PART IV
CORRESPONDENCE
QUATRIÈME PARTIE
CORRESPONDANCE1. THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR
28 October 1960.
Sir,
1have the honour to send y011herewitlia letter from theAgents of the
Government of Ethiopia, trans~nitting to you on behalf of the Etliiopian
Government an Application 1 instituting proceedings before the Inter-
national Court of Justice and relating toa dispute with the Government
of the Union ofSouth Africa concerning the interpretation and applica-
tion of the Mandate for South West Africa.
1 have the further honour to inform you thnt H.E. Dr. Tesfaye
Gebre-Egzy and Hon.Ernest A.Gross have been appointed Agents ofthe
Ethiopian Government in this case.
Very truly yours,
(Siggted)Tsahafe Tezaz Aklilu HABTE-WOLD.
2. THE AGENTS 01; THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR
28 October 1960.
Sir,
Ive have the honour to address to you, on behalf of the Government
of Ethiopia, an Application iristituting Proceedings before the Inier-
national Court of Justice and relating to adispute with the Government
of the Union of South Africa concerning the interpretation and applica-
tion of the Mandate for South West Africa.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed Ernest -4. GROSS.
l See 1, pp. 4-24.512 SOUTH WEST AFRICIZ
3, THE AMBASÇADOR OF LIBERIA TO THE XETHERLAXDS TO THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
I have the honour to send you herewith aletter from the Agents of the
Govemment of Liberia, transrnitting to you, on behalf of the Liberian
Government, an Application l instituting Proceedings before the Inter-
national Court of Justice and relating to a dispute with the Government
of the Union of South Africa concerning the interpretation and applica-
tion of the Mandate for South West Africa.
1 have the further honour to inform you that Honourable Joseph
W. Garber, Attorriey General of Liberia, and Honourable Ernest A.
Gross have been appointed Agents of the Liberian Government in this
case.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) joseph GRAHAM.
4. THE AGENTS OF THE GOVERXMENT OF LIBERIA TO THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
We have the hoiiour to address to you, on behalf of the Government
ofLiberia, an Application instituting Proceedingsbefore the International
Court of Justice and relating to a dispute with the Government of the
Union of South Africa concerning the interpretation and application of
the Mandate forSouth West Africa.
Very truly yours,
(Sigtted) Joseph W. GARBER.
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
5. THE REGISTRAR TO THE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES -4.1. OF SOUTH AFRICA
TO THE XETHERLANDS
qNovember 1960.
Sir,
1have the honour to inform you that an Application has today been
filedin the Registry of the International Court of Justice on behalf of the
Government of Ethiopiainstituting proceedings before the Courtagainst
1 Sec1, pp. 26-28.
* A simila; communication\vassent to the Chargéd'Affaires of SouthAfrica
in respect of the Application fiietheGovernment ofLiberia. CORRESPONDENCE 513
the Union of South Africa and relating to a dispute with the Government
of the Union of South AfRca concerning the interpretation and applica-
tion of thehiandate for South West Africa. 1 enclose herewith a copy of
this Application and of the lerter of transmittal of H.E. the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia. 1shall idue
course transmit to you certifiecl printed copies of the Application in the
English and French edition which will be prepared by tlicRegistry.
You will observe that the Applicant refers to Article 80. paragraph I,
of the Charter of the United Nations and founds the jurisdiction of the
Court on Article 7 of the Mandate for Cerman South West Africa made
at Geneva on 17 llecember 1920, and on Article 37 of the Statute of the
Court.
1 take this opportunity of drawingyour attention to Article 3j ofthe
Rules of Court which provides (paragraph 3) that the Party against
whom the Application is made aiid to whom it is notified shall, when
acknowledging receipt of the notification, or failing this, as soon as pos-
sible, inform the Court of the name of its Agent, and (paragraph 5)that
the appointment of an Agent muçt be accompanied by a statement of
an address for service at the seat of the Court to which al1 communica-
tions relating tothe case should be sent.
1have the further honour to inform you that the question of the fixing
of time-limits for the filing of the pleadings in the case wform the sub-
ject of a later coinmunication. In this coiinection, 1 would venture to
draw your attention to Article 37, pragraph r,of the Rules of Court.
1 have, etc.
6. THE REGISTRAR TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTEK FOR
FOREIGK A1:FBIRÇ OF ETHIOPIA
5 November 1960.
1have the honour to acknowiedge receipt of Your Excellency's letter
of 28 October 19Go which was accompanied by a letter from the Agents
of the Governmeiit of Ethiopia, transmitting to me on behalf of the
Ethiopian Covemment an Application instituting proceedings before the
International Court of Justice and reIating ta a dispute with the Govern-
ment of the Union of South Africa, concerning the interpretation and
application of the Mandate forSouth West Africa.
I have the fiirther honour to inform Your Excellenc~v that due note
has been taken of the appointment of H.E. Dr. Tesfaye Cebre-Egzy and
Hon. Ernest A. Gross as Agents of the Ethiopian Government in thiç
case and of their address for service at the seat of the Court.
1 have, etc.
lands.eimilarcomtnunication\\.acnt tothe Ambassador of Liberito the Scther-514 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
7. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA1
5 November 1960.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the letter o28 October 1960 by which
H.E. the Deputy Prime Xinister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Ethiopia infoi:med me of your appointment as Agent of the Governrnent
of Ethiopia in the proceedings instituted by that Government against
the Union of South Africa, and to acknowledge your letter of 28 October
1960 transmitting the Applicatioii in that case.
I have the further honour to inform you that the Application was
filedin the Registrv on 4 November 1960 and was the same day com-
municated to the Chargé d'affaires al The Hague of the Union of South
Africa.
The question ofthe fixingof time-limits for the filiof the pleadings
in the case willform the subject of a later communication. In this con-
nection 1wouId venture to drawyour attention to Article 37,paragraph r,
of the Rules of Court.
1 have, etc.,
8. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
5 November 1960.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to my telegram of yesterday's date, a copy
of which is enclosed hcrewith, and to confirm that on 4 November 1960
Applications were respectively filed on behalf of the Government of
Ethiopia and the Goveriiment of Liberia inçtituting proceedings against
the Union of Soutli Africa, each relating toa dispute with the Govern-
ment of the Union of South Africa concerning the interpretation and
application of the Mandate for South West Africa.
1 should be grateful if, in accordancewith Article 40, paragraph 3, of
the Statute of the Court, you would be good enough to notify the Mem-
bers ofthe United Nations of the filing of these Applications.
For this purpose, 1shall forward to you as soon as possibIrzgcertified
true copies of each of the Applications, marked "Attention Director,
General Legal Division".
Ihave, etc.,
l The same communication was sent scparately to the two Agents of the Govern-
ment of Ethiopia and similar communicationswere sentseparately to the two
Agents of the Gover~iinent of Libeinrespect of ttic Applicatfi1eby their
Government. 9. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES .4FFr\lRES ETRASCER DE'SFGHASISTAN
26 novembre 1960.
blonsicur l'Ambassadeur,
Le 4 ~ovembre 1960 a étédéposée au Greffe de la Cour internationale
de Justice, au nom du Gouvernement de lfEthiopie, une requête par
laquelle ce Gouvernement a int.roduit contre le Gouvernement de l'Union
sud-africaine une instancerelative au Sud-Oiiest africain.
J'ai l'lionneur, à toutes fins utites, de transmettre ci-joint à Votre
ExceIIence un exemplaire de cette requête.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
26 novembre 1960.
hlonsieur 1'Ambassadeur,
Le 4 novembre 1960 a étédéposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale
de Justice, au nom du Gouvernement de IiEthiopie, une requête par
laquelle ce Gouvernement a introduitcontre le Gouvernement de l'union
sud-africaine une instance relative au Sud-Ouest africain.
réftrant à l'article 40, paragraphe 3, du Statut de la Cour, j'ai
l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint h Votre Excellence un exemplaire de
cette requête.
I'euillez agréer, etc.,
II. THE YINISTER OF EXTERNAI. AFFAIRS OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
3 Decernber 1960.
Sir,
1 havc the honour to refer to the applications filed by the Govern-
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia to institute contentious proceedings
against the Union of South Afnca in the International Court ofJustice in
respect of South tl7cst Africa arrclto certify and declare, in terms of
Article 35 of the Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice-
' La marne communication a ét&adressée à touslesautres Etats Membres des
Xations Unies et une cornmunication analogua étéfaite au sujet la requëte du
Gouvernemcnt du 1,ibEriri.
