrvatcr availabtein South West Africa can besparcd
for irrigation.Once water becornes avaiiable from the norttiernrivers,h~w-
ever, the economics of moving large quantitiesof water bccornc attractive
qiiite upiirfrom thc fact tliat tproduciion of lood andfodder cropswill b~
then also assume greatei.iiiiportance.
Froni an analysis orth<;ços~ of providing water-for irrigation throughthe
VandcrkIoof Schenie inthe Kepublic of South Africa as wel1as the Hardap

Repuhlic ofSouth Al'rica. Departn~eof Water Afairs.
At p. 79. [h'oi reproriiinidjScheme in South West Africa, and taking into consideration the Territory's
physical na:.ureit wouid mm that the wst of distributingwatcr fur irrigation
wilI beof tlieordcr of R5,000 Fr hectare.
135.The capital cost of providing the additirinalwaterwhich is eslimted
tu be requircdin South West Africa by the year 2000 will be about K2,667
million as indicated inthe tüblc hcrcundcr. No aIlowance has been madein

these cosisfor operationand maiiitenaiice of thc vürioiisschcmes.

CAPITAL CWSTOf YKOVlnING WATER TO SOWff WEST AFRlCh TO TtiEYEAR 2000 '

~uuniiry CIoiPirpply 1 Turai cupir~i
WUIPT une tn' COS!
million m' Rund mifiionR

Water Cor domcstic,
municipal,mining,
industrialand stock-
watering purposes 389 3 1,167
Waler [or irrigation 2,500 0.40 1.O00
2,167
Total
Area-Itec- Ruiepcr hcc-
tarer tore !Rand)

Capitalcost ofdis-
tributionof irrigation
water I00.000 5.UUV $00
Grand t<itrcost 2,667

136. 'I'hmagnitude of the task ofproridingwaterto the 'lèrritory and its
peopIes.is fullyapprecicintebdythe SouthAfrican Guvernrnent,and theS~outh
West Africa Branch of the Department of Warer Affairs kasma& spccial
effortstriproduce water supply plans furthe various homeland areas inSouth
W-estAfrica.The firsoftheseplans-that forOvamboland-has ken accepted
by the Governmcnt and 0th~~. arc in varioiis stages of preparation. The
estimared casts of rhe plansfor the folIo\vinarcas are as follows:

.... R6O miIIion
Ovatnbutand . .
Hcrcrolünd ... .... R Il0 million
ilamaraland ... .... KIoOrniIIion
Kaokoland ... .... R90 niiIIion
Ka\.ango .... .... R50 million
Bushmanland . . .... K35 million
RehobothGebiet . .... RB0 million
Namaland. ... ... RN million

Totiil , . . R565 million

137. In the present context, itisrelevant io consider a few furthei factors
relatcd tu thc financialaspccts ofthc task. Expenditurcduring the next ten

Rcpublicof South Africa, DcpartmcntofWater Affairs. WKI-?EN STATEMEKTOF SOUTH Ai-KICA 797

years can be expected to yrow from the current 1120 million perannum to
aroundR30 miIlionptraiinurnin 1935and to abut R42 millionperannurnin
1980.For purposesof corriparisonit may bcmcnrioned that the budgetnf the
Food and Agriculture Oiganizritionof the United Nations in respect of the
years 196610 1969wasabriut K42.5 {niIIio($59.8 rr~iIliunwhereasloansand
creditsgrantedby the WoAd Bank{LBRD) and theInternationalDevelopmen~
Agency (IDA) for waterand scwcragcschern~ thrnughoutthe ivorldtoraIied
R40.19tnillion($56.6 r0iillion)inrespeof196711968and1968Jl969 ttogchcrZ.
In the year 1968!1969,the two orgmizations jointly grantcd R45.77 miIIion
(Sa.40 miIIion)to the rvhACof Africain respect oagriculturaprojects".For

Lhepreviouspar, the wrrtsponding figure\vasR10.81miIIion (fI5.20tnilIion)+.
The above estimates are based on what rnight be cxpected in the moral
courseof development in SouthWest Africa. Experience has sholvn, however,
thatwaier derriandasrecontinually"yushing"waier suppIicsandthe çstirnatcs
may thusbe conservative.
Furthermore, the vast sums nceded for water development, represent a
socialrathcr than iincconomic investrnentIn other words, the prospcctivc
returnson the capitalareminimal and rhcscschernes would probably not be
consideredby banking or other commerciallyorientatedinstitutions.
138. A mastcr ivatcrplln for thevarious rcgions ofSouth West Arricais
currentlyintheprocess ofevolutionwith theobject ofensuriiithattheorferaIl

cost inmoney. labourand. equipmenrof deveIopingwarerresuurm wiIlyield
thc optirnunisocio-cconolnichnefits to thc pwplcs of Sourh Wcst Africa.
As plans stand for the ppttscntthe main suppIy scheinesalonc will involr~e
severalpipelines of upwards of onrnetreindiameterand well over 1,20I km.
inIcngth, with thenecessziry pumpingstations to lift the watagainstslatic
heads of up to 1,500rnetre snly tlie availahiliofample power wilt bring
theserequirementsinto th: realms OFpossibility. Only ihus wiit hepossible
10ensurc thüt ccomonic deveIoprnent,inparticularthat of thc i~ornetands,s
achieve ed cientIyefîecti-tclyand expeditiously.

139.As was shown in knnex C, the relativeIyhigh costofeIcctri~aIpower
in Souih West Africa is ailinhibitingracler in the ccunomic developiiientof
the Territor W ?iilecoat-fircdthermal po\i7erstations, which arerelntively
long-lived,arecompararivclycheap sourcesofpower incountriesweIIendowed
witlicoaldcposi tsthisadv-întngeiinuienjoycd in thcTcrritory,whichimports
itscoal rcquireinentsfrom the Rcpiiblicof Sourh Africa, involvingahatil of
somc 1*3# miles to Windtimk. Other power generatingsystems vpcrating on
petroleurrifuclsarc ncoes:;arily expensivio run but arc the only pmctical
alternativeswhere the dctnsndisrelativelysrnaIl.Atpresent,locaI atithorities

and mostlarge consitmer:suchas mjnes, have to provide theeirown powcr.
140. As was aboshown inAmex C.ncl~otiationshavc kcn condiicted witli
the Goveriiment of PoriugI to develop the hydro-potentialof the Cunene
River asa sourceof power ForSouth WestAfrica.These negoliatbns havc ct11-

Wl~itiukerAltiiunuc 197,. 813.
Intcriiational Biink îorKcconsiruction and Development, InterBevelop-
ment Association, Annual Report1968,p.9 and 1969p. 1I.
TRRD, AnnuaIReport iS'G9..IO.
Vide Anncx A. pp78-79,and Anncn C, pp81-83. [:Vorepundttced.iminatcd in ihe finaAgreement ofJanuary 1969which furmiilatesthe basio sn
whichthe hyd1.o-potcntiü lt the Rilacana hlIs be devetopedin a firsphase.
Thc Governnienthascalled iipon the lndustrialDcveloprrienlCorporation
of Sourh Africa Lirnitcd, a sltrtuiorybodyexperjencedin heipingto bringnew
indusiriesinto viabteexistencetoundertakethefinancing of aprivateconlpany
fomcd in Soutli Wesl Afriw under the title of "South Wcst Africa Watcr
and Electricy Corporation (Pty.) Liniited" (SWAWEK), with the object of
cxploitingas far aspractiable thcpower and tiiherpotentialsof the Cunene
Kiver. TI was initially intendeto prooeed imrnediatcIy with thc cstübljsh-

nient of a !.~ydro-clcctri power stu~ion the Crunene.In addition a pumping
siaiion buili on the river bank wmoiimdake possible the abstracrionof warer
from the <:unene Rivet' for the henefit of tpcoplcs of SouthWesiAfrica.
Since th*:jointplan for iheIirstphase develcipment of the resourcesof the
CuneneRiver Basiii in terms ofrhc Agreement belween Portugal and South
Africa çould not be implernentedin tiine torncct rhc yrvwing demand for
power, as ircsultof thtrapid growttiintfieterritory'economy, itwas decided
Io build a therina1power station wirh a çapacity of 90 niW. atWindhoek.
This inirialscheineis expected ta bein operation by mid-1972and wilI be
followed thrcc or four ycars lu~erby the firststage of the proposed hydro-

electricscheme at Kuacana on theCunencRiver, now planned to a capacity
of 160mW., feeding in10the sanie basic transmission systcm prcscntIyin the
courseof construction.
According to the latest estilnates, the 9mW. thermalpower station now
underconstructionar Windhoekwill cost in exms of R20 miIlion and if thc
firststage ofthe transrnixxiongrid,cstirnciied Icost over R16,500,000,and
staff housing.are included.thecost of SWAWISK'sfirst majorpowergenerat-
ing projecl.io be cornpletedin 1977,wiil beof theorder of K38 million. Thc
exwndiiuir involved in extcnsjons to the transmissionsystem, which already
appear necessary,and of furtlierhousing, \\;il[bring the total mst of this 90
mW. system,cxtcnding over 625 route miles(1 km), to snme K40 million
hy rhe mjddle of 1973.

Accordiiig to estiiiiatehaed on prcsent-dayprices. the Iirsphasedevelop-
ment ofthe power potenrialofthe Cilnene Kiver in respectof whichpfünning
is already far advanced. caIIsfor thc foIlowirigrevisedcapital expenditurc:
i. Firsi strige invoivgenerntiuiioj'160 tnW.. prurisiunrilljiiatttiJor rom-
piriion Iiy 1375
R
DamatGovc ...................... 8,125,000

Ilan1at C;rIueque. .................... 5,350,000
Hydro-powerstation ai Riiawna ........,..... 3 [,600,000
Transmission system iyinpin with
thatbasedonthethcrmals~at ....n....... 10,200,000
Sub-total. . , 55,275,000

i1. Seco~rrind thid .rtagcr,iini-oi~irrcreasificriernfifrupudly ?O320tn W.
(10be catnple~rdb.v1983
Furthcr rcgu1:itiondam .................. 6,WO,IHW)
Extensions to powerstation aiRuacana ........... 4,800.000
Extensior% to rransrnissinnsysieni ............ 14,000,000
-. -
Suh-total . . 24.8(MI,(M10

Total ... -80,0=0 -. \S'RITEN STATEMEK r OF SOUTH AFRICA 799

Itwill bc sccn, thcrcforthat SWAWEK's programmefor power generarion
uvcr thenext15 years involves capitalexpenditureof theorderof R170 million.