La même comnlunication a étéadressée aux autres Etats niin membres des
Xations Unies qui sont parties au Statut de la Cour, ou aulauCour est ouverte
aux termes de l'article 35, paragra2,du Statut et unecommunication analogue
a étéfaite au sujede larequête du Gouvernement du Libéna.gr6 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
I. that the Government of the Union of South Afnca have been duly
notified that such applicationshavebeen iiied;
2. that the addreçs for service to which al1 cornmunications relating to
the said applications and proceedings shall be sent shall be thEm-
bassy of the Union of South Africa at The Hague;
3. that 1have appointed
Dr. Joan Philip VERLORE VAN THEMAAT
agent of the Union of South Africa in respect of the said applications
and proceedings;
4. that the Government of the Union of South Africa reserves the right
to appoint one or more additional, alternate or deputy agents at any
time hereafter iirespect of the said applications and proceedings, as
it considers ex1ii:dient.
1have the honour to state further that the foregoingacknowledgernent
of notification and appointment of the said Dr. verLoren van Themaat
as Agent of the Union of South Africa is made irrespectiveof the ques-
tions as to whether the InternationalCourt of Justice has ang jurisdic-
tion in respect of siich proceedings or not and asto whcther the applica-
tions of the Governrnents of Ethiopia and Liberia are in any respect
justifiedor not.
1have, etc.,
(Signed) EricH. LOEW.
12. THE AMBASSADOR OF LIBERIA TO THE NETHERLANDS TO THE
KEGISTRAR
19December 1960.
Sir,
I have the honour to advise that the Governments of Liberia and
Bthiopia will deposit onIj April1961 their Mernorials re the application
instituting proceedings before the InternationaCourt of Justice against
the Governrnent of the Union of South Africa conceming the interpreta-
tion and application of the Mandate for South West Africa.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Joseph GRAHAM. CORRESPONDENCE 5*7
13. THE AGENT FOR THE COVERNMEKT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
31 December 1960.
Sir,
I have the honour to submit the following views on behalf of the
Government of the Union of South Africa.
The rgth Aprilr961, thedate proposed by the Governments of Liberia
and Ethiopia for the filing of their AIemorials, is acceptable to us.
It is respectfully submitteci that in the light of the following con-
siderations a lengthp period of time will be required for the preparation
of the Counter-Mernorial of mji Government. Although it is not possible,
at this stage, to Say with anjr certainty what this period wili be, it is
estimated that a period of at least IO to 12 months after the Applicants
have filed their hlemorials wiil not be unreasonable.
The Applications of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia cover
an extremely wide field. These Applications deal not only with a number
of intricate legal and constitutional points but alço with a large number
of factual questionsrelating tu almost every facet of the administration
of the Territory of South West Africa over a period of 40 years. Indeed
it ismy subrnission that no case so far dealt with by the International
Court of Justice has had so wide a scope and contained so many ques-
tions of fact and law.
(a) In regard to the scope of the factual issues, the attention of the
Court is respectfully directed, inter alia, to the foUowing questions
raised in the Applications:
(i) the provision, control and regulation of residence and housing
(paragiaph 4 (e) (3),(7) and (13) of the Applications);
(ii) the regulation of labour (paragraph 4 (el (4), (5)and (6));
(iii)the administration, control and disposa1 of public land (para-
graph 4 (el(11) and (121 );
(iv) the various measures taken for the maintenance of law and
order (paragraph 4 (e) (8)-(I an) (14)-(17) read with para-
grapl14 (cl and fd));
(v)the provision and replation of education (paragraph 4 (e)
(vi) the provisions as regards political rights (paragraph4 (e) (1));
(vii) the ineasures taken in respect of different sections of the
population (paragraph 4 (b)). The scope of this question, in
itself, is extremely wide.
(viii) the measures taken to promote tothe utmost the matenal and
moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants (para-
graph 4 (a) ). Thisquestion isalso very wide.
(b) The legal issues cover nurnerous problems which have evolved over
at least 40 years. Some of these problems are unique in ttiat no
judicial pronouncements exist in connection therewith.
(c) The very nature of the issues raised in the Applications, their far-
reaching and complex character which expands their scopc, will
necessarily rcquire extensive research into historical and legal
records extending over a period of more than 40 years. Furthemore518 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
many of the documents which will be required, particularly those
relating to the League of Nations, are no longer readily available.
(d) A plcading which covers al1the questions raised will no doubt bc a
Iengthy one and willmost IikeIy be accompanied by many annexures.
The printing of such a document will doubtless take çome time.
{e) In considering the question of tlie time now to be allowed to my
Governrnent for filing its Counter-hfemorial it is subrnitted that the
fact that the Applicants have had a long time to prepnre their case
should be borne in mind. On the other hand the first official intiina-
tion to my Government of the Applicants' intention to institute
legaï proceedi~igs was only received at the same time when the
applications were transrnitted toit, viz.on the 4th November 1960.
In this regard, itrnust be pointed out that the responsible Min-
ister and most of the officials concerned with this mattcr were at
that tirne abroad attending the General Asçemblp of the United
Nations.
In conclusion, 1 respectfully wish to statethat my Government con-
siders the allegations made against it in a very serious light. For this
reason, also, iisdr:sirous of ohtaining sufficient time to enable it to den1
properly and satisfactorily with the issues raised.
IVherefore I pray that the date which it may please the Honourable
Court to determine for the filing of the Counter-Mernorial of thGovern-
ment of the Union ofSouth Africa shall not be before the 15th February
1962.
Pleasc accept, etc.,
14. THE AGENT FOI*THE GOVERXMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGTSTRAR
(telegram)
6 January 1961.
.Have received your letter 3 January enclosing request of Agent of
South Africa for leave to file Counter-hlemoriai South West Africa case
"not before 15 Febmary 1962" n view of Respondent's desire for so
long a delay we respectfully request opportunity for a meeting pursuant
Article 37,Rilles ofCourt. ive wish toCO-operatewith Court in assisting
find bala~icebet~veeninterest ofApplicants in expeditiouç determination
grave issues presented and nght of Respondent to have adequate oppor-
tunity to rnet:t allegations. Kespectfully, Ernest A. Gross. CORRESPONDENCE 519
15. THE RHGISTRAR TO THE AGEST FOR THE COVERShlEFT OF ETHIOPIA
13 January 1961.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the Application instituting proceedings
in the Sotcth IlVestAfrÉccrcase (Ethiopia v.Union of South Africa) and
to the President's interview today with the Agents for the Parties *,and
to inform you ttiat, having ascertained the views of the Parties, the
President lias, by Order of today's date 3,fixed the following time-limits
for the filing of pleadings:
For the hiemorial of the Ethiopian Government: 15April 1961;
For the Counter-Mernorial of the Government of the Union of South
Africa: 15 December 1961.
The subsequent procedure has been reserved for further decision.
The officia1copy of the Order for the Government of Ethiopia wiIl be
despatched to you in due course.
1have, etc.,
16. THE MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTKAR
18 January 1961.
Sir,
Ihave the honour to refer to my letter of 3 December rg60, whcrein 1
notified you of the appointment of Dr. J. P. verLoren van Themaat'as
Agent of the Union of South Africa in the contentious proceedings
instituted by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia concerning South
West Africa.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of that letter, in whicli 1intimated that the
Government of the Union of South Africa reserved the right to appoint
an additional Agent, I now have the further honour to inform you that
1 have appointed
Bfr. Ross MCGRECOR
as such additional Agent of the Union of South Africa in respect of the
said Applications and Proceedings.
The appointment has been niade subject to the same provisions stated
in the last paragraph of my letter of 3 Decernber 1960.
1 have, etc.,
For Minister of External Affairs.
(Signedi
Secretary for External Affairs
1 A siniilar communicationas sent tothe Agent for the Governmenof Liberia
in respecoftlieApplicationfileby his Government andthesame cornmun~cations
werc senttotlicAgent for the Governrnent of South Africa.
SeeXo, 5g,p. 546.para,113. iufra.
I.C.J. Repor1961. pp. 3and6.520 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Sir,
Reference is made to the Applicatioii of the Government of Ethiopia
in the case of SozsthW.estAjrica.
In accordancc with the order of 13 January 1961, by which the
President of the Court has fixedtirne limits for the filing of pleadings in
this case, the ~~ernorialofEthiopia wilbe filed on or befor15 April1961.
The purpose of this letter isto notify the Registry that the Covern-
ment of Ethiopia reserves the right, pursuant to ArticIe31 of the Statute
of the International Court of Justice and of Article 3 of the Iiules of
Court, to choose a Fiersonto sit as Judge in this case.
Pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, it is respect-
fdly requested that the President of the Court fixa time-limit within
which the Government of Ethiopia may notify the Registry of its inten-
tion to exercise its right to chooaeJudge under Article 31 of the Statute
and may state the iiame ofsuch person, when and if chosen.
The undercigned will bc grateful for your acknowledgrnent of the
receipt of this request and an indication that the procedure suggested
herein is acceptable to the Court.
Very tmly yours,
(SignedlErnest A. G~oss.
15 April 1961.
Sir,
Inaccordance with Article 43 of the Statute ofthe International Court
of Justice and Article 41 of the Rules of Court, and in cornpliance with
the order of 13 January 1961 by xvhich the President of the Court has
fixed time-lirnits for the filing of pleadings in SouthWest Africa case
(Ethiopia v.Union of South Africa), we have the honour to present
herewith the Memorial of the Government of Ethiopia 2.
Pursuant to Article 43 ofthe Rules of the Court, copies of al1the rele-
vant documents, or estracts therefrom, have been communicated to the
Registrar for use of the Court and of the other Party. A list of such rele-
vant documents iç gjven after the submiçsions, in accordance tviviththe
requirements of Article 43.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZE'.
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
' A similar corninunicatio\vas sentto the Registrarby the Agent for the
Governrnent of Liberi:l.
See1,pp. 32-ar1. CORRESPONDENCE PX
19. THE RECISTRAR TO THE LECAL ADVISER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMEIUCA
19April 1961.
Sir,
With reference to your letter ofIO November 1g60,I have the honour
to inform you that, the Partiesin theSouth WestAfric aases (Ethiopia er.
Union of South Africa and Liberia y. Union of South Africa) having
indicated that they have no objection to the pleadings in these cases
being made available to the Government of the United States of America,
it hasbeen decided under Article 44,paragraph 2, ofthe Rulesof Court,
that the documents in questionshalI be made available to that Govern-
ment.
1 am therefore enclosing copies of the only Pleadings filed so far in the
cases and would draw your attention to the confidential character of
such pleadings as long as the case is subjudice.
I have, etc.,
20. THE RECISTRAR TO THE AGEKT FOR THE GOVERNYENT OF ETHIOPIA
24 May 1961.
Sir,
I have the horiour torefer to the letterof 28 March 1961by which I
was notified that the Governmiznt of Ethiopiareserved the right, pursuant
to Article31 of the Statute and Article3 of theRules of Court, to choose
a person to sit as Judge in theSouth West Afrz'cacase (Ethiopia v. Union
of SouthAfrica), and in which it \vas requested that a time-limit be fmed
within which the Government of Ethiopia might notify the Registry of
its intention to exercise the right to choose a Judge under Arti31cof the
Statute and state the name of such person, when and if chosen.
Your letter was immediatel pylaced before the Court which haç now
had an opportunity to discuss it in conjunction with a similar request
submilted on behalf of the Government of Liberia in the South West
Africa case (Liberia v.Union of South Africa).
After deliberation, the Coui-t, by an Order dated 20 May 1961 3,has
joined the proceedings institutedby the Applications of the Government
of Ethiopia and the Government of Liberia and found that the Govern-
ment of Ethiopia and theGovernment of Liberia are in the same interest;
ithas fixed15 November I 61 as the tirneJimit urithin which the Guvern-
ment of Ethiopia and the 9;ovi:rnmeritof Liberia, acting in concert, may
choose a single Judge ad hoc.
l A similar communicatiowas sent to the Governmentofthe United Kingdom
(24hpril 1962)Israel(IISeptember 1962),Chile(1IApril1963)~Canada (3March
1964)and the United Arab Republic (1July 1904).
and SouthaAfrica.nications were senttheAgents fortheGovernments of Liberia
' I.C.J. Reports 1961,13.522 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
1 have tlie honour to enclose herewith the officia1copy of this Order for
the Government of Ethiopia. Further copies will be despatched to you
when printed.
1 have, etc.,
21. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERXMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
9 June 1961
Sir,
1 have the Iionour to acknowledge receipt of your letters Nos33730,
33731 and 33734 of24 May 1961, the annesed letters from the Agent of
the Governments of Liberia and Ethiopia of 28 hlarch 1961, and the
Order of 20 May 1961.
These letters and Order were received by me on 3 June 1961, and, as
the notifications by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia of 28hlarch
1961 ,ad not been comrnunicated to me before, itwas only on that date
that 1 became aware of their contents. The competent South African
authorities were therefore note~iabled to submit their views before the
Order was made, as they were entitled to do in terms of Article 3 (1)
of the Rules.
Furthermore, it wouid appear that the purview of Article 3 of the
Rules was exceedetl in that, whereas the said Article requires the Appli-
cants to decide prior to the time-limit fixed for the filing of the mernorial
whether they will (:hoosan ad hoc judge, the effect of their request of
28 March and the Order made pursuant thereto isto enable them todefer
their decision until sorne seven months later.
As the Govemment of the Kepublic of South Africa is now faced with
a fait accompli,I am directed to draw your attention to the foregoing
and to enquire whether there were any special circumstances which led
to these apparent departures from the Rules. It is not Our intention to
raiçeany forma1objection to the Order, but my Government is naturally
ansious to ensure that it will be informed timeously of any procedural
matters whereby its interestsmay be affected.
1also note that both Orders, of13January and 20 May 1961 ,efer to
a "dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the Mandate
of South West Africa". 1assume that these words are employed merelv
by way of descriptive reference tothe allegationinthe Applications and
Mernorials of the Governments of Ethiopiaand Liberia and not as signi-
fying that the question whether such dispute esists could not be in
issue in the proceedings.
Ihave, etc., CORRESPONDENCE 523
22. THE ACTING REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERYMENT OF .
ZOUTH AFRICA
15June 1961.
Sir,
I have the Iionour to acknowledge receipt of the letter of g June 1961
in which $ou refcr tothe Order made by the Court on zo May 1961 in the
South TVes,A!fricacases (Ethicipia v. liepublic of Soiith Africa; Liberiv.
Republic of South Africa).
In accordance with Article 3 of the liules, the Court in that Order
fixed a time-limit within which the Government of Ethiopia and the
Government of Liberia, acting in concert may choosc a single Judge ad
hoc. In so doing it intendcd neither to depnve the Government of the
Republic of South Africaof its rights under the Rulcs nor to prejudice in
any way tlie exercisc of such rights.
Itis noted that it isnot your intention to raise any formal objection to
the Order of the Court. The Government of the Republic of South Africa
will in due course have ample opportunity to submit its views on any
choice made by the applicant Governrnents, acting in concert, within the
time-limit laid down in the Oriier. Thcse views will not be limited to the
identity of any person so chosen but will be cntirely at Iarge.Tt is the
intention of the President, if such a choice be made by the Applicants,
to fisa time-lirnit within which the Government of the Republic of
South Airica may submit its views in accordance with paragrapli I of
Article 3.
You statc that the competent Soutli African autlioritieswere prevented
from suhmitting their views brfore the Order was made on 20 May 1961,
and indicate that this constituted a departure from the Rutes, in parti-
cular from Article 3, paragraph 1, tliereof, any011 ask whether this was
the result of any special circumstances. 1 would point out in the firçt
place that the provision to which you refer in no way requires that the
fixing of tlic time-limit first meiitionccl therein should be delayed urltil the
other party should have submitted its views.
In the second place, 1 would draw your attention to the fact tliat in
making its Order of 20 blny 1961 the Court was concerned ~4th the appli-
cation of paragraph 2of Article 3 and in fact fixed a time-limit for the
choice of a single Judge ad hocby the two Governments. Tliere would
appearto be evident advantages in giving you an opportunity to espress
your views after, rattier than before, tiiat decision had beentakcn. Itis
clear that if no choice be made by the applicant Governments, acting in
concert, the Republic of South Africa cannot in any \ilay be prejudiced.
In the event of such a choice being made, it will be irnmediately com-
municated to you. If, after pou have submitted yorir views, any doiibt or
objection should ürisc, tlie decision, in accordance witli the last seiltence
of paragraph I of Article 3,shall rest with the Court, ifnecessary after
hearing the Parties.
In conclusion on tliis point, I am directed by tlie President to assure
you that the Court's chief concern is that in al1matters there should be
complete ccluality between the Parties. When the time comcs for the
Government of the Republic of South Africa to reach a decisioii con-
cerning the choice of a Judge ad hoc, anp wishes it may express as to
tirne-limits to be fixer1will be fully taken into consideration.524 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
......... ......a .............