141. The educritioniisystem of Suuth West Africn isdireclly in linewith
ihe modern approach tu :ducaiion iitAfrica,viz.,the cmphasis on rhc im-
portance of African cultures in the ediicazionof African youth. Once ir is
agrecd,for cxarnpIe, that :.hOvamho youth iscnritlcd io receivcedricational
instructionin 0varnbolan.i in thc Oiiainbolanguage. itisdiffiçulto xe why
thc samedoestiot ayiply tcevery other people in ihe Terrirnry.
'I'heSecretariat of the Econortiic Comniissionfor Africa,joinllywilh the
United Nations Division of Social Developineiit, the International Labour
Organisatio in, Food and AgricuIture Organizaiiotn he World Healrh

Organization,the Intcmüiional Children's Ernergency Fundandthc Govcrn-
ment of Niger, sponsnre<: a Regional Mt~ting on Yor~thEiiiplnyiiientand
NationalDcvclopmcn t inIYiarney,Republic of Kiger f,om 21 to 30 May 1968.
The following are two of the coini in en datioasdopted by the Meeting in
regard to edumtion and training:

"7. That the structirreofthe primaryschoolcurriculain Africashould
be consistentwith niodern socialand ccununiiç rcquirernentsSignificant
adjustinents,howcvcr. should bc rnadein thestyl of what is beinytaught
in order tu encouragi learning of,,md sympathy with, /fie iwrion's CUI-
ruralk~'ri10geand prruent-dnypol icy objecives. A/su, itiriirr~~ztrgitz
c~u~s~uo~is~ioui~/,whrreverpussihic,usr c~rrydny Africarz c,~atnples,and
give proportionate wcight to hi~t0i.and geography relevantto Afrimn
çonditionsandaspirai ions. Although he curriculashoiildnot he narrowly

vacationalwhcrcscho~ilgardcnsrind schoof larrnansd tiandiçrarr teaching
do exist, these shoulo cinphasizenot anly currentpractice butalsv in-
novationor techniques.
8. That cvcry ctrofi lx made to bring modern ediicafive influencesto
boys and girls whn dri not haSc the opportunity to attcnd forma1 class-
room schooling {intàzr, the rnajorilof young people in iiiostcoriiitriar).
Lnachicving tliis purposc, usshoutdbe madeof mass media, siich asthe
radio. withvertiuc.ri/larl<~~agpvesenrations.Fiiler use should alw bc
made of familirirsuci;tl and vocationa1 grouping;and ihetnpics taught

should includc both r-ivicsand rraiiiingin vocation'." (Italicadrled.)
147.ln South West Afriw considerable advance has hccn madc in ihe past
few yem boih as regards the nunibcr of pupils, ieachetsand schools on the
onehandandthe quality and scopc oftlie tuitiooffercd.The fora[ number nf
pupils of al[ groups in priiiiary and se#ndars schools has incrcascdfrorn

5R#û in 1960 ta 130,000 in 1970,22,000 pupilsbcing rroiiithe White group
and thc rernaindcrfrom othcr groups. 'Thenuinber of reachcrsFoial1groups
ha increased frorn1,Y4l in 1960 to3,790 in 1970.
143. The opening or rh,: Augiistineuni High School, Teacliers'aiid 'Tech-
nical'1-raininCentre at Windliock carly in 1968 wasa milestonein the histary
of educatioi~ ofthe indige~iouspeqiles ofthe Territory. Sinccitsrnodest be-

"YoutkEnipiqvmenf uf:d NatioitaD~vetopi7irnr irAjricn".Social Welbre
Servicesin Africa,No.7. i\ioven-i&r1968, Unired Nations Sciçiai DeveIopinent
Sectionor the Ecrinomirornmissioo forAfricri{doc. Ej'CN.141SWSAI7,pp.35-36).800 XAMInlA (SOUTH WEST AI'R~CA)

ginning in 1866as a mission training %ho01for te~cichers, Otjimbingwc, the
Augustincurn has Wown into an cminent centre of educatianal and technical
training.It was establishedaOkahandjain 1922i1923.
Aparr frorn the moderntrainingcentrc at Ongwcdiva in Ovarnboland,to
which refcrsnocismade below, the Augustineum is the most important edu-
cationalceritrfor the indigenousçroups. Studentsare trainedas teachersand
forvarioilstrades,whilt there is ala largehiyh school section.
The following ncw courses have ken mminenced recently:

(i)At the beginning of 1969~h~sical Sciencewas added to the curriculunof
the High SchooI.
(ii) Iadditionto theexisting Lower Primary Tciichcr's Courx, a new Pri-
maryléacher's Course hasken introdued.
(iii) fthe technicaIrrainingsectiona nioror ni:xhanic;coursewas added to
the existingcour%% inrncial-workand joincry,laiIoring andgcncralbuild-
ing construction.
(iv)A special one-year course was insrituied to give inadequaieIyqualifieci
tcüchcrs an oppurtunity to becorne fulIyqualifiedin order to irnprove
thequnlity of ieaching.

Instructirmin indigenouslanguages kasalso bccornea feaiureol thetraining
of tcacherssince the beginningof19Hl.
Tlie nuniber of studeiitsof theAugustineuni has variedand in 1970 was
hightr than ever bcforc whcn 650were cnrollcd.The annuaI figura are:

Year Srudenrs

19a.. ...................... 259
1961.. ...................... 177
1962. ....................... 170
1963. ....................... 191
19M ....................... 257
1965. ....................... 306
1966. ....................... 400
1961. ....................... 512
1968. ....................... 432
1969.. ...................... 442
1970. ....................... 650

The teachingstar numbered 33 in1970 as coinparcd with 23 in1945.
Thc coIlegewith extensionswasbiriltat acosrof R2.X million.Thebuildings
include:a hosteI for700 stridrnrsa highschovl fur about500 piipilsa teach-
ers' training cenrrefor abotit 150 studcntsa technical andtrade centre for
about 150pupils;and a rnndern hallwhjchaccommodates abtiut1.000 pcrsons
and which an alsoserveas a gymnasium.

Adjoining the school haIl isan amphitheatre. These two facilit arcsuszd
for film shows, church servicesandother sociaI occasionsThe hasteIs pro-
vide accoinniodation foratl thcpupils attcnciithesr;hociI.
The tquipment in theschool ismodernand adequate.Besidesa weII-arrrüig-
cd Iibraryand sciencelaboratory,a doniesiicscienceRntre, atyping ronrnand
science Ieciureruom, various tcchnicaaidsarc crnploycd T.hese include,itiler
UI~C Ioiind projccrors. tape recordersand overheadprojeclors.
Various types of sportsare played, c.ç., rugby,soccer. tennis, athlelics,
boxingand hadniinion. The ncccswry sporisfieldshave beeiiconstructedon
the campus. WRIïTtiN STATEMENT OF WC-TH AFRICA

The foIlowingare the rr:siiorsexaminarionsin 1968 and 19G9:

Jmior Cc~rrificale
1968: 21candidates: 13first classpasses; 7secondclrisspasses; 1 failure.
1969: 30candidates: 11 firscIaîs passes;15 second class passes ; third
classpasses;Ofailures.

SetliorCcrlificars
1969: 8 candidates: 1firstclass pas; 7 second classpasses; O tjilures.

144. As frnm 1April I!)69,tIicOvarnboland Dcpartnient of Educationand
Culturchiiscarried there:;ponsibiIityfor thecontroland development ofcdu-
cation inthüt territory.7'hcfollowing tabIe iIlustrarmthe progressmade in
ediicatiw inOvaniboland:

Total populatiun 1970 : 344,000

145. Thc mGor portion ofthc ncrvbt~ildingof the Onpediva rdticütional
and traininginstituteconltructedat a cost olabour R4.5 miIIionhüsrcccntIy
kn taken into use. Thi.; isan impressivecornplexcornprisinç ,three insti-
tutions in one,narncIy a high schad, a tcirchcr-trainingcentre and a trades
centi-e.Ongwediva caiersl'oran initiatotalof 430students.

At present, the following courwsare offered:
E~~tirritiuiTeacher Training) ,

Lowr Prjrnary Edtication Ckrtificatc1; LowcrPriniaryEdüçarion Ger-
tificateIl; Pri~naryEdiiwtion Certifiate.
High Sciioiil
Forrn I; FoiormII; Form III; Fnrm 1V; Form V.

Thc teachinsgtaff nunibers23 ai present, 11ofwhom posscss-univer?;it~
degrees,1 a teacher'ç depee in commerce, and the rernainderprofcsuionaI
educationaldiplornas.
- The nçw tradcs centre ii,iopen in January1971.The followingcourseswilI
bcintroduced:

(i) Concrcting,bricklayirtgandplastering(two ycars).
(ii) Cal-pentry,oinery,and cabinet-iiiaking(twoyearsl.
(iii)Pliimbing,seweragc:and sheetmeta1 work (two seai's).
(iv) Gcncralmechanics and motor mechanics (thrcr:years). The above-mcntionedcourseswill bc aiigmcnted Iaitrun by an elcçIricians'

course and any oihercourse for which thedemand tiiay arise.
In1969, 36 tcachcrscornplctcd iheirtraining,and it is expectedtliin 1971
thc çnrottnentfor teacher's ti-ainingwill niorthütidouble froni thcpresent
101 to 215.An iniliaenrolment of (Miis expectecfor the new [rades school.
The nuii-iberof high schoopupiIs is cx~ctcd toincrase lu 380'as corripareci
wiih 249 at piesent.
Tuition at Ongwediva is free. A voluntaryrantrihutinnof 1<4 Fr annuni
per pupil towards thc SchoolFund is, howevcr, payablc.
Nurnerousrecreationalaiid cultural üctiviticsare offered to srudents,in-
cluding filn1shows, drarna, niusic, debaing, writers' and nther societies.

Sports facilitiesinclude athics, socccrnctbnll.tcnnis,hockcy, etc.
Thc ciiiire conipleat presentcoinprisesthe folIowiiig:
1 high schooI buildingwith 15 classroorns and5 lahratories;
1 trainingschool buildingwith 1 1c~assrooms and 1laboratory;

I ad~iinsliativehlockcontaining library.offce store rooms and 2 persunne1
offices;
6 hosrelswith provision for140 pupilscach (4 pcr ruorn);
28 fiouxs for siaff;
a kitchenand 2 dining halls.

The followingare under construction:
a modern hall io accommudate 1,000students;
a hall for artand music;
4 workshups;

an administrative blockfor the tradesschooI;
severalspcwtsfields.
Oncelargernuinbers of teachershave'conipleted their trainingatOngwe-
diva, it wilbe possible10 realize ro the full rhe educatiprogramme which
envisagesa junior wcondary school for cvcry cornniunity in Ovarnbuland.

Thcse schooIs willinthe foreseeablefutureaccommodateal1 F~rm 1-I cIIsses
so that evcntuallyonly Forms IV and V will remain a[Ongwediva.
146. Inthe Kavango with a totalpopuIation of 50,000 in 1970,educationis
aIso makingrapid progress.The enrolment ofpupils increasedsubstüntialIy
duringthe past fcw yean. Partiçularsare as foI10~j:

A,ncw Sccundary/Teachen'TrainingjVocaticinaC l etitre is king mnstructed
as well as ahostel for500boardingstudents.
147. As regardstheother indigenouspeoples, similarprogrcsshas bccnmade
in educatiûn withthe partialcxccptionofthe Kaokotanders and the Bushmen.
As a resultof their traditional iiomadicustoms the Kaukulandershave *el-
ways viewed nioderneducation with indifferenceI'ersistentefforts hüvc, how-
cvcr, bt~n madc to changc liheirattitudesand theseefforts are now meeting
withsucc~ss.About400 pupils are nowenr~IIedand itishoped thatthisfigure
will stead.1increase.ln tbe case of the nushmen the years of paticnccand
undcrstiindingwhich hüvc bccn applicd to ihisintereslinghunter-peopIe bave WR~I-{"ENSTATEMENT OF SOCTH AFRIC:~ 803
also brought soIne resulis. Thenurnber of pupilshüs risenfroni 2a fewyears

agn to about 120at prewiit.
148,A Languagc Burc:iu(which isassisied by cmincni authoriticson Af-
ricaitIanguages) was founded iiiorder to raisc the direrelit Africaiilanguaw
Io fiitt siatas çchool, writtcnandcuIturaIlangiiagesandto providesitfijcieot
schooI, sitbjccand Iiterarreadinp maltcrsotkat thc children have theop-
portunity of-

tu) studsing theiioivn languagcs as subjectsup tosecondary and Iarer
up to uni~crsity Icvc(the mother tongtie serveslateras a univcrsity
entrance subject);aiid
(hl receivitn heir elementary educatinn through the medium of their
own languages.