FinalIy, 1 would inform you that your assumption, expressed in the
last paragraph of your letter, with reference to the words there clted, is
entirely correct. In accordance with the common practice of the Court,
the general words used to describe the nature of the case referred to it
are taken from the letters of transmittal of the Applications refemng
the case to the Court. The employment of these descriptive words
prejudges no issue between the Parties.
1 have, etc.,
4 October 1961.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the Order of zo May 1961in the South
WestAfrica casewhereby the Court fixed 15 November 1961as the time-
lirnit within which the Government of Ethiopia and the Government of
Liberia, acting in concert, may choose a single Judge ad hoc.
On the assumption that the aforesaid Governments may, on or before
15 November 1961 ,ominate a Judge ad hoc, it would be appreciated if
you would inform me whether my Government will have to nominate a
Judge ad hoc on or before the date that its first pleadings are filed or
whether my Government need only reserve a right to do so and give its
final decision on the matter and the name of the person chosen within a
time-limit to be fixed by the President in terms of Article 3 ofthe Rules.
On the other hand, should the Government of Ethiopia and the
Government of Liberia, acting in concert, not choose a Judge ad ?wc
within the time-limit fixed by the Court, kindly inform me up to what
time my Governmcnt may exercise the right to choose a Judge under
Article 31 of the Statute. ln this event would the Government of Liberia
and the Covernment of Ethiopia again be accorded the right to choose
a Judge ad hocwitliin a further tirne-limit to be fixed?
1 have, etc.,
24. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE KEGlSTRAR
II October 1961.
Sir,
I have the honoirr to refer to the Order of the International Court of
Justice, dated 20 May 1961i, n which the Court fixed 15 November 1961
as the date within which the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia,
acting in concert, exercise their right to choose a single ad hoc Judge to sit
in the South West Africa cases. CORRESPONDENCE 525
This isto advise the Registry that Ethio ia and Liberia are prepared
to waive their right to appoint a Judge a a hoc to sit in the SoutWest
Africa cases, provided, however, that the Union of South Africa make a
similar waiver. In the event t:hat the Union of South Africa chooses a
Judge ad hoc, or signifies its intention to do so, Ethiopia and Liberia
hereby advise the Court of their intention to do likewise and hereby
respectfully request the Court to grant them permission to do sowithin
suitable time-limits to be prescribed by the CouIn.making this request,
it isthe intention of Ethiopia and Liberia to assure that a situation will
not arise in which the Court would be sitting with a Judge ad hoc from
one of the Parties only.
We request you to transmit this communication to the Members of
the Court and to the other Party.
Confirmation that the foregoing procedure is acceptable tothe Court
would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Emest A. GROSS.
12 October 1961.
Sir,
1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter, da4eOctober
1961 and received in the Registry onII October 1961, in which you refer
to the Order made by the Court in the SouthWest Africa caseson 20 May
1961, which fixed 15 Novcrnber 1961 as the time-liniit withiwIiiçhthe
Government of Ethiopia and the Government of Liberia, acting in
concert, may choose a single Judgead hoc.
You ask, in the first place, on the assumption that the applicant
Covernments may nominate a Judge ad hoc within that tirne-limit,
whether your Government will have to nominate a Judge ad hoc on or
before the date that its first yleadings are filed or whether your Govern-
ment need only reserve a right to do so and give its final decision on the
matter and the name of the person chosen rvithin a time-limit to be
fixed by the President in ierms of Article 3 of the Rules.
In re ly to this question, 1have the honour to point out that Artic3e
of the 8ules does not require that the name of a person chosen to sit as
Judge shall be communicated within the time-limit fixed for the filing of
the first pleading. That date, under the Article, is relevant to the state-
ment of theParty's intention. Since the Court was ready to accept the
reservation of the right by the applicant Covernments as sufficient
cornpliance rvith the requirements ofthe Rules and fixed the time-limit
within which a Judge ad hoc may be chosen, it may be concluded that,
should your Governrnent wish to adopt a similar course, it wibe per-
mitted to do so. In this connection, 1 have the honour to refer to my
letter of15 June 1961, in which I informed you that the President had5z6 SOUTH it7EST AFRlCA
directed me to assure you that the Court's chief concerii was that in al1
matters there should be complete equality bctween the Parties.
You ask, in the second place, to be informed up to ivhat time Sour
Governmcnt nlay exercise the right to choose a Judge under Article 31
of the Statute should the Government of Ethiopia and the Governrnent of
Liberia, acting in concert, not choose a Judge ad hoc ~vithin the time-
limit fised by the Court.
Ihave the honour, in reply to this question, to state that the failure of
the applicant Governments to choose a Judge ad hoc within the time-
limit fixed by the Order of 20 May 1961 would not affect the time-
limits applicable to thc Government of the liepublic of South Africa.
Finally, yoiiask whether, in the eventuality conternplated in ).Our
second question, tlie Government of Liberia and the Government of
Ethiopia ~ould again be accorded the right to choose a Judge ad hoc
within a furtlier tirne-limitu be fised.
In reply to this question, 1 have the horiour to refer you to the
Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) in the second phase of
which a situation arose similar to that which )'ou envisage; no action
with reference tothe choice of a Judge ad hoc was taken by the Applicant
at the time of the filing of the Mernorial (3 June 1952). The Kespondent
having, within the tirne-limitfixed for the filing of the Counter-hlemorial
(20 April 1954). designated a person to sitas Judge ad hoc,the Agent for
the Government of Liechtenstein informed the Kegistrar that this
nomination left the Governrnent of Liechtenstein with no alternative
but to esercise, in their turn, their right to nominate a Judge ad hoc
and tliat a name ~rrouldshortly be submitted to the Court in this con-
nection. .4t the same time the Agent indicated that it had not been the
original intention of the Governrnent of Liechtenstein to nominate a
Judge ad hoc and tliat that Government was willing to refrain from
notninating a Judge on tlie condition that the Government of Guatemala
withdrem tlieir riornination and made no other. The latter Government,
not having acted upon this proposal, the Government of Liechtenstein on
26 July 1954 notified its choice of a Judgad hocwho in due course sat to
consider the case.
Tlieright conferred by Article31 of the Statute is an absolute one
wliich affects the composition of the Court and the equality of the Parties.
Accordingly the provisions of Article 3 of the Rules could never be
interpreted by the Court in sucli a way as ta frustrate tlieobject of the
Statute by introducing inequality as between tlie Parties. The Nottebohm
case serves to illustrate the principle in accordance with which the Rule is
applied.
In these circumstances it will be clear that the yossibility can be
evcluded of tlie Court's sitting with a Judge ad hocchosen by one Party
only while tht: other Party was desirous of choosing a Judge ad hoc and
ready to do so.
Copies of your letter and of the present reply are being sent to the
Agents for the Governmerits of Ethiopia and Liberia.
1 have, etc., 26. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERSMEST OF SOUTH AFRlCA TO THE
RECISTRAR
8 November 1961.
Sir,
1 have tlie honour to ackno~vledge receipt of your letter No34436 of
17 October 1961,with annexurel, and to adviseyou that, after due con-
sideration, the Government of the Republic of South Africa has decided
to exercise its right under Articleof1the Statuteof the Court.In terms
of Article 3ofthe Rules ofthe Court, I thereforehave the Iionour to
notify you that it is my Government's intentiontochoose a Judge nd laoc.
The naine of the person chosen to sit asJudge will be stated in due
course.
In the circumstances, my Government will notaccede to the proposal
contained in the annexure to your letter of17 October 1961.
1have, etc.,
27. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETRIOPIA AND LIBERIA
TO 'CHE REGISTRAR
(telegram)
14 November 1961.
Pursuant to Court Order 20 May 1961 fixing15 November 1961 as date
within which Ethiopin and Liberia, acting in concertmay exercisc right
to choose single adhoc Judge to sit inSouth West Ajrica cases, Court is
hereby advised that said Governments, while reaffirming their willingness
to waivc such right subject to Government of Union of Soutli Africa
doing likewise, designate The Honourable Joseph Chesson of Liberia
to sit as Judge ahoc.In making this deçignation Governments concerned
reserve right to replace Mr. Chesson with another qualified jurist if in
their opinion circumstances so require.
SeeXo. -4,p.524.supra. 553 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
28. THE DEPUTY REGISTKAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
15November 1961.