Aftetyears of languag- researçhthe Lirstoffical orthographiesin sevenor
the indigenous ImgtiügesIiave ben puhIished.The second task istodrawup ri
standardized seriesof reattersfor cach of the languagcs,bascd uponthe rnost
modern reading niethod~ but atthe sametirne üdapted to the individualclla-
tacteristics of each Iangu.~ge. Thftrstreading hooks are accon~paniedby
ffashcardsfor thc childrcrto use for word aridseniencc building and in ad-
dition by a setof large flashcardsfor the use of the teacher.The follou,ing
reading books havc appearcd in rhelangiiagesindicated:

Ndonga: Sub A, Sub R,Sld .and Std.111.
Kwanyarna:Siib A, i:ub B, Çtd. Iand Std. III.
Hcrero:Sub A, Suh 13, Std. 1and Sld. II.
Kwangali:Sub A, Sub 3, Std.IandStd. iI.
Mbukushii :Sub A, Sub B, Srd.I and Std. II.

Bushnian: Sub A, Sul, LI.
The following publication:;willappcar in197 1:

Ndonga: Std. 11Keaiier: Std.Iand Std. II Arithmcticbooks.
Kwanyarna:Std. 1l Pcadcr; Std. LandStd. IIArithineticbooks.
Herero:Std. I and Std. TZArithmetic books.
Kwançali:Std. I and Std.U:Arithmetichoks.
Mbukushu:Std. r anai Std. 11AritIinieticbooks.
Nama:SuhA, Sub I!, Std. Iand Srd.II Rcaders (Sub A and Sub B will
aIreadytiein use ir1471) and the Nama Orthography.

It isplanncd to tsckIc he production ora Iat~guageseries foreacIiof the
Ianguages in 1971.The initial u~orkhasaIreadybeencompleicd. These "gram-
mar hooks" are drawn up atonymodern Iinesandare Iinked to the reading
seriesalready publishcd.
The purpose is that for at le as^the firsr few school yeaChe chiidshould
receiv iestructionthrougIithe mediumof his mothcr tonguc.

Eriglish and Afrikaans iiroffcred as subjectsfroin the very beginningand
ihe change-over to tlie foreiglanguagt:as medium of instrirctiooccurs ata
stage when the pupil hastnecome thoroughlay ccustomcd Ioit.
149. In Annex C (pp. 112-115) extractswrei.furnishedfronl theprcscribcd
syltabusesof the educatiorialauthoriticsofthedeveloping peopjes foillustrate
what are considered to bestiitablestandards in a nurnbcr of subjecissuch as
Arithmelic, Gcncrül Scicnce, Physical Science. Riology. 'Typewriting and

: Not reproduccd.English. Tlie following extracts,alsa frrinitheprcscrihed syllabuses, illustrate

ihe objtcts iind mpe of itaching instibjectsof a more practical nature.For
instance, theaimsof agticuIturü1 teüching are statcd asfollows:
"ru) :Ofostcr a lovc for [hcsoiiplants and animuIs;
(b) .odevelop the correct attitude towai ds agricuturc, rvhichprovides
or rhecomrntinity a%a whole;

(c) .Ostudy thc application uTscientiticprincipIes10 agriculture;
(cl .J enable püliiis togaiilesperience of practicalagriculturewhich
:bey may piilIO iiw inIater lire, evenifonIy to a Iimited exteiit
.ntheirhomc gsrdcns."
The preicribedsyllabus dealswith tlie following suh-divisions:soi1science,

plants, fruit gruwing. agronorny,foresiryarid animal husbandry.These sub-
jecrs are fiirthersubdivided inio nunierous i-elated disciplines in order to
bring homc lutheagricultrir taelmsportanceof practising the bestmethods
of tilIing tlisoil,raising crops and brccding his animals. For instancte he
stiiùyor plants in Forms II andICIcomprises:

(1j Coniposition of'p/ri~!s
Warcr. organic matter {carbohydrates,fats, protein), minerais, or ash
constitucnts.
(2) Reqirircninrrsfornorttrnigmwrh ofpionrs
(a)Air, light,wüter.temperarurc, abstnce of harmfiilsubstanws.

(b) Kutrients:
(i) Ten macro-elements,
(ii)Micro-clcmcnts.

(ai 'Slieinfluenceof nitrogcn, phosphorua sndpoiash on plant growlh.

(6) Siipplementing planr nutrientswjth:
(i) Natiiralor organic fer!iliserslikcompost, manure,green-manur-
ing.
(ii) The value, useand effectof orgrinicfcrtiliserson soi! and ptani
growth.

(cl Artificialfertilisers.Propertiethe inRuenceon plant growth and the
uses oftwo fertilis froms eachof the frillowingçroups:
(i)h'itrosn: Sulphateof ammonium, lirnestone amrnoniunl nitrate
{nitromonml) ; urea.
(ii) t'hosphatc:Supcrphvsphiitc, supcr rockphusphatc, rock phos-
phate.
(iii) Potash: Sulphate of potash (potassium suiphate), muriate of
potash (potsusiumcMoridc).

(dl FcrtiIisermixtures: advantagcs and disadvantagcs.
(c) EkTcctsof agricult~rallime on soil.
(f] Watcrsupply and irrigationrncthods:
(i) Flooding rnethod.
(jiChess board ntethod or furrow method.
fi~iSpray irrigation.

Advantace and disadvantagcs ofeüch mcthod.
(4) Praciical wurkand riet)?nns~rniions
{njWhich reqüirements are essentiaIfer grinination and which for
normaI growth.(€las$room experintent.) WKi'rI'ENSTATEMENTOFSOUTI I AFRICA 805

(hi Fertilisertests to show the influence of riitrogen, phosphoru and
porash on difkrent çropsin the sçhool garden.
{c) Dcmonstratc the iritluençcof agriculturallimeon soi].
150.Animal husbaridry indudes, inferrtliua study of thefollowing:

(I) Fccdi~if#J ~~~!lt?
(a) Elementarydiscus;ionof arirnefit canryluf a ruminant.
(bj Food nutrients:

(i) Water,füi.carbohydrates,proteins. mincrals, vitamins.
{ii)Functions of ihese wnstitucnts inthe animal body.
(iii) Main sourcesof each iiutrient.

(c) Roughage :
(i) Katuralgrazirig:su~eetveld,ourvetd,etc.
(1) Valuc of i;.nddeficicni~n~vcld grazing.
(2)Control or'veld grüziiig.

(ii)Fodder crops suitablefor grazing, hay and silage.
(iii) Prcipertianclvalue of goodquality hüy and silagc.
(iv) Foddcr crops rich in carbohydratcs 2nd proiein fsr hay and
silageiiiakinç.
(dl Concentrates:

(i) Concentrates ;ich incarbohydrates.
(ii) Conçentriites;ichinplant andanimalprotcin.
(iii) Important reiltiirerncntsfor cnncentrate mixtures (ma1 niix-
tures)with rcrgrd to its carbuhydrate,protcin,fibrcand minerai
content.
(iv) IlalanceclratLjrismain requirernents for the composition ofa
biilanccd ration which incIudcs graziny, hay, silügc and con-
centrates.
(v) Minerül licks.

Cl) Br~irymrif~
(n) The main differcricesbetwwn three important dairybroeds with
respct to generalappearancc, milk prduction andhutterfat contcnt
of milk.

(5)Typical characteri staigusud dairycow.
(c) Feeding ofdairy ciiws:
(I)Food requiredforfiinciionslikemaintenance of growth,production
and reproduction.
(ii)Feeding accorclingfo production.
(dj Protection of dairycows againstticks.

(rj Injuriouseffecrs oftick osn cows.
(j, Methods to contra1ticks.
(3) Drriryitig
(n)Thc conipositinn and nutritiond valuc of freshmilk.

(hj IIygietiic prodr~ciicn ornifk:
Ci)Causes of mili< contaminatiun: Milkcrs, coivbyrc, food, dairy
scullery, dniryi~tenjils,waierRies etc.
(ii) Diseasestransrnit therdughmilk.
'{c) Causes of tainting2nd odoursrorrningin milk; the prcvcntion thermf.
[d) Factors to be considered whcn storing nii1k. XXI. HeulrhSer V~CCII

151.In 1969/1970 current expenditure on hea[th services in South West
ATrica amaunted to K5.84 niiIlion.as cnrnpared wiih It1.9m 9 illion xven
ycürs earlier.of which 74.5 per cent. wa cxpended on khatf of thc non-
Whitepopulation gruups fs aagainst25.5pcrmnt. fur the White group. Capital

expenditure in I969j 1970amounted to K 1.116 miIIion of which 87.5 per cenr.
was dcvotcd to racilitfi orsihc non-White grt3rtlias against 12.5 pcr cent.
for the Whitegroup.
The 196!J/IY70 levelof officialexpenditure on health services representsa
per cnpita outlay of about R9.3. ComparabIc figura for thc othcrAfriciin

countries for the saine yar aie iiot available,but the following table basrd
on budget figures provides a guide tu expcnditur on hcaIth xrvices in a
nuntber of thow ccountries:

A~imitiicott-
Airinunr in vertetiirm Per rupiirr
Cuunfrjm Yeur Puptrirr- Carrrrncy niilfiun Sunlfi ri- '.Y~'tzdif"re
endcd riorA (f.@H) 01 mir cm Raird in
nrilliun

Eihiopia June 1968 24,212 EihiopIan 23.W 6.93 O29
dollars

CiIiatla nec. 1968 8,376 21.50 15.27 1.82
Dec. 1969 8,600 NewiCedis 19.30 13.71 1.59

Kenya5 June 1968 10,209 Pot~ntIs 5.13 10.26 1.O0
Junz 1969 10.506 6.11 12.22 1-16
Liberia Dcç. 1968 1,130 Doll:rrs 3.40 2.45 2.17

Sudan Junc 1968 14.770 Pounds 5-54 11.47 0.78

TanzatiIa June 1968 12,590 Shillings 7.02 8.25 0.66
Jitne 1969 12.926 77.03 8.47 0.66

Togo Rec. 1968 ' 1,769 CFA Francs 558.40 1.68 0.95
Dec. , 1969 1.815 507.70 1.52 0.84
Uganda Junç 1968 8,133 Shillings 91.67 9.17 1.13
lune $969 9.500 t t0.51 11.05 1.16

biiitedArab Jan. 1968 31,693 Pouiids 32.90 53.96 1.70
Rzpriblic Jan. I969 32,501 68.90 1f4.37 3.52

' I'irAnnçx A, pp. 121-132, and Annex C, pp. 98-105.!Nor reprndircrcf.!
United Nations S~nristic~zlYcarbnok1969,uhlr 19t.pp. 590-607.
' UnitcdMa~ario#Miunthly Bidktin ufSiati~ricSep. 1970,tabIe 1,pp. 1-4.
+ Forcigiictirrcncicconserted into South hrrican currency (Rand) in tcrnisof

ratesof cxchangc g~vcnin Uniird h'ofions MnnrRljmBulieriof SrarisrirsSep. 1970,
pp.200-201..
AcçcirclingCoeconornicandfunctional classificatiunoguvernmenI expenditure.(b) that even if this resolutionor Sccwity Council resolution 276 (1970):
can be regardedas emhodying a valid recommendation addrcsscd to
South Africa, thcrc arccornpellireasons wliythe SouihAfrican Govern-
ment rn~st decliiitogive effecthereto. WKIT'TfNSTATEMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA 811.