Sir,
- 1 have the honour to inform you that the following telegram, dated
14 November 1961, has just been received in the Registry from the Agent
for Liberia and Ethiopia in theSouthWest Africa cases:
[SeeNo. 27, P. 527,supra]
1 have the further honour to inform you that the President has
fixed 15December 1961 asthe time-limit within which the Government
of the Republic of South Africa may submit its views to the Court in
accordance with the provisions of Articl3 of the Rules of Court.
1 have, etc.
29. THE AGENTFOI< THE GOVERNMEKTOFSOUTH AFRICATOTHE REGISTRAR
17November 1961.
Sir,
With reference to your letter No. 34571 of 14 November 1961 and
further to rny letterNo. 1/18/15/4 of 8 November 1961, 1 have the
honour to notify you that the Governrnent ofthe Republic of South
Africa has chosen The HonourabIe Jacques Theodore van Wyk, Judge of
the -4ppellate Divisionof the Supreme Court of South Africa, to sit as
Judge ad hocin terms of Article31 of the Statuteand Article3 of the
Rules of Court. Mr. Justice van Wyk's c~irricuEumvitae will follow
hereafter.
1have, etc.,
17 November 1961.
Sir,
1have the honour to inform you that by a letter dated17 November
1961 the Agent for the Government of the Republic of South Africa in
the SotrfhWest Afrz'cacases has informed me that his Government has
chosen The Honourable Jacques Theodore van llryk, Judge of the
ApelIate Divisioncifthe Supreme Court of South Africa to sias Judge
lThe same communicationwas senttothe Agent for the Government of Liberia. COKKESPONDENCE 529
ad hoc intern~s of Article 31 of the Statutand Article 3 of the Rules of
Court.
1 have the further honour to inform you that the President of the Court
has fixed 18 December 1961 as the time-lirnit bvithin which the Govern-
ment of Ethiopia may submit its views to the Court in accordance with
the provisions of Article 3 ofthe Rules of Court.
1 have, etc.,
30 November 1961.
Sir,
In reply to the Memorials filed by the Governments of Liberia and
Ethiopia on 15 April 19611 , have the honour to file herewith the Pre-
lirninary Objections1 ofthe Governrnent of the Republic of South Africa.
In accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Court, documentation not
available in one of the two Libraries in the Peace Palace is also filed.
According to the Librarian ofthe Court, the only authoritiesnot available
are the Senate Debates, I 56, and The Republic of South Africa Con-
stitution Act,No. 32 of 198 I.These have been filed in Folder No. 7.
For the convenience of the Court, photostatic extracts have been made
of League of Nations and United Nations publications quoted, as well as
of certain of the articlesn periodicals quoted. If imight be considered
convenient, we would gladly make photostatic copies of any or al1
authorities referred toA translation in English of the relevant parof a
Dutch and an Afrikaans publication referred to has also been supplied.
The documentation is contained in folders. A resurnéof the contents of
each folder is attached2.
1have, etc.,
32. THE REGISTIIAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA~
5 December 1961.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer tomy letter of I December 1961 and to
iiiforrnpu that liy an Order4 of today's date the President ofthe Inter-
national Court of Justice has fixed I March 1962 as the time-limit
See1.av.212-a16
Sot reproduced.
Thesame communication \vassentto the -aentfor the Governments ofLiberia
and SouthAfrica.
+ T.C.J. Reports 19p. 61.53O SOUTH WEST AFRlCA
within which the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia ma). file a
written statement of their Observations and Submissions with regard
to the Preliminary Objections raised by the Government of the Republic
of South Africa in the South WestA#ricn cases.
1 shall send you in due course the official copy of tlie Order for ),Our
Government .
I have, etc.,
Sir,
1 now Iiave the honour to inform you that the time-limitfixedby tlie
President having expired witliout any objections having been raised bqr
the Government of the Republic of South Africa to the designation of
The Honourable Joseph Chesson, 1am sending him the file of the case,
in his capacity as Judge ad hoc.
I have, etc.,
THE REGISTRAR TO THE ACEST FOR THE GOVERXMEST OF SOUTH
34. AFRICX'
Sir,
1 now have the honour to inform you that the tirne-lirnit fixed by the
Preçident having expired without any objections having been raised by
the Governmt:nts of Ethiopia and Liberia to the designation of Tlie
Honourable Jacques Theodore van Wyk, I am sending him the file of
the case,in his capacity as Judge ad hoc.
1 have, etc.,
Thosame communication wassent to the Agentforthe Governments of Liberia
and South Africa.
2 The same commiinication was sent to the Agents for the Governments of
Ethiopiaand Liberia. CORRESPONDENCE 53I
35. THE SECRETARY OF BTATE OF LIBERlA TO THE REGISTRAR
zo December 1961.
Dear Sir,
1 have the fionour to refer to letteNo. I.C.J.-64r-'60 of4 November
1960, sent to you by the Liberian Ambassador at The Hague and your
reply to lii~nNo.32547\VT/nps dated 5 November 1960 w.ith regard to
the Agents of Liberia inthe proceedings before tlic InternationalCourt
of Justice relatingto a dispute ~vith tlic Covernment of the Uriion of
South Africa coricerning the iriterpretalion and application of tlMan-
date for South \{'est Africa.
1have the honour to notifp you further of the appointrnent of Honour-
able Josepli J,F.Chesson, Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia,
as Agent in succession ttHonourablc Joseph \ar .nrber.
\Wh sentiments of esteeni,
36. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERKMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AXD LIBERIA
TO THE REGISTRAR
8 January 1962.
Sir,
Keference is niade to the Order of the Court dated 20 May 1961
relating to the right of Ethiopia and Liberia to choose a single adhoc
Judge to sit in the South West Africa cases, aiid to the cable dated
14 Novemher 1961 to the Registrar from the undersigned as Agent for
Liberia niicl Ethiopia, advising that the said Gnverntnents desired to
designate The Honourable Joseph Ciieçson of Liberia to sit as Judge
ad hoc.The attention of the Court isrespectfully called to the reservation
by the aioresaid Governtnents of the right to replace >Ir. Chesson with
another qualified jurist if circurnstances in their opiiiion should so
require.
Tliislettcr is to inform the Court that circumstances have arisen which
make it appropriate in tlie opinionof the Governrnents of Ethiopia and
Liberia to designate His Excellency Sir Muhammncl Zafrulla Khan of
Pakistan as Judge ad hoc to sit in theSorrth West Africa cases in the
place and stead of the Honoixrable Joseph Chesson of Liberia, ulhose
designatioii is hereby withdrawn.
Tt is the liope and expcctation of the Governments of Ethiopis and
Liberia that Sir Zafriillah Khan rvisit as radhoc Jiidge fothe durat'on
of thjs proceedings.
The Court is respectfully requested to take such action as is necessai
to give effect to this deçignation, including such noticeas may be re-
quired pursuant to Article 3ofthe Kules of Court.
The curricz~lumv. itaof Sir Zafrulla Khàn is nlready available to the
Court by reason of his hnving served as a Judge of the Court. It only
rernainç to be added that Sir Zafnilla Khan isat the present tirni: Per-532 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
manent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, with offices
at Pakistan House, 8 East 65th Street, New York 21, New York.
Respectfully submitted,
(SignedJ Ernest A. GROSS.
37. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
15 January 1962.
Sir,
1have the honour to send you herewith a certifietruecopy ofa letter
dated 8 January 1962 which was received in the Registry on13 January
1962 from the Agent for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the
South West Afvica cases.
1have the furthcr honour to inform you that the President ha5 fixed
15 February 1962 as the time-lirnit within which the Government of the
Republic ofSouth Africa rnay submititsviews to theCourt in accordance
with the provisions ofArticle3 of the Rules of Court with regard to the
designation of His Excellency Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan to sit as
Judge ad hoc.
1have, etc.,
38. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH ;ZPRZCA TO THE
RECISTIWR
23 February 1962.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the Order o5 December 1961 , hereby
the Court detemined 1 hlarch 1962 as the time-limit within which
Ethiopia and Liberia might file their observations in teoi Rule62 (3).
1 assume that aiter receipt of such observations, the Court will con-
siderthe fixing of a date for the commencement of oral proceedings
regarding the Prelirninary Objections. hfy Governrnent respectfully
requeststhe Court to deferitsdecision in that regard for a short period,
say 14 days, after receiptof the Applicants' observations, in order to
allow an opportunity for possible representations concerning the further
proceedings. Before receipt of the observations, it willbeopossible for
my Governrnent to decide whcther it will be necessary or desirable to
make such representationç, e.g.as appears to bc contemplated by Rule
62 (4)for leave tofilefurther written replies ordocuments. The Court
might wish to take this into consideration in.determining the date of
commencement of the oral proceedings.