Thc aboveexpositionofthe facrualsirusitionin SoutWest Africa has shown
thevast progressthat,despitadverseconditions, hasbeenmade inthepolitial,
eçonornicand.sociallifc otheTcrritory,andthe high standardsrhathavehm
attained.Inthe coniext.that survey hasserved10 dentonstrateit~teraliothat
rriajoritiitIlnircbh'atiotisorganshavernisconcei oileiis-staiedconditions
inthe Territory, whetherfrom ulteriormotives or purely breason of Iackof
knowledge.
The photographs reproditcedin the prescnt Smtiun arintended toillustrate
graphiçally what has already bccnstatcdverbally.They arc prwnted jnrhe
full knowInlge thatany selecrionof photographs, particurarlin black and
white, can givc but an kadequate impression of the unique and coIourful
physicalandhuman features of thc Tcrritory.
This Seclion is be rregirrdeassupplementaty io the photograph iincludcd

inthe Sowh West Afr~caFtlr~ey 1967 which iu annexed to thisChapter.For
tharreason the presentseIs:ctiof photographs dms not purportin any way
to cover alimportantaspixts of lifin the Terrirov.Itis daignedly conccn-
tratedon a relativelysmall number of katurcs which werechosen either&-
cause they representnew riewIopments, or becausethey arcconsidercd to be
of particularsignificance or interest.
Despite its unavoidabic limitations this Scction mighl,is hvped,never-
thcIessix ofsome assistancetotheCourt by providingaglimpscof therealitis
of South West Africa.

INDEX

Government and Administration : Mi reprurlu~edj
Occupations andIn-Servici:Training (Nut rcproducedj
Busincss Activity/Nat rept*oduced]
Water kveIopment [Abr reprodüredi
Hoiising j Nor reptoditcedj
Koadsand Transport [Nui repruducedi
Posta1ServicesandTelccuinmunica tNiorreproclltcedj
Ediication/ Norreproducea]
Heafth and McdicaiServici:s[Nol rcprod~ired;
The Land and Its People[.Varreprd~~ced;

No:reproduced. SortritWc~i AfrirrrSurtq 1967
pt~bkishcdby the Deparitiientof Foreign AKairsof the Itepublic

ofSouth Africa, Marcfi 1967

AnnexB

Reporr ofthe United NrttiotisCounciljbr Soiiik West AJricu
(UN doc. AiG897, IONovetnber 1967)

JNul reprndut:edl

AnnexC

South A,(ricu'.sA~piIOvthe Secrerary-Cenerai
ufthe t/triteti Nu1iun.v(SerityCouiicil ,.
, Itesolution269 of 1969) . -
.

publishod by thc Dcpartment or Foreign Aflairs of tlie
Republic of SouthAfrica,Scptcrnber 1969 WRITI-ES hTATEMEYTOF SOUTH AFRICA

T.4BLE OF CASES CITED

1.Siiifiiof Eusf~rn Cilrdk, Advisory Opinion, 1923, P.C.I.I.,Scries3, No. 5,
pp. 27, 28, 399,452-453.
2. MavrornrmrisPak.rtiticC~ricessionsI,u~IgtnetiNo. 7,1924.P.C.I.J., SeriesA,
No. 2. p. 11.
3. C~rrniiiGermnn Inierc~ts itiPo'lliisiiUppeSilesiclJurisllictioit, Jltdgtn~nz

,%'o6,1923, P.C,'.i.J.Scrie.A, :%. 6, pp. 14, 22.
4. Itiierprerniiuoj'Arficlt 3Parafrapii 2,of the Treary ojlor~saiws, rldinisory
Opinion, 1925, P.C.I.J., ScrirB, No. f2,p. 77.
5. JnrisrlicriutiofrilEurcpeuii Corriinissiunoff/!Danube, Arlvi~oryOpinin ti,
1927, P.C.I.J., Series 3No. 14, p. M.

II. Irr~.u~~no?;aC ~OURT OF JUSTICE

A. JiidgirtenrsAdvisory 0,~iriinnc~iiOrders

1.Corfu Chc~niiei, reIinziizary OlijFctÏoJ~idgnreti!1948, I.C.J- Reprrs
1947-1948, p. 15; aipp. 31-34.
2.Cu/?dirio ot~hsri.<ionoj'(zStuie IO~Me~rlhersh izthe Unitcd~L'uriuns
(Articie 4 ofCIuirrra.j,AdvisoryOpinion,1948, i.C.J.Reports IY47-1948,
p. 57; atpp. 61. 64.85. 87.
3. [:orfi C:Ironnei,MerirsJitdgtgrntnLC.J. ~r~o;ts1949, p.4; ai p.60.
4. Repnrdiun fbr hrjui-iesSuflercdin the Serric~ of'thr United ,%tiom,
Advis0r.vOpinion, 1:F.J.Rcporrs 1949. p. 174; aipp. 198 ,05.

5. Conigrrrnrr nf ihr GenernlAsseitiblyJor ~ke Adniissim of n Stnre tofhp
?7~if~dNations, Advisory Opitiioii1.C.J. Reports 1950, p.4; at pp.6-7,
LI.
5.fn~~rprefaii of'Pexe Trearies ivitlr h'ul'~~u, i~~rgnraad Romutria,
FirsfPhose, Adsisur.iOpinion, 1.C.J. &ports 1950,p. 65; at pp.71, 72.
7. InteritationnfSinrus of Soufh Ivrsr Africn. Advisorv Ooinirin, I.C.J.

8. lrrf&prcratiart of Pc.~ceTrrotiewith Btllgaria, Xungary unri Romania,

Srlrnnd Pliu.r~,Ad~+i.mrOpîtziut~,C.J .eprt.7 1950,p. 22I.
9. Altibnrie/us,PrelimirzciryObjection, Jftdgrnmf, LC.J. Reporls 1952,
p. 28; atp. 54.
III. Vofing Procedur o,r Questions reioling la Reporls and Peti~ionrcotz-
cerizit~gthe Terriiu rJlSouth West AJri<:a,Advi.~ory Opinion, I.C.I.
Reports 1955,p. 67; ai pp.75,76,-8518 88,99-101,1 15-116, I18-119.
11. Adttiissihiliiyof He~ritwof Pe~iiiotiefi th Comnrifiee on South West
Afiic'n,~&fsti;~ ~~irr&n, .c.J ~~.~or1.1-956,p. 23; at pp. 27,28, 29,

30. 33. 65-66.
12. ~udfmet~rsof~frc AdwiinislrclriiTri!>unrrolfthe IL0 ripmi Cunipbirrfs
iMude r~guitisCltiesb:A,d11isor.vOpinion,1.C.J. Repurrs 1956, p. 77;
at pp. 84,86.
13. High;of i3ci.ssoevu ItiriiutzTerritoMerits, Judgnrrti~1.C.J. Reports
1960p ,.6; ai p.37.
14. Certain E-~pcnses5j th Uf~ifed,V~riotrs(Articlei 7, purrt~rap2,of the
CfiorrerJ, Adrisoyv<)pir:ivr,C.J. Hrpnrfs 1962,p. 15 l;atpp. 155,156,814 NAM18IA (SOUTHWEST ATRICA)

153,168,175et.req.,182,184,189,190-19 11,2,196,198 ,01-202,217.
230. 233-234, 23250-251, 253, 268288. 291, 292,295.304, 306,319,
320, 391403.
15. Souii~IvesAfricu, PreliniitObjeciiuns,judginen1.C.J.Reports iY62,
p.319; at pp.331-334, 336-342345,346. 354,358,352, 364,365, 391,
412, 413-414,436,444, 445, 514, 516, 520, 532, 5536, 537-540 b(K1-
610,615et sry., 640-653.
16.Barcc/ofrn TraclionLighr orid Powrr Compnny, Li~iitccfPr~liiniriarj

Ohjecrions, judfnieI.C.J. Reports 19154,p.5; p. 140.
17. Soufti WestAJrirrSei:onrPlzuw, Jri&tnt.nI.C.J. Reports 1966p.h;
at pp. 23-25, 79,36,44, 45-51, 82-137182,705-213,217-219,235-238,
243,245-246, 274-278, 320-323, 326,330, 331,337-3423,44-345 347,
350-35 6.9, 397-403.406450, 456,458,460-461.470-471,490, 505.
18. h70rrkSes Cunrikniai Sheif, Judgmcnf, I.C.J. Reports 1969,p.3;al
pp.3,25-26,42.
B. Pieudings
1. J.C.JPIcadings,It~rrrna:ior~lnriiof South West Afiricn.pp122-123,
148.

2. I.C.J, PI~udiiz-ou!h West Afr-icrr,
Vol. 1.pp. 67-89,18-183,312-350,364376el scq.429,443-449,452-453;
Vol. Ilpp.24-329 ,7,102,141-148 1,2,155-163.165 eis~q.,175et srq.,
193er seg.289-380,431-433,444-445. 447-448413-474 50-527;
Vol.IV, pp.GO,SOI 4,64;
Vol.\f,pp. 5-11;
Vol. VI, pp255-266;
Vol. VQ pp. 37-52, 57-63,7,97-99,304-308;
VoI.V CI[pp. 132,225-226, 468ri sel]547-552;
VoI.fX, pp. 2L235;
VoI.X. pp.367-3618;

Vol. XI, pp. 585, 507-588;
VciIXII, pp. 110-124,129-131142-153.
3. I.C.J. PicadingsCertainExpen~es of (Ire Uriife!Vulions(Article17,
p~rr~rraph2, o~hrChurtrr), p. 403.

1. Rex u.tl/oin, 193A.D. 188,atpp. 202-203.

1. Erkrrsfe.~and Otherv.TheAlersc,~Docks and H~rhourBwrd, 1 8942 Q.B .,
at p. 671.
2. AliitzsoV.C;Ptwru/Cuuncil oJ~Wedico ifricatiuarid Regisrrnfioit, IR94
1 Q.B., :p.759. LIST OF THE.RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION

A. Kecord~oJ fjinss~mbiy, Sess.1, 1920, p320.
B. Officiai Journal1920 (No. 61, pp. 334, 335,338, 339, 340-341;(Ku. 8).
p. 87; L921{No. I),pl). 1112,89; 1921 (NOS D-LZ),pp. 1124-1125; 1922

(No. 8, PartIi), pp849-850,854;1923 (No. 3), p. 300; 19(No. 4),p. 348,
C. O#icÙzi Julu~lrn/pêci,ziSuppittrzerNo. 194,1946, pp. 28, 32-34,43. 47,
58, 59, 7678, 79,2W. 251,278-279 2,81.
D. Minti/esofthe Per~na~tcnrr%fat&tesCornmissi~n,Scss. 1,1921,pp. 5, 17;
Sess.V, 1424, pp. 155, 177-178;Sess.VITI, 1926p. 200.
E. Orher
I. Tlrr{..ruenanofthe LeugrteoJ:hhtiotis.

2. The tengue Hund~Gver (Ceneva, 1946).pp, 61,63.
3. 21st Assernhly,1st Cornmittee, 2nd Meeting, provisional record (un-
pibl;shed).
4. The Matidales Sys f ettt-OribrPrincii~I--App!iliatio(Gencvü ,19451,
p.35.
5. Leagileoc Nations. Dm. C.5M.5, 1947: Reportof the Bonrd ofiiquida-
iim?p,p.20, 27.

A. Duciiit~~nof the Utti~evarionsConferen critnreriia!iuntrl Orpization,
San Frnr~cisco,1945 {LondnnN ]ew York: Cnited Nations Information
Organizations, 1945).Vol. 1,p.530; Vol. IIIp. Il;Vol. V, pp. 300,315-
316;Vol. VI,p. 447;'fol. VlII, pp. 32-3145ei scq.208; Vol. X,p.434;
Vol. XI, pp. 84,327, 381,393, 43Ib5507 ,04,710-714,767, 781;Vol. XIT,
pp. 9,15. 16,32,48.0( 1#62,284.380.501:Vol. XIII.pp. 71)9-710Vol.XV,
pp. 70,73.