I have, etc., CORRESPONDENCE 533
39. THE AGENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR '
I March 1962.
Sir,
In accordance with Article62 of the Rules of Courtand in cornpliance
with the order of 5 December 1961by which the Court fixed the time-
limit for the filing of Ethiopia's writtstatement of its Observations
and Submissions ~vithregard to thePreliminary Objections raisedby the
Governrnent of the Republic rrfSouth Africa in the South West A frica
cases, we have the honour to present herewith the written Observations
of the Governrnent of Ethiopia
Pursuant to Articl43 of the Rdes of Court, copies of al1the relevant
documents, or extracts therefrom, have been communicated to the
Registrar for use of the Court: and of the other Party.A list of such
relevant documents isgiven after the submissions, in accordancewith
the requirements of Article 43.
Very tmly yours,
(Signal) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed Ernest A. CROSS.
40, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNXIENTSOF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
(telegram)
3 March 1962.
Applicants South West Africa cases reserve right to object in event
Republic South Africa requests privilege file further pleadings pnor to
hearing .
Erneçt A. GROSS.
41. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICrl TO THE
REGISTRAR
14 March 1962.
After consideration of Applicants' Observations my Government does
not consider it necessary at present stage tmake representations con-
cerning further proceedings. At a later stage, howevemy Government
will probably seek to submit further documents under rule 48 but it is
unlikely thatthese will bof major extent.
l A similar communicatiowaç sent tothe Registrar by the Agent for the
Government ofLiberia.
See 1pp.41 7-489.534 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
42. THE AGEXTS FOR THE GOVERNMEXTS OF ETHIOPIX AND LIBERIA TO THE
IZECISTRAR
24Xay 1962.
Sir,
Reference ismade to the Orùer of the Court dated 29 3lay 1g61
reIating to the right of Ethiopia and Liberia to choose a single ad hoc
Judge to sitin the South West Africa cases. In a communication to the
Registrar, dated 8 January 1962, the Governments of Ethiopia and
Liberia designated Wis Excellcncy Sir Mohammad Zafmllah Khan to
sitas Judge ad hoc.
The Agents for Ethiopia and Liberia have been informally advised
that SirMohammad Zafrullah Iclian is unable tosit as Judge ad hoc in the
South West Ajrica cases, and that the Court has been so inforrned.
Pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 20 May 1961, the Govern-
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia hereby designate SirAdetokunbo A.
Ademola, Chief Justice of the Federation of Nigeria, as Judge ad hoc
to sit in tlSouth WestAfviccr cases in the place and çtead of Sir 3Ioham-
rnad ZrifrullahKhan, whose clesignation is hereby withdrawn.
The cz~vriculum vitae of Chief Justice Sir -4detokunboh A. Ademola is
enclosed l.
Respectfully sutirnitted,
(Signedl Tesfayc GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed) Ernest A. G~oss.
43. THE IZI!GISTRAK TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERXhIENT OP SOUTH AFRICA
2 June 1962.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer tu my letter of 15 January rgG2 and to
inform you that by a letter of24 May 1962 the Agents for the Govern-
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the South West A/rica cases have
informed me that Sir hfuhammad Zafrulla Khan is unable to sitas Judge
ad hoc in these casr:and that the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia
have designated Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola, Chief Justice of the
Federation of Nigeria, to sit as Judge ad hoc in the place and sterid of
Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, ir?hosedesigncition iç tvithdra~vn.
The Agents for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia have sent me
the czrrriczilavifaaof Chief Justice Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola a copy
of which Ihave the honour to enclose herewith.
I have the further honour to inform you that the President has fixed
2 July 1962 as the tirne-limit within which tlie Government of the Repub-
licof South Africa may submit its vie~vsto the Court iraccordancewith
the provisions of Article of the Rules of Court withregard to the desig-
nation of Sir Adetrikunboh A. Ademola to sitas Judge ad hoc.
1 have, etc.,
Sot reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 535
44. THE REGISTRXR TO THE AGEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA
2 July 1962.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the time-limit fixed by the
President having expired without any objections having been rnised by
the Govcrnment of the Republic of South Africa to the designation of
Sir Adetokunboh A. Aciernola, 1 am sending him the file ofthe case, in
his capacity as Judge ad hoc.
1have, etc.,
45. THE ACTING REGISTRAR TC) THE AGENT FOR THE GOVEKSMERT OF
ETHIOPIA '
24 July 1962.
Sir,
I am directed and I have the honour to inform you that thc date
provisionally fixed for the opening of the hearings on the Prelirninary
Objections in the Sottth !Test Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa;
Liberia v. South Africa) is Monday, I October 1962.
It is expectecl that the hearings wil1begin on that date, but the pos-
sibiiity exists thatthe date may be slightlyaltered, by not more than
a day or two.
1shaII not fail tinform you as soan asa firm date is decided üpon.
1have, etc.,
46. THE ACEXT FOR THE GOVERNMENTÇ OF ETHIOPIA AKD LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
19 September 1962,
Court is respectfully advised Ethiopia and Liberia have designated
Sir Louis Mbanefo as Judge ad hoc in South West A frica cases. SirLouis
is Chief Justice of thHigh Court, Eastern Region of Nigeria. Any further
biographical material wi11be suppljed urgently.
Ernest A. GROSS.
The samc communication iraserit ttheAgents fothe Governments of Liberia
and South Africa536 SOUTH WEST AFRIC.4
47. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
19September 1962.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the ~overnn&ts of Ethiopia
and Liberia in the South West Africa cases have designated Sir Louis
Mbanefo, Chief Justice of the High Court, Eastern Region of Nigeria, to
sitas Judge adhocin the place and stead ofSir Adetokunbofi A.Ademola.
1 have the further honour to inform you that the President has fixed
25Septembec 1962as the tirne-limit within which the Government of the
Kepublic of South Africa may submit its views to the Court in accordance
with the provisionsof Article3 of the Kdes of Court with regard to the
designation of Sir Louis Mbanefo to sit as Judgead hoc.
1have, etc.,
48. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
24September 1962.
Sir,
With reference to your letter No. 36674 of19September 1962, 1 have
the honour to advise you that the Government of the Republic of South
Africa willraise no doubts or objections in respecof the designation of
Sir Louis Mbanefo to sit asJudge ad hocin the SouthWest Africa cases.
1have, etc.,
49. THE AGENT FOR THE COVERKMENT OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
23 October 1962.
Sir,
At the close ofthe proceedings on 22 October 1962 l,after the Agent
for the Respondetit had arnended its Submissions, the Applicants re-
quested an opportiinity to consider whetherthe amendment to Respon-
dent's Submissions raised anew substantive issue astowhich the Appli-
cants would wish to subrnit comments.
During the course ofthe evening, you were good enough to advise me
that the Court is prepared, in the event Applicants deemed it necessary,
SeeVII,pp. 382-383- CORRESPONDENCE 537
to receive such comments, at a session of the Court on lVednesday,
24 October, at 10.30 a.m.
The Agent for the Applicants, having now had an opportunity to
review fully the Written and Oral Proceedings, as they rnight relate to
the issue thus rnised by Resporident, has reached the conclusion tliat no
further commetits are required.
It would be appreciated ifyou would convey this information to the
President of the Court.
Sincerely yourç,
(Signed Ernest A. G~oss.
50. THE REGIÇTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEKTS OF ETHIOPIA
AND LIBERIA
23 October 1962.
Sir,
1have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 23Oc-
tober 1962,in which you inforni me that, having considered whether the
amendment to tlie Respondenl:'~ Submissions raised a new subst:intive
issueas to which the Applicants would wish to submit comments, you
have reached the conclusion that no further comments are required.
A copy of this letterhas been transmitted to the Agent for theGoirern-
ment of the Republic of South Africa.
1 am instructed by the President of the Court to inform you that there
will be no further hearings in the South WestAfrica cases (Prelirninary
Objections) and that the oral procedure isclosed.
1 have, etc.,
51. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AC13Nl' FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA
AND LIBERIA
17 December 1962.
Sir,
In accordance with Article 55 of the Statute, 1 have the honour to
inform you that the International Court of Justice will hold a public
sittingat the Peace Palace,The Hague, on ZI December 1962, at 4.30 a.m.
for the delivery of the Judgmcnt in the SottthWest Africa cases. Pre-
liminary Objections (Ethiopia v.South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) 3.
1 have, etc.,
l A simitarcommunication wss sent to the Agent forthe Government of South
Africa.
The same communication was sent totheAgent for the Government of South
Africa.
I.C.J.Repo~ts1962,p.319.538 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
52. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERSMEKT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGIÇTRAR
19 January 1963.
I. In most cases that corne before the International Court, the issues
are of relatively limited extent. The Soda West Afvica cases, however,
cover an exceptionally wide field embracing virtuallp ail aspects of the
administration of South West Africa over a period of more than 40 years.
They may proyerly be describedas alargenurnber of cases rolled into one.
Chapters V to IX of the Applicants' Rlemorials (1,pp. 104-196 d)al
specifically withthe following:
(a) The well-being, social progress and development of the people of
South West Afnca in the following aspects:
(iT )he EconomicAsfiect
Agriculture
Industry-Fishing Industry
blining and MineraIs
12ailways and Harbours
Labour recruitment
1-abour Conditions
(ii)Governmentand Citizenship
Suffrage
Participation in Territorial Government
General Administration
Local Government
Government within the Native Tribes and Reserves
(iii)Security of llze Person, Kight of Residence alzd Freedom of
Moveme?tt
(iv) Edzrcation
Elementary and High School Educatioii
Vocational Training
Higher Education
Comparative Status of Teachers
Comparative Budgets
(b) Petitions and supplementary material concerning Government and
Citizenship, Civil Rights and Civil Libertics and Education.
(c) Alleged Militarization ofthe Territory.
(d) AlkegedCamozcflaged Apenexulbn of theTerriLory
(i) Confermerit of South Airican Citizenship upon inhabitantç.
(ii) Representation in the South African Parliament.
(iii) Administrative separation ofthe Eastcrn Caprivi Zipfel.
(iv) Vesting of Xative Reserve land in the South African Native
Trust and the transfer of Administration of Native Affairs to
the South African Minister of Bantu Affairç.
(e) AIIeged Unilateral Alteration ofthe Status of the Territory. 2. The Applicaiits' accusations agriinst Resyorident, with rcference to
the vanous subjects listed above, are concerned in part with standards of
development that have or have not been achieved, and in part with
allegcd motives involved in the policies adopted by Respondent in the
Administration of South West Africa.
These featureç of the accusation necessitate a broad and full responçe
extending beyond the confines of the specific matters raiscd by the
~pplican'ts. -
As at present ndvised Respondent should consequently include inthe
Counter-Memorial (in addition to, or as part of the foundatian for,
aiiswering of the specific a1Iegations)-
(i) a geographicnl survey of the Territory;
(ii) an ethnological survey covering each of the numerous population
groups ;
(iii) an economic survey ;
(iv) general progress made in tlie developrnent of the Territorjr and the
advancement of the welt-bcing of the inhabitants;
IV) reasons for applying differing measures to the various population
groups ;
(vi) standards in comparable territones and States.
3. A certain measure of researcli and preliminary compilation wark has
been done over a period of nearly two years by a team of experts, of-
ficials and lawyers.
A survey basecl on such work inclicates thatthe Counter-Mernorial may
run into 2,500 printed pages OFthe standard size of publications at the
Court, and perhaps even more.
In addition there will have to be extensive copying of documents.
4. According to an estimate made by Sijthoffs Publishing Company, the
Court's officia1printers in Leyden, at least 15 weeks will be taken for
printing of a Couiiter-h'lemorial ofI,500 pages.
5. In view of the above considerations, Respondent's represent at'lves
ca~inot see how their task can properly and adequately be performed in
less than 12 months.
This estimate takes due account of the facl that Respondent's lega1
tearn is now being substantially iricreased in numbers.
6. Respondent wouId very much appreciate an opportunity for
Messrs. de Villiers and Muller, Senior Counsel,tobe present at prospective
discussions with the President interms of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.
They have had insight at first hand into the preparatory ïvork now being
done, and 1viIlbeable to furnish particulars of the nature and difficulties
of the task of preparing and filiiig the Counter-Mernorial evcn within the
time limit of 12 nionths respectfully requested by Respondent. SOUTH WEST AFBlCA
28 janvier 1963.
Le Greffierde la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de trans-
mettre, sous ce pli, un exernpIairede l'arrêtrendu par la Cour le 21 dé-
cembre 1962 sur les exceptions préliminaires dans les affaires du Sud-
Ouest africairt (Ethiopiec. Afrique du Sud; Libéria c. Afrique du Sud),
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordi-
naire.
54. THE AGEXT FOR THE GOVERNMEKTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
30 January 1963.
Sir,
As Agent for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia 1 have the
honour to refer to your communication No. 37249 dated 21 January 1963,
enclosing a copy of a Memorandum dated 19 January 1963, addressed
to the Court by the Agent for the Republic of South Africa, Respondent
in the Sotrlh West Africa cases. Respondent requests the Court to fixa
time limit of 12 rnonths in which Respondent may file its Counter-
Bfemorial and requests the opportunity to be present at prospective
discussions with the President in tems of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.
By cable datetl 23 January 1963 the undersigned, as Agent for
Ethiopia and Liberia (the "Applicants"), notified the Court of their
objection to the request of Respondent, and stated that Applicants
would convey their views in support of their objection as soon as pos-
sible. Applicants,inaccordance with Article 37of the RuIes ofProcedure,
respectfully submit their views and reasons for urging the Court to
reduce the length of time requested by Respondent for prepanng and
filing its Counter-Mernorial.
I.The practice of this Honourable Court makes it clear that Respon-
dent's right to have reasonably adequate opportunity to present its
case is to be balaiiced against Applicants' right to obtain a reasonably
expeditious determination ofthe issues.
The rnatters complained of by Applicants in the pending cases are
of a nature justifying and requiring reasonably expeditious resolution.
Applicants allege that rights have been unlawfully denied to the in-
habitants of the 'Territory of South iirest Africa by Respondent. The
inhabitants of the Temtory, as well as interested States, seek judicial
l La méme communicstioiaikt6 adressée a tous les autres Etrits 3Iembres des
xations Unies etaux Etats no6 membres des riations Unies qui sontparties au
Statut de la Courou auxquellsaCour estouverte aux termes de l'ar35, par.2,
du Statut. CORRESPONDENCE 541
remedies adequate to assure the safe-guards of the Mandate respecting
rights which-if Applicants' contentions are sustained by the Court-
have been deniecl by Respondent for a nurnber of years.
2. The considerations adduced by Respondeiit in its request for
12 ~nonths' delay in filing its Counter-Mernorial are that the issues are
cornplex and numerous, and that they cover a period of more than
40 years. Respondent cites the ~~ossiblelength of its Counter-hlemorial
and urges that at least 15 weeks will be required for printing.
3. In December 1960, Respondent was called upon to submit its
vieivs as to the tirne-limit in which it should file its Counter-Mernorial,
By letter dated JI December ~gGo,addressed to the Registrar of the
Court, Respondent requested a period of "at leastIO to 12 months". In
support of its request, Respondent set forth basically the same con-
siderationsit now repeats, including then,as itdoes now, a summary of
factual issues raised. In addition, Respondent, in 1960, contended that
although Applicants had had a long time in which to prepare their case,
Respondent's "first officia1intimation" that there would be legal pro-
ceerlings directed against it occurred when it received the Applications
on 4 November 1960.
4. In its letter o19 January 1963, Respondent acknowledges that "a
certain measure of research and preliminary compilation work has been
done ovet a period of nearly two years by a team of experts, officials and
lawyers". In the light of the long history of controversy regarding the
matters comp1aint:d of in the Applications, and the fact that Kespoiident
lias had oficial and explicit knowledge of them since at lea4tNovember
1960, it would have indeed been surprising had Respondent not acknow-
ledged that it hasalready done much of the work required for its Coun-
ter-8Iemarial.
III
Respondent, more than 2 ycars ago thus requested "at least IO to
12 months" in whicli to fileits Counter-Memorial. It was, by order of the
Court dated 13 January 1961, given 8 months in which to do so. Appli-
cants strongly urge that Respondent has advanced no adequate reason
for ~towextending the length of time previously determined by the Court
to be adequate. 011the contrary, it is respectfully submitted that a period
shorter than 8 months would now be fair and adequate.
(1)The reasons adduced by Respondent in 1960 for an unduly long
time limit were basically the same reasons adduced now.
(2)IVhereas Respondent asserted in 1960 that it had had no time
previously in which to prepare, it now admittedly has had 2 years, and
Respondent acknowledges, as must reasonably be assumed, that it has
engnged in research and compilation work during the 2-year period.