B. UNITED NATIOSS PK~PAKA'TO ~RMYISSIOS, 1946
1.Cornmittee 4, Sirntr.ra~yecords,doc. PCiTC12, pp.2-4. 5; I3C/TC14,
p.7; PCjTCi 11;I'C,'rC!24;PCXCi25 ;PCfTC/30; K/TC/3 1,pp. 21-22;

PC!TC/32, p. 25; PC:/TC/33;PC:/TC'/42, pp. 39-40.
2. Cornmi ttee7,h?rtttit,Records, duc.PC;LK! t,pp.2-3, 1O-11;PCiLNJ2,
p.2; PC)LN/lO. pp.IO-II.
3.Jo~w?FQ p/. 125.131.
4. Dot. PC:IEX]1 131Rcv.1, 17Novcmhr 1945, pp. 1,7-8.55-56, 108-111,
114, 133-134.
5. Doc. PC!EXj9t/Ad(l. 1, 14 Octokr 1945.
ri.Dm. PCjEXi107, pp.9-13.
7. Duc. PCj20. 23 Deomkr 1945.pp. 49, 118.

C. GE'IERAA LSSEMBLY
1. Rrsoitliions

XI (1)9 Fehruar y'346inUN dm. A:64, p.13.
XIV (11,12 February 1946,in Uh' doc. N64, pp. 35-35.
65 (I),14 Dcccrnber 1946,in UN dm, Ai64:Add. 1, p. 123.
141(10, 1 Novernbr 1947,in UN doc. A;S19,p. 47.816 N~UIBIA (SOUTHWEST AFKICA)

727 (UI),26 h'ovenibcr1948,inUN duc.hi810 ,p. 89-91.
267 (UT) 14 April 1949in GA, UR, TIiirdSess.Part IIpp. 7-0,
396 IV) ,4Deccmber 1950inGA. OR, Fiflh SessSup.No. 20 (A/L7751,
pp.24-25.
13fi(XlV), 17Kovember1359,in Gd,OR, FourteenthSess.,Sup.No. 16

(A/4J54 p.29.
1514(XV), 14Decemher 1960,in GA. OR,FiReenth Sess., Sup. No.16
(A/4684),pp. 66-67.
1565 (XV), 18 Dcccrnbcr1960,in GA, OR, Fifteenth Sa., Sup.No. 16
(A/4684), pp31-32.
1567 (XV), 18 December 1960. in GA,OR, Fifteetitks., Sup. No. 16
(A/4684),p.32.
1563 (XV), 18 Decembei 1960,in GA, ON,Fifteenth Sess.,Sup.Na. 16
[A/4684),pp.33-34.
1593 (XV), 15 March 1961,inGA, OR, Fiftcvnth Sess.,Sup. No. 16
(A145841,p.7.
1702(XVZ), 19December 1961, in GA, OR,Sixtete hn%S., Sup. No. I7

(Al5IO@, pp.39-40.
1703(:YVI), 19 Deceirikr 1961, in C0,R,Sixt~nth Sess.Sup. No. 17
IAlSlW), pp.40-41.
1805 (XViI), 14 necernber 1962,in GA, OR,Seventeen Stess.Süp.
NO. 17(A/5217), pp. 38-39,
1979 (XVIIT), 17Dccemher 1963, inGA, OR. Eightccnth Scss.,Sup.
No. 15 (Aj55 15p. 51.
2074{XX), 17Deccmbcr 1965, in GAORrTrten~ieth Sm., Sup. No. 14
(A16034),pp.60- 6.
2145@XI),27October 1966,in GA, OR, 'henty-firsSws.,Sup. NO. 16
(A!6316 ),.2-3.
2248(S-V), 19Ma):1967,iiGA,OR, Fifth~pcc.Scss.Siip.No. 1(A!6657),

p. 2.
2324 (XXII),16 Dcccrnbcr 1967,inGA, OR, Twenty-second Sess., Slip.
No. 16 (A16715)pp. 3-4.
2375 {XXU), 16 December 1967,in GA, OR, Tweiity-secondSess.Sup.
No. 16(A/6716j,p. 3.
2372(XXII), 12June 1968in GA, OR,Twc~tty-sccondSas., SupNo. 16A
(A!f,71@Add. 1)pp. 1-2.
2403 {XXUI), 16 DLwrnbcr 1968,in GA, OR, Twenty-thirdSess.,Sup.
No. 18<A[fZI8),p.3.
2498 (XXIV), 31 October 1969,in GA, OR, Tir~ei~ty-fouSess.,Sup.
No. 30(kf7630}, p. 655.
2517fXXIV). 1 Dccember 1969,in GA, OR, Twenry-fourth Sess.,Sup.
No. 30(A/7h30),p.68.

2.Phry Meetings

(a)Ojïciui Recurds
GA,OR, Firs~Scsu..FirsrPart,11th PIenarq-Meetingpp. 166-167;
121h Plcnüry Meeting, pp. 185-18614th Plcnary Meeting, p.227;
15thI'lenaryMeeling, pp. 133,238; 16thI'lenaryMeeting, pp. 201,251.
GA, OR, Sccond Scss.,Vol. 1, 1MtPlenaryMeeting, pp. 573-574,
577,581,589,632elsey.; GA, OR, Sccond Sc%,, Vol1,105thPlcnary
Meeting,pp. 591, 595598,602, 604-606,611,614,616,617, 621-622.
626-634 8.9. WHITKK .SiAlEMEYTOF SOUTH ARICA 817

GA, OR, 'I'hirCSas., Part 1,Iaih Plenary Mecting, pp. 577,579,
582, 586.58P590.
GA, OR, Fourth Sess.,269th Plenary Mcctinp. pp. 523, 528-531,
533-537.
GA, OR, Fifieenth Scss.,947th Plenary Meeting pp. 1771-1784;
954th PleiiaryMi:eting,p. 1388.
GA, OR, Sixtc:nihSess.. 1020th Plenary Meeting. p. 177; I037rh
I'lenaryMocting, pp.459,460.

GA, OR, Sevenreenih Sess., 1128th Plcnary Mceting, pp. 72, 73;
1143rù PlenaryMeeting, p. 345.
(2. OR, Nineteenth Sess., 1280th PIenary Meeting, p. 7; 1296th
PIenaryMeeting, p. 3; 1298th I'lenary Mccting.pp. 15. 405; 1300th
PIcnarv Meeting, pp. 13,20; 1304thPleiiary Meeling, p. 3; 1306th
Plenary Meeting, pp. 9,11 :1308th Plenary Meeling, p. 14.
GA, OR, Twciitieih Sess., 1339th I'lenary Mccting, p. 2; 1360th
Plenan, Mcering, p. 4; 1385th PkcnciryMeeting, p.8; 1388th PIenary
Meeting, p. 17; 1389thPlenary Meeting, p. 12.

GA, OR, Twe~ity-first Sess., 1412th Plenary Meeting, pp. IO, 15;
1414thPlenüry Meeting, pp. 3,5,8,9, 10, 14, 15,2425;1417th PIenary
Meeling,pp. 1,2,4-8,10, 12, 13,1515,19-21; 1418thI'IenaryMeeting,
pp.2,3; 1419thPlenary Mtrting. pp. 1, 5, IO,13, 25; 1420th PIenary
Meeting, p. 12: 1422nd I'lenary Mccting,pp. 14, 15; 1423rdPlenav
iMeeting,pp. 6, 3; 1425ih Plenary :Meeting, pp.1, 7, 46, 7, 9.12;
1427th Plcnary fiieeting,$. 4, 5. 7, 4,11, 14, I8; 1428thPlenary
Meeting,pp. 4, 8. 1429thPlenary Meeting, pp. 2. 3,5-7,11.13,15-L7;
I431si Pltnary Mcct~ng, pp. 1,7,3, 5.8, 9, 1314, 15,16, 24; 1432nd

Plcnary Mccting p. 12; 1433rd Plenary Meeting, pp. 5,6. 9, 12;
1434th Plenary Sfeeting,p. 9; [435th Plcnary Meeting. p. 12; 1437th
PlenarM yeeting. p. 5; 1438th Plenary Meeting, p. 3; 1439th Plendry
Meeting, pp. 1,4, 5.8, 12.17. 21-73; 1440th PlenaryMeeting, pp. 3,
16; 1441s: Plenaiy Meeting, pp. 17, 18. 19;1443rdPIenary Metling.
p. 13;1445th I'IeiiaryMeet~ng,pp. 2, II, 17;1448thI'lenaryMccting,
pp. 1,2; 1449thFIenaryMeeting, pp. 4,6, 7,8,14, 16; 1454tliPlenary
Meeting, p. 15; 1456th Plenary Meeting,p. 3.

(b) ProvisiutzcriRecords
UN duc. AIPV. 1625 (11Docernber 1957). p. 47,
UN doc. A!PV. 1627 (12 Deccrnbcr 19671,pp. 87-87,91, 92,93-96,
UN doc. A'jPV. 1678 (13 Deceniber 1%7), pp. 7,13-15, 31,32,
UN doc. AjPI'. 1632 (14 Decembcr 19671,pp. 36,37, 38, 34, 40,
89-90,
UN doc. A/PV. 1635(1 6 Decetnber IY6?),pp. 97-96,

UV duc. AjPV. 1730 (29 November 1868),pp. 17. 22.
UN doc. AjPV. 1819(1 Ekcemkr 19691,pp. 24-25.
3. Ad Hoc Pdiricni Cowrriiree Meering.r

GA. OR, Third %;S.,Part II,Ad floc Pol. Comm., SummaryRecords of
Meetings, 6 April-IO May, 1949,47nd Meeting, pp. 181-182.
CA, OR, ThirdSess., Pari II,Ad HOC Pol.Comm., Surnrnaq Records
ofMeetings, 15Novcmber to 9December I948,43rd Meeting, pp: 197-193.
GA, OR, Fifth Sefs.,Ad Hoc Pol. Ccimrri.,SummaryRecordsof Meet-
ings, 3OSepternbertri14December 1950, 18thMeeting p,p.1II. 112, 116;
191h Meeting. p.121; 23rù Meting, p. 15%;24th Meeting, p. 159.818 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

4. SpeciaIPoliricd CommitrceMceririgs
GA, OR, Twelfth Sess.,Spec.Pol. Comm., 56thMeeting,p. 71.
GAl OR, Seventccnth Sess.,Spec.Pol.Comm., 328th Meeting, p. 1.

5. TitirdCooni~itizM~eerili~s
GA, OR, Third Comrn., 1382nd Meeting, pp.2,35, 31; 1383rdMeeting,
p. 45.

6. Foiirlh Cotnmiiree hfeeiings
(a) OffLciul ~cords

GA, OR,First Scss.,First Part, Fourth Comm.. 3rd Mecting,p.10.
GA, OR, First Sess.,Secnnd Part,Foiirth Comm., 19th Meeting.
Par11, pp. I01-102,239.
GA, OR, FirstSess.,Second Part, I'ourth Comrn., 5th Meeting,
Part Ilp. 28.
GA, OR, Seçond Sess.,Fourth Cornrn., 31st .Meeting,pp. 3-9;
32iid Moeting, pp. 9-13; 33rd Mecting, pp. 13-18; 38th Meeting,
pp. 45-47, 49-52; 38th Meeting,pp. 55-58; 40th Mwring, pp. 59-66;

44th Mt~ting: p. 90;45th Mwlinp, pp. 93-964 ;7th Meeting, pp. 105-
106.
GA, OR, Third Sess.,Parr I,FourthComm.. 76th Mceting. pp.287-
288, 292, 294, 296-297;77th Mceting. pp. 297-300 ;8th Mccting,
pp.307,308 etseq., 314,31.6,318;79thMeeting,pp.320-322,324, 325;
80th Meeting, pp. 328,335, 337;'81stMeeting, pp.340, 343-34, 346,
348,350, 351;S2nd Mccting, pp.355, 357-360, 361-35683rd Meeting,
pp. 367,369-37 0,2;84th Meeting, pp. 373-377.
GA, OR, Fourth Sess.,Fourlh Comm., 128thMeeting, pp.193,200,

203,208; 129th Mccting,pp. 208,210-212; 1.WthMeetitig,pp.21 3-219;
131st Meeting ,p. 219-223;132ndMeetrng, pp. 213-224.226-229,288;
133rdMeeting, pp. 230-234; 1341hMeeting, pp.235-242; 135thMH(-
ing, pp.242-244,246-248; 136th Mccting,pp. 749-754; 137thMeeting,
pp. 254-258;138thMeeting,pp. 265, 267; 139thMccting, pp.268-272;
140thMt~ting, pp. 273-281;141st iMeeting.p.282.
GA, OH, EIcvcntShcss., Fourth Comm., 571st Meeting, p. 11.
GA, OR, Fourteenth Scss.,FourtltCumiti..909th Meeting. p. 136;
914th Meeting, p.61.

CA, OR, Fiftwnih Scss.,FourthConim., I05I)thMeeting, pp.307,
303; 1052nd Meeting, PD. 311-313; 1053rd Meeting. pp. 317, 318;
1053rd Meeiing, p. 374: 1076th Meting. pp. 456457.
GA, OR, Sixt~~nth Scss.,Fourth Cornm., Vnt. 1, 1IXfiIhMeeting,
p. 185;1219thMeting, p. 391);1226thMeefing, pp. 436,437; 1233rd
Mccting, pp. 490-491; 1245thMeeting,p. 569;1247thMeeting,p. 587.
GA, OH,Scvcntccnth Sas., Fourth Comm., Vol. 1, I371st Meeting,
p. 275;1374th Meeting. pp. 214,292; 1376th Mwting, pp. 301-303;
Vol. II, 3385th Meeting, p. 373; 1386th Meetingp.377.

GA, OH,Eightccnth Sas., Fourih Cninm., 14Mth Meeting, pp. 218,
219.
GA, OR, Twentierh Sess.,Foiirth Comm., 1564th Mceting.p. 272;
15tiSth Meeting ,.279; 1567thMwting, pp. 285,295; 1568thMccting,
p. 302; 1569th ;Meeting,pp.311, 315; 1570thMccting, pp. 327, 378,
3211;IS7lstMeeting, pp. 333, 334, 336;1581st Meeting,p.414.
GA, OR,Twcnty-first Scss.FourthCnmm., 1603rd Meeting,pp. 39,
41. WRIiTE'ISTATEMENT <>FWUI'H AFKICA

(b) Prar,i~ionnlRrccrcis
IIN doc. AjC.4iSR.1825(17 Octokr iY69), p.20.
UN dm. A!C.4/SR. 1826 (17October I969),p.14.
UN doc. AjC.4iSR. 1829(20Octoher I969),p.4.
UN duc. AjCA/SlI. 1830 (20 Oct.obI969) ,.3-
UN doc. AiC.4/SR. 1831 (22 OcloberI969) pp. 4, 11.

UN doç. AiC.4iSR. 1833 (22 October1969),p.21.
7. Fif~iit~ammi~rMt!erings

GA, OR, Twtnt y-firsSas..Fif!h Comiti.1124thMeeting.pp. 23-25;
1I32ndMeeting, p.?O.
X. UisarnicrnwtCutnfiission

DC,OR, 82nd Meeting,p. 12.
9. fiprernnfiobit* Cb~nniissio~t
Yearbnok ofrlw iii?er~iationalLaw Comrrrts~964,VUI.II (AjCN.41

SER.A/1964/Add. 1), pp56-57 ,0.
Yenrhook ofthe lnlircrnarionlaw C~:ciminissin966:Vol. 1,part 2
(A]CN.4:SEIl.A/i966), p4; VoI.TI(AjCN.4/SER.A/1966), pp. 225-226;
Add. 1,pp.25, 217,222,236, 279etseq. -
10. ConiniirtanSudh WPST Africa

Reportsto thc GcneralAssernbly
GA, OR, Fourtcxnth Sess.,Sup.No. 12jA;419I ).,41.
GA, OR, SixteeilrSa., Sup. No. 12A (Aj49261,p.17.
CA, OR, Scvcnieen S chs.Sup.No. 12(Ai521 21pp.18-I9.
UN doc. Ai6640(1967).para.43,pp. 18,19.
Uri ciocA.iAC. 129jSR.3(I957 ),7.
UN doc. A!AC. 129jSIt.(19671 ,p.67.

1[. I~lteritnComrnitt~6
Reportsto the Geaeral Asscrnbly
GA, OR, -1-hirQss.,Sup. No. 19(Ai578) (15 JuI19481,p. 14.

12.SpecinlCurnnlilteon PaiPsrPi~
GA, OR, SeccinclSessSup. No. 11,VoI.I (A/3G4),pp. 26-27,42, 43.
GA. OR, Second Scss.Sup. No. II, Vol.il(A/3WAdd. l), p.38.

13. Specinl Coi?ilnionrheSiluatiun with Regarro theImp/etnt?ntaliofz
the G'rcirilofIridepeniirnIn CoiioniaiCoi~ntraiidPcopIes
UN doc.AIAC. 109!PV .25 (15July 19C4),pp.25,27.
UN doc. A:h(300jRev.1 (1965)pp. 126-128,130, 133-34, 137-138,
140,152.

UN dm. A;6301)IRev.t (19661, pp268-273 2,76,279, 282193-294,
296, 248-299.
Uh' duc. A!670ojAdd.2 (19671para.26.
14. Councifor SoidthWcsrAJuca

UN dm. Aj68Yr,in CA. OR, Twenty-second Sess.,Annexes(Agenda
Ttem64(b)), Anrrex1,p. 4; ilnnex ITp. 6.
I5. ~Mi~cellnricoirs

UN duc. A!123,in GA, UR, First ScssSccond Part,Fourth Camrn.,
PartI,pp. 1%-23:;.820 NA~IIRI(SOUTH WEST AFHICA)

UN doc. AjC.4/41inGA, OR, FiistSess.SecondPart,FourthCornni.,
Pari1, pp239, 244.
UN doc. A/334.inGA, OR, SecoiidSess.Fourth Cornni.pp.134, 35.
UN doc.AJ334jAdd. 1, in GA. OR, Second Sess., Fouith Corrini.,
pp. 13&138.
UN doc.Aj422, inGA, OR, Second Scss.,Pfen~ryiMc~rirtgVol. II,
p. 1538.

UN doc. Aj929, in GA, OR, Fourth Sess.,Fourth Corniri.Anncx,
p.7.
UN duc. Aj5993 (15 Septerriber1865),Letter frmn ~hePerrrtrineirt
Hepr.e.xetiioofiSourl?Africnto ffieUnited iV(~!inririress~dro the
Secret<zry-Cietleru/.

D. Srcuurn I70illi1:1~
1. Rcsol;~f~utis

264<19G9)2,0 Marcli1969,in UN dm. SIRES,i264(1969).
- 269(19~j9),17Augus~1969,inUNdo~.S/HES,'269 ,(1969).
276 (97II3),January 1970, in11N doc. S,'ItES!216(1970).
283(19702 ).JuIy 1970i.n UN dm. SjRESj283 (1970).
284(19701,29JuIy 1970,in UN dw. S!RES/184(1970).

2. irf~efings
(a)<IficiaK~cords
SC, OR, F-irstYear, No. 2, 32nd Mczting,p. 124:34th Meeting,

pp. 174-175;35th Meeting, pp.182,197, 199.
SC, OR, Second Year, No. 1.89th Meeting,pp. IO -1,14-51,18;
No. h, 95th Meetingp. 123; Nq.7,96th Meeting, p.'133 ;o. 31,
124ii-tMeeting, pp. 643-644,648; No-74,181stMe.ti.g ,p.1920,
1933,1935.
SC. OH, Third Year, Nos. 36-51, 27stMeeting,p. I64:
SC, OR, Fifth Year.No. 3,461st Meeting,p. IO:483rd Meeting,
pp. 2-3;488th Meeting,pp. 2-3.
SC, OR, Nincteent Year. 114Mh Maziing.p. IO.

{b) ProvisionRecords
UN .$OC.S~PV.'1464(20March 19691,]>p.j-12,16,2 1-33,2,34-38,
46-46,54-56.
UN doc. SlPV. 1465(10March I969)pp. 7,12, 27,27. 32,41-48,

52. 58-65,71. .
UN dm. SIPV. 1492(30July 19691 pp.6-13,j6.18,21 -22.
UN dot.SjPV. I493 (4 AUgust 19691'pp.7-10, 13-5, 17, 2126,
3 1.33-35.
LN dm. SiPV. 1494(6 Augy~t 1969),pp. 7, !S-116, 18-20,21.
UN OC. SIPV. 1495(8 Augtist 1969pp. 3,7-10,12-15,17,45.
U N doc. SIPV. 1496(11 Auyusi,9I69),p. 6,8-11.
LN OC.SiPV. 1497 (12August 1969).pp. 6-7,11-15.
L:N doc. SIPV. 1527(78Januaw 1970).pp.26, 31-37,37-38.
L;N doc. SiPV. 1528(29January 1970).pp. 8. 1O-1b. 21-22, 31-
33. 46,48-50, 52-55.5753-65.

UN doc. SjPV. 1529(30 January 1Y70) ,p. 7-5,17-18.27, 33-35,
38, 41,47-51 53,56,66, 83-8587.
UN OC.S/PV. 1550(29 July 1910):pp.8-10, 36-41.46-47 .1-53,
57,61-Sb ,1-81,87-91. WKl ITEN STATESIENT.OSO11TkI Ai-RICA 521

3.Orker

SC, OR, First l'car. First Scries,SNo. 2, p. 72. .
SC, OR, Fifth Yt:arSup. for1 January-31May 1950,pp.I9,20.?2,23.
UN doc. Sj7271 (78ApriI 1966).pp. 59-62.
UN doç. Sj7392 (1July 19661pp. 16-17.
UN duc. 518307 20 December1963, p.325.
UN duc. Sr894{ 32?Dewmber 19681,p. 179.
UN doc. Sj9090 (14 March 1969),pp.126-127.
UN dot. SjY359i24 July1969).
UN doc. 5!9371{1 August 19fi9).
UN &c. $9463 (3 October LW), pp. 1, 20,47;hnex I, pp.21-22.

UN da.. Si%] fi (2January 1970)andAdd. 1-3.
UN dm. Si9863 (7 July 1970), Kepori and Recotitmendations sub-
rnittcby tliAd Hoc SiibCommittcc t5tabIishedinpiIrsuancofSecurity
Council rcsolution276 (1970).
E. Ecmourt: %CIAL COUKCIL '

EconotnicCatnnii~.~iofnor Afrit11
UN dm. E/CN. 14J!;WSA/7,"Youth Einploymentand Narional Dcvclop-
ment inAfrica", Sori<riWelfnre ServicesAfrico,No. 7, Noveniher1958,

L'niiedNations, Social UevelopmenrScction of the Econornic Cornmisfion
for Afriw, pp.35-35.
F. TRUSTEESH CIP>L:NCII.

1.Councilrlfeefings
TC, OR, Second Sess..First Part,6ih Meetinpp. 121-132; 15tMccl-
ing, pp. 470-473475-476 478,480-486,488-490, 492-512;18thMeeting,
pp.573-580, 593,@Il,603-605.

. TC, OR, Tliird%S., 31stMscting, pp. 416-41741st .Meeringpp. 531-
539:42nd Mecling, pp. 540-552.
TC, OH,Fifih SC-SS I,fMeeting, pp.2, 3; 25th Meeting,pp. 309-312;
27th Mwiing, pp. 329-335.310,343.
2. Reportsto the GentruAss~mhly

CA, OR, ThirdIcss.,Sup.Nu.4 (A:603),pp. 42-45.
3. Miscelinneous

UN dm. Ti1 75,inTC, OR, ThirdSec<.,Sup.(Tj337),pp. 51-52.
GA, OR, SecondSess ..p. No.10(Aj402jIlev. l),ProposedTrustcc-
ship Agreementfoi the MandatedTerritoryofNauru, subrnittedby the
GovemrnentsofAllstraIia,New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

G. SECKFTARIAT
1. Depurtmenf ufEroi:o~nii:and SuciAffairsSIatisticOEce
Defriographic Y~art-ofW8, Twent iethTssuc(New York, 1969).pp. 85-

89.
Statisticnf Yerrrlioo.kI968, Twentieth Isst~e(New Yo1969).206-212,
453-454,464,557-558,59(tW;07, 73-677.
Monfhi-vBuiletinofSrafisliVol. XXIV, No.9 (Septernkr 1970) pp.1-4, ,
300-202.
2. Ofic cf'PübiicInfrinmtio~i

Every~nnn'sUniredAYt;junsSixthEdition (New York. 1959), pp.4-6.822 NAMIRIA (SOUTH WESI AFKICA)
H. IKTXRG~~~ERNMEA NTEALC~ERESLAIED .SO TilU~rr~n NATIONS

1. Itrterririii~Barik for R~cons~rucrioiroiid B~vr~opnreirt,Infernariorial
D~vefopnenr As.roria~ionArtfiau!Report f19681p. 8; (9691,pp. 1I)I 1.

2. Worfd ifeualtirOrgonizurion
WBrid IJeoiflrSturisfidruiirn1962, Vol.III,Healtli Personneland Hos-
pital Establishments{Geneva, World FiealthOrganiration, 1966).

1. OTHEK
. The kE~1r1rrofihr Unitcd ,Variorts.
2. TheSr~zureofthe Ini~rrroiioiiult.vurt ofjustice.

3. UN do:. A!CONF. 39/27 (23 May 19691,LtriirediVatinirsConjer~ncon
the trrwof Treuiies: Vicm Corvenriviiunrha Law of'Treatie.7pp. 17,
78-29.
Unite ,VuiiuirsConferettce onI~E Law of Tr~urirs.OR, FirstSession,
Vienna. 25 March-24 May 1968 (A/CONF.39 l/),p.156-1 85,208- 14;
Second Session, Vienna, 9 April-21 May 1969{A/CONF.39:1I:Add. 11,
pp. 57,59.
4. "A FormidableTaskin New tiu~ne a :accfulPcnctrütiC onontinued in
Primitive Trust Territory", United,latiorrs Xexrie,ol. 2, No. 3 (Scp-

teniber1955), pp.33-44, atp. 34.
5. "New Guinea- -Most Backward Trust Ara", Uiiired hrnfinrrR~vie~,,
VoI. I, No. 3(Septenilx 1954),pp. 31-36,atp. 31.
6. Reperturj; uf Practiceof Uniled NarioirsOr~?(~ns , Vols. @ew York,
United W~arions1 .955),Vol.XI .p. 19,20, 21, 22-23, 183, 203-204, 219,
237, 238, 239,283,285-286, 299.
7. RepertuirruJ the Fraclice orke SecrrriiC.'oimt.il1946-193f (NewYork,
Unircd Nations Departmeni of Political and Sccurity Council Affairs,
1954),pp. 172, 126.

8.Yenrlior#k of rireFfzter~rationlozrrof Ju.r!ice, TheIhgue. I 951-1952,
p. 89.
9. Ut~iied~VuriotisTreafSeries, Vol.1 {1946-19471,pp. xvi-xvixx-xxx.

Cor5fk~ctrcde ,'ePu(~ix191Pi920, Rectreifdesai:iesde iu C.-unJdrrti(Paris,
Imprimerie rrationale, 19341,Partie VI.Truites uwc Ics Pirissaric~sctl~ietiiips.
mise PJIvigztirA, ~r~~ornhii de inniisem rigiw~~r,1
fm., p. 327, 353,399:
416.

77re FiYsfWest Afr~cariSiitnrniC.'oi$errncrheldcrrSunriiqlrrliie,CeirtPro-
vince,LiberilriHinieri{indJiriy13-19, 1859(MonroviaLi herianTnforniaiton
ServicelLondon;ConsofidatcdPublicationsCh. L.td., 1959).p.30.

A Corntnmiriry otr ~he Charlcr of the Uiriied~~'irtiuC,itid5666 (London,
His Majesty's Stationery Ottice, MiscelIaneousNu.B (I945) ),16. WKITTElr:STA'I'EMEKTF SOUTH AFRICA

VI. UNITED STATE SF AMEKI(:A

1. fieuringshqfouethe Commitree oiiForrigirRelniions, UriifeSlntcs Scnafe,

on The Cfrrirteufthe United :Votions79th Congress.Ers tSessionf1445),
pp.41, 2I1.213,265.
2. Pap~rvsRriuring rurbe Foreirn Rebrions of the Unilrd Sluies: ThcParis
Peace Cotrferencc, 191913 Vols. (Washington, Cnifed States Govemment
PrintingOfIlce, 1942-IW), VOL. T,p. 407; Vol.m. pp.719-720, 723, 739-
750, 761,763-754, 763-770 7,85-786,788-791, 743-796,798, 800-802, 816;
Vol. V,pp. 474,508-509.
3. Reporr 10rlie PresiJecby the Scrreiur oy Srareor]rhp Hesulr.4 theSan
Francisco Cuiifrrrnce, Department ofStatc, Pubimtion 2349, Confereitce
Ser~es71, p.71.

VII. BWRS AND PAMPHL 1E

1. Anand. R. P.,Studits NfnteriirrtionArljidircrfi(DcIhi-6, VikasPub-
licationsKew York, Oceana I'ublications,I969)p,p. 138,145.
2. Bttkcr,R. S., Woodrow Jl/ilsunnd World Serr!em~nf,3 Vols. {New York,
Doubleday, Pageanii Co.,1922-19231V , olIII,pp. 108-110, 126-29.
3. Hastid, S."De quelcliiesproblèmesjuridiquesposéspar ledbveloppement
des orgunisaions inicrnaionalcs", Les proi>tènresfond(immfoux du droir
intcr~atioriol. Mêiesgen I'hunnc~fde J. Spirupau~us(Bonn : Schimrnel-

busch,1957). p.35.
4. Bcer, G.L., AfricanQuestiu~rar ihe Paris PericeC.~n~errnecdr.by L.H.
Gray(New York, Macmillan,19231, pp.431,443.
5. Bentwich, N.,The A4ai1dnresSysrem (London,Longmans, Green and Co.,
1930), p. 16.
6. Bentwich, N. and Mirtii~. A.A Cotnnirntury on theCharter of~he United
iV(~iio(Idondon, Rrlutltdge& Kegan Paul Ltd, 19511,pp. 33, 63.75.
7. Bernhardt, R., Die A~t~lcgrtngvofkerrerhtlirlirv VrrfrügKoin, Berlin,
Car[ Heymanns VerliigKg, 19631,pp. 169,174.
S. Bowet i,D. W., Thei.nw of'liit~rtmtioiin.~iiiüzi(London ,tevens and
Sons, l953), p32.

9. Briery,J. L.,TheLuiv uf,'irriirir.~,SEdition(Oxford. CIitrcndon Press,
1963), p. O.1
10. Chawdhuri, R. N.. Iri!crnntionMn~dar~sund Triisi~rshiS~S~PIII@hc
Hague, Martinus Nijhofl. 1953, p.62.
11. Dahm, G., Vü/iiikrrre:hrJ,Ii Bande(Stuttgart, W. Kolilhamn-terVcrlag,
1958-1961):Band T,pp. 27, 565BandII, pp.25,721. 272; Rand IIIp.55.
12. Degan ,V. D., L'itrreipr&tntiondrzrcurJenclraitijirertiationai(Haye,
MartinusNijhofF, 19ri3)p. 130.
13. deVisschcr, C..LPSqqècril~iiksidroit i~irernutioirnipu(Paris, Editions
A. Pedone, 19671,p,54.

14. ni Quai, J,.LPS e#ei*des résolirtiuriesiVationsU~rieparis. R. I'ichon
clR. Durand-Auzias. 19671,pp. 11, 7981.
15. Dolivet,L.,The Utliln!hratioris:Hui~diioalon rhe ,SenG.VurfdOrgatiiza-
rion(London. Phucrix House, 19463,pp.28. 48.
16. Diibisson,M...LA C.7ur inisrnn!ionoid~ jicsiir(Paris, R.Pichon et R.
Durand-Auzias, I364), p.307.
17. Fauchille,P.,Troi~lrledrpir iiiitrrnurptibiic8'kd. (Pari Rs,uswau ci
Cie,1925),Tome T,2' partic, p.846.
18. Fitzmaurice,Ci. "SurJicialInnovalion-lis Uses and ils Pcrils-AS exem- WRl1TFK SI'A'IEMtNP' OF S06AFKICA 825

40. Logan, R. W.. TheXJrica11:t.lnnriore.sin WoPoli(ics (Washington, The
Public AffairsPFCSS ,9481,pp. 1-2.
41. Louw,D.J., firurc.P(iiritroflAnifna]Pruducriunin Soirrh Wc,sAJrica
(I968), p.4.{Lnpublished.)
42. Margaiith, A. M., Thc it~rertiiiriuticrifj411mhtes(Baltimore,Johs 11ski
Press,1930) pp. 33-14, 199-200.
-13.McNair, A. D., The Law of Tr~niicr (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 19Gi),
pp. 383,424, 429.
44. Miller,D.H., The l)raftionf-~lie Cat*en(~nr2, Vols. (New YorkG. 1'.
Pulnani's Sons,IYZX, Vol. I,pp. 43,73,75. 106-107, 186Vol. IIpp. 88-

89, 104,153.273,272, 783, 285,285, 306, 3I4-315. 323, 333-334, 362, 384-
385, 676-687 037.
45. Mil IotA.. Les nn~n(lhn!ertlrrtionalErude.71('~ppiicnrionde I'arri22e
du Pnrrede laSocikrCdes :Vuiior(Paris, Emile Larose,19241p. 89.
45. Mohr, E.G., Dic Fmgc der So~~ver&niturnden .Wundatsgebietcn(Borna-
Leipzig, Universit2tswrlag von Rokrt Noskc, 19281,p.4.
47. Nicholas, H. G., Tf;s United Nurions As A Puliiical frisriluriofhird
Edition (OxfordUniversityPress, 1967),pp.86-87.
48. Pahl, R., Dns vükei-recli~iicke Kn!miat-Mnndar (Berlin, Otto StolIberg
Vcrlag GmbH, 1928), p. 103.
49. Peliche, E., La persa~nnalitlinreniarionnie distiircredes rofiec.s.ousk
rnaridnt(Parislioussr:aetCie, 19321,p.39.

50. Ilosenherg, L., Lehrbrrrh desDeutscfien Zivi/pruzessrech~s, Aufiage
(München und Bertin, C. Fi.Beck'sche VerIagsbuchhandlung.19601,
pp. 91-92,700-701.
51. Kosenne. S., 7'hti Lawand Pmctice of the IrrterrurtiuCourt, 2 Vois.
(Lcyden, A. W. Sijlhiiff. 1965),VoTIp,p. 667698-697 9,1,704, 708.
52.Ross, A., Con.sritü?io(8 I~P United Nuriuits (Kehenhavn, Fjnar Munks-
gaard. 1950).pp.59-1j0hl, 83-84,160.
53.Schncidcr, W., Das volkerrechtlichr :Mnridnt(Stuttgart. Ausland und
Heimat VerIags-Aktit:ngese 192s).ha.ft4rfsrq.
54. Schwarzenberger,G.: infrrmfionaf Law, Third Edition {London, Stevens
and Sons, I957) ,ol.1,pp. 101-10?.
55. SchwvarzznbergerG , .,A :Wunuui of iinernarinnai Fm, Eifth Edition
(I.ondon, StevensanclSons,19671,pp. 289, 293.

55. Scymour. C..The Iriritnate Pap~.of Cofoiid fioiixe4 \'OIS.(London.
ErnestBenn Ltd..I9::G-192 Vol.,TV, p. 307.
57. Simpson, J. L. and Fox, H., ItzrcrrinriuArbi~ruiiot(London ,tevens
and Sons, 1959),p.91).
58. Surensen, M. (ed.) ;. ntj~lof PublicIiirert~afionolLaw (London, Mel-
bourne, Toronto, Ma:rnillan. 19681p.88.
59. SpicgclM., Dos vdkerrecfirlic!iAnndnrundscii~cAnwenrirtngnz@Pr~lüstiria
(vienna, Leuschnefa;id Lubenrky, 19281,pp. 8-9.
M. Smuts, J. C., Th Lt~ugur of hrariotzsA PrncticcrSuggesfion (London,
Hoddcr und Stoughtrin, 1918). pp12, 15.
G1. 'l'en-iperlH. W. V . (ed.A. Ilisrorcd rhe P~aceConfirerice utPark
5 Vols. (London, Heiiry Frowdc and Hvdder aridStoughton, 1920-1974),
VoI,1:p. 195;Vol.iT ,p.233-234,237,234; Vol. In,p.95; Vol.VI,p. 502.

62. ?'il1manS, P., dn~~/u..AnieriReiario/~sa1~htPuri.$PeareCo!ifirenfeof
1919(Princelon Univ,:rsi[y I'reI,61),p. 59.
63. Townscnd, M. E., The RisccinrFdi of Gertnm~y'sColoiiial Empire (Ncw
York, MaciniIlan. I9:tO),pyi. 363-369, 377-378.64. Tunkin, Ci. T.Droitit~ffvtio~iopublic (ParisEditions A. Pcdone,1965).
p. 94.
55. Va1lat,F., "The Peaceful Settleiiienof Disputes". Cu~ribridgeEmys Ni
Iniernati~~n~~l (I,ondon,Stevens andSuns; New York, Oceana Publica-
tions,1965))pp. 161-162.
66. Van Rci:s,D. F.W., Les miandnls ititerriuliunuLe cuntrbleirrtcrrrinrio~inl
de I'udtrinis~r mu~idutaire(Paris, Rousscaiet Cie.. 19271pp. 38-39.

67. van Roi,ien,R. D.,Procedure-Krcesric s her Vntke~ihoiid~~reh?s-Graven-
hage,Martinus Kijhoff, 1935)pp. 129-134.
68. Verdros:;A.. Vfilkemchr,5.~uflage (Wicn, SpringcrVerlag, 1964),pp.520,
522.
69. Verzijl,J.H. W., "InternationalStatus of South-West Africa(Advisory
Opinion of II .uly 1950, tCi.J. Rrpc~rt1950)"T .he fU~~S~~U~EJICof the
WoridCour!,2 Vols.Wyden, A. W. Sijthvft;1965-Ighfi),VoI. II, 50.
70.vonFreytagh-Loringh Ao, Ua, Mandatsrei:hrii&IIJeutscherrKuloni~~
(Miinchen, Duncker und HurnbIot,I938), p.XTV.
71. von F~ytagh-Lorinyho\~cn, A., "Dic Mandatsherrschaft des VKlker-
bundes", Zchn dakre Vmsailfc., ïi. Rand (HeilifiBrückenver Iag GmbH,

19291,p.191.
72. Walters, F.P., A Hisrury of the Ltwzue ofA'arons, 7 Vols. Q,ondon,
Oxford UniversityPress,1952),Vol. I.pp. 64-65,
73. Wehkg, II., DieViilkerbun&arzung. 2. Auflagc (BerlinHenseI und Co.,
19271,pp. 117-118.
74. Whi~akcr'sAlrriariack1970(An Almanack for theYear of OurLord, 1970,
I,ondon), p. 13.
75. Wright, Q., Man&tes Under the Leu~i~eof ~v~rio~t(Chicago, Chicago
liniversity I'res1930) pp. 3, 15-23,4?-48,50,83-84,87-90, 109-112, 118.
157, 196-197,199-200. 440.

76. ZcincddinF c.M.?Le r&ginzedu conrrtïl~P.Tnianchts dr iaSocid& ~PS
Ncrtiuns(Paris,Pressesuniversitairede Francc, 19321,p. 295.

1.Baslid, S., "L'affaire du SuWuest arricaindevant la Cour iiiternatioiiale
de Justice", Joitrnodu droir internaiinnuVol. 94 {I967), pp. 571-583,
at p.57.3.
2. Rindschedl e.L,.. "Ladelimi[ationdcsconipétencedses Nations Ilnies",
Recueil descours, Vol.108.No. 1(1953) pp. 307-4113at pp. 320,324, 345,
388, 415.

5.Rlaine iiloane,F., "The t3inding Force of a 'Recommendation' of the
GeneralAssenibIy of iheUniied Nations", 73e British YeurBook of'In!er*-
rruliorialLw, Vol. XXV (1948).pp. 1-33,at p.3.
4. Bowett, il.W.. "Estoppel before the InrcrnationaI Tribunalsand its
RcIafiuir tu Aoqui~çcncc". Tho British Yeor Book ofIiilrrnr~tiunuI-uw,
vol. xxxnr (I9571 p,p.I76-202. atp. I77.
S.CarilIo Salcedo, J.A., "Un Caso de DcsmIoniracion: El Tenitorio del
Sud ocstcAfricano", Revista Espofiofode t>erechoInt~rirr~ciui, ol. XX
(1967),gp. 417428, atpp. 418-419.
6.CXu, Hungdah, "Succession in International Organisations", lixlcr-

naliorralandCoii~parnriveLaw QitnrrerS,Vol. 14 (19hS)p ,p. 83-120,a!
pp. 105--lm, f081-09.
7.D'Arna!o, A. A.,"Legal and Politic Sarütegieof the South WestAfric~
Liigati#~n"Laiv iiTrnrtsirionQuurreuiy(1967). pp.8-43.828 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

26. McNair, A. D., '"l'hCouncil'sRcquesiforanAdvisoiy Opinionfromthe
Permantnl Courr ofhternational Justicxi", British Year Booof Inter-
nniiorraLnw, Vol. ViI (1926)pp.1- 13,at p. 13.
27. Morley, .lU., "KelativeIncompatibili~yof Rinctions inthe international
Court", inrernarionai and Cuquruiive Lnw Qmrierly. Vol. 19. Part 2
(ApriI 19701,pp.316-327 ai pp. 316, 321-322
28. Murphy, C. F. (Jr.)"The South-West Afriw Judgnient: A Study in
Justicjability"Duqiresne Ciirivrrsi~Law Revien,. Vol. 5 (1966-1967),

pp. 477-486,itt p419.
29. Nisot, J., "The Advixiry Opinion of the LnternationaICourt of Justice
on the InternationalStatur of South %'est AMca", The Soufli AJrican
hw Journnl,Vol. 68,Part 3 (August 19511,pp. 274-285 a, pp.279-28 1.
30. Potter,P. II., "Oiiginofthe Systern of Mandates under the Leaçue of
Nations", The Amrriruii Poii?icnScience Rei-iew. Vol. XYI. No.4 (No-
vember 1922),pp.563-583.
31. PIunkett,E. A. (Jr."LN Fact-Finding asa Means ofSettling Disputes",
Virgirii.lournai ofIniernaiiunui I-aw, VoI.No. 1 (19693,pp. 154-183,
arp. 156

32. PushrriinE. A.,"On the Powers Mediation Activitiesof theUN Security
Council inPeacefulSetriementof InternationalDisputes"(in Russianwith
EngIish Summary ), Soverskii Ezfie:odiix4f~rhd~~urortitn~novo (Soviet
Yeur-Book of JiiternnriutiaCLuw)(LSSR) (1966-1967)+ pp. 246-252, at
p. 251.
33. Rappard, W. E., "The Mandates and the InternationaI Tmsteeship
Systems", VariaPoliticu (Zurich, Editions Puligraphiqu Scs., I953),
pp. 181-190,at pp.182, 184.
34. Rolin.H.. "Le systtme desmandats coloniaux",Revuededroit iniernntionnl
er df[éfislnrioconiprke, Vol. XLVIi (1920),No. 1, pp.329-363,ai pp.

349, 356357.
35. Ricc, D. A., "Partiein Interest C"oiumbia Joiir~~nioj'TrcriismfiontilLaw,
.Vol. 4Ko. 47 (1969, pp. 71-85,ai pp.80-82 8,5.
36, Rousseail, C.,"Chronique desfails internationau~xc" ruc géi~érnidee
droit it?ternatiofüb/ic,No.2 (19671,pp. 382-384,atp.384.
37.Schwelh, E., "h'eue Etiippen der Fortcntwicklungdcs ViiIkcrxchis durch
dieVereintenNaiionen", Archiv ~PsVdk~rrwhts, Vol. 13(1%6), pp. 1-57,
at p. 51.
38. Shapira, A., "Thc SccurityCouncil Resolution of November 22, 1967-
Xis Legal Nature and Implicalions",lsruel Lnw Xcvica,,Vol.4, No. 2
(ApriI 19691,pp. 229-241,a1pp. 231-233, 235.

39. Sinclair:L.M., "ViennaConferenceonthe Lw ofTrcaties", Inrernuiiona~
und C,'oiirpuruiiw Law Qiiart~rb, Vol.19 (January 19701, pp. 47-54, at
p. 63.
40. SIonim, S., "The Origins othc srnuthWest AfricaDispute:The Versailles
Pace Conference and theCieztion oftheMandates System",The Ca?tadian
Yearbooic,ofin~errra~ionnfnw, Vol. VI (19#), pp. 115-143, at pp. 126,
132, 135. 138.
41. StavropouIos,C. A., "The Practiceof Volurltary Abstentions by Perma-
ncntMemben:of the Security Council under Article 77,I'aragraph 3, of
ihe Charter of theUnited Narions", TiiAtliericaiJoitrtiuj'inlernulioiraf

Lriw~,Vol. 61,No. 3 (Jiy I967), pp-737-752,at pp. 737,742 ciseri.746.
42: Tunkin, G.I., "Thc Lnrted Narions: 1945-1965(Problemxof Triternational
Law)", .SnvierLriwntidC;nvern~~~e~Vr,l. IVNo. 4 (Spring1966) p.p.3-13,
at pp.5-6 8,.43. Vallat,F. A., "The c:ornpererrc 01'IheUnited NationsGeneral AsscmbIy",
Rectreildes CoursT 1701.97, No. II(1959). pp. 207-243, aipp. 230-231.
44.Van Asbcck, F. M., "International Lawand Colonial Adniinistrarion",
Trari.racfinnsfthe r;rotiiiSucie!y, Vol. 39 (19531,pp. 5-37 , tp. 14.
45. Verdross, A., "Kain dic Gcncralvcrwmmlung ùcr Vcrcintcn Nationen
&as VGlkcrrochtrvciterbildeii?",ireifsckr$tfür au.rit?ifriiircs#enri'icfres
Recki rindVfifkerreckr,Vol. 26(1966), pp. 690-697 ,tp. 695.

The SuntniifConf~retircIij'lndeperzdeni/IfricoStores,OfficialTcxi niidResulu-
!ions, C.I.A. S;131en2!H-W.,pp. 4-5.