(3)The issues requiring preparation by Respondent now are signifi-
cantly less than those considered at the time the previous time Limit
was fised. During the course of the Preliminary Objections certain ofthe
key legal issues were resolved.
(4)Since 21 December 1962, when the Court handed down its Judg-
ment on Respondent's Preliminary Objections, Respondent has had more
than one month in which to continue work on its Counter-Mernorial.
(5)Not a11of the 15 weeks envisaged by Respondent for pRnting
would have to be devoted solely to that purpose, even ifRespondent's
Counter-liernorial were to reach the length forecast by Respondent.542 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Clearly, manuscript could be transmitted for printing in stages of com-
pletion.
(6) The issues of fact involved in thSottfh 1,Vest jrica caseshave not
been newly raised. They have for many years been the subject of pub-
lished reports by the United Nations Committee on South West Africa,
and have been dehated in the General Assembly and in Committees of
the General Assembly. hloreover, information relating to the factual
issues is peculiarly within the knowledge and control of Respondent as
Mandatory for the Territory of South West Africa. liespondent has had
ready, and in somc:cases, unique access to relevant documentation and
source rnatenal. Indeed, for many years information concerning the
subject-matter of most of the factual issues was regularly compiled by
Respondent and submitted by jtto the Permanent Mandates Comnlission
of thc League of Nations. It is reasonable to presume that current in-
formation of a like nature has also been compilecl and rnaintaincd by
Respondent.
Applicants have researched the cases before the Court as reported for
the years 1947 to July 1961 (excluding the cases :it bar). To Appli-
cants' knowledge, never has a party been given a period as long as
12 months in which to file a Counter-Mernorial, even taking into account
extensions of time-limits. The longest period accordcd to any party in
any case, so far as Applicants have found, was 9 months, and including
extensions, II months, $rior to the filing of Prelirninary Objections.The
average amount of time, including extensions, appears to have been 3 to
6 months. The lowgest Period any Party has been accordedfor fililtg its
Coutater-Mernorial,afler filingPrelinzinary Objectio~zs,and including ex-
tefhsiom, was 4 months.
The closest analogy to the case at bar appears to be ZiightsofPassage
over Ilzdiafi Territory (PortugaW. india). At the initial stages othe pro-
ceedings India was accorded 6 months in which to file its Counter-
Mernorial, and thei-eafter was granted an additional 4 rnonths. India then
fiied Preliminary Objections. After the Judgment disrnissing the Objec-
tions,lndia was accorded 3 months in which to file its Counter-Nernorial.
It thereafter received a 1-rnonth postponement, during which time it
filed itsCounter-R,iemoriaI.
Inthe case at bar, Respondent was accorded 8 months in tvhich to file
its Counter-hfemorial (the second longest period accorded to a party) on
its representation that it required such a lengthy period prirnarily be-
cause of the large nunrber of factual issues raised concerning the merits.
Respondent thereitfter ernployed al1 but z ~veeks of the S months iii
preparing its Preliminnry Objections.
The Right of Passage Case, noted above, is apt precedent for the
proposition that when a party is originally accorded a lengthy time-limit
(in that case more than 6 months) for filing its Counter-Mernorial, and
thereafter files Prdiminary Objeclionsnear the expiration of that lirnit,
it should not thereafter be granted an equal-to sap nothing of a Ionger-
period to cornplete its pleading.
On the basis of the foregoing views and reasons, the Governments of COKKESPONDENCE 543
Etliiopia and Liberia urge that the request of the Republic of South
Africa be denied, and that the Court determine that Respondent should
have 6 months in ahich to file its Counter-Mernorial. If discussions are
held in the terms of Article 37 of the Rules ofCourt, Applicants request
the privilege of attendance.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Ernest A. CROSS.
55. THE REGISTKAK TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERXMENT OF SOUTH
APIUCA
j February 1963.
Sir,
1have the honour to inforrn you that by an Order ='oftoday's date the
President of the International Court of Justice has fixed 30 September
1963 as the time-limit for thc filing of the Counter-Mernorial of the
Government of the Republic of South Africa in the South West Africa
cases, the subsequcnt procedure being reserved for further decision.
1 shall send you in due course the official copy of the Order for your
Government .
I have, etc.,
56. LE DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL DU BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DU TRAVAIL AU
GREFFIER
8 juillet1963.
Monsieur le Greffier,
J'ai l'honneur de vous informer, et vous prie de bien vouloir faire
savoir à AI.le Président de la Cour, qu'à sa156me session, par une résolu-
tion en date du 29 juin 1963, le Conseild'adrninistration du Bureau inter-
national du Travail a décidé quele Directeur généraldu Bureau inter-
national du Travail se tienne la disposition dela Cour internationale de
Justice pour fournir toutes les informations que laCour pourrait deman-
der l'organisation internationale du Travail, en relation avec les
procédures en cours concernant le Sud-Ouest africain.
Vous voudrez bien trouver, joints à la présente Iettre, deux -exem-
pIaires du procès-verbal l des séances du Conseil d'administration au
cours desquelles cette question a étédiscutée.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
(Signé)David A. MORSE.
1 The same ctimninnication was sent to the Agents for the Governmeiitsfor
Ethiopia and Liberia.
ï.C.g. Reporis 1963, 6.
Son reproduit.544 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
57. LE GREFFIER AU DIRECTEUR cÉxÉRAL DU BUREAU IV iTERXATI0S:tL
DU TRAVAIL
IO juillet 1$3.
Monsieur le Directeur -énéral,
Par votre Lettre du 8 juille1963, vous voulez bien me faire savoir, en
me demandant d'en informer M. le Président de la Cour, qu'à sa rj6mc
session, par une résolution d29 juin 1963,le Conseil d'administratioidu
Bureau international du Travail a décidéque le Directeur généraldu
Bureauinternational du Travail setienne iila disposition dela Cour inter-
nationale de Justice pour fournir toutes les informations que la Cour
pourrait demander h l'organisationinternational du Travail, en relation
avec les procédures en cours concernant le Sud-Ouest africain. Vous
joignez à votre lettre deux exemplaires du procès-verbal des séances du
Conseil d'administration au cours desquelles cette question a été dis-
cutée.
En accusant la réception de votre obligeante communication, j'ai
l'honneur de vous informer que je ne manquerai pas de porter ce qui
précéde Ala connaissance de hl.le Président de laCour.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
58. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVBRNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGIÇTRAR
zx August 1963.
Sir,
I.You are respectfully referred to the Order of 5 February 1963,
fixing30 September 1963, as the tirne-limit for the filing of Respondent's
Counter-Mernorial in the Soitlh WestAfrica cases.
z. Despite utmost endeavours to expedite preparation, it has been
found impossible to complete the Counter-Memonal in time for filing
on 30 September 1963. My Govcrnment isaccordingly regretfully obliged
to apply, as it hereby does, for an extension othe time-limitin terms of
Rule of Court No. 37.4.
3. In previous communications, 1 have had occasion to refer to the
multiplicity and complexity ofthe issues raised in thSouth WestAfrica
cases, resulting in a situation whereby they in effect amount to a large
nurnber of cases rolled into one. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition
in this regard, 1respectfully wish to draw attention in particular to the
document dated 19 January 1963, submitting Respondent's views re-
garding the time-lirnit for filing of the Counter-Memorial.In that docu-
ment, the matters specifically dealt with in Chapters V toIX of Appli-
cants' Mernorials are tabulated and a Iist is given of subjects with cach
of which Respondent will have to deal systernatically,as a necessary
foundation for, ancl thiis in addition to, chapters answering the specificallegations.On the basis of that analysis and of an estimated Ij weeks
required for printing, 1then çtatcd that-
"Respondent's representatives cannot see how their task can
properly and adequately be perfonned in less than 12 montl-is."
4. Events since January 1963 have shown thnt the period of 12 months
in the above statement was a considerablc u~iderestirnate on the part of
Respondent's representatives, for which 1 mish to convey our sincere
apologies.
5. ASwas intimated in the document of 19 January x963 , team of
experts, officials and lawyers had been engaged on research and pre-
lirninnry compilation work relative to the Counter-Memorial for a period
of nearly two years, i.e., cornmencing shortly after the filing of the
Applications in these cases and concurrently with the preparation and
presentation of Respondent's case on the Preliminary Objections.
6. Upon dismissal of the Preliminary Objections and the fixing of
30 September 1963,as the time-limit for filinofthe Counter-Memorial,
the preparatory work had to be CO-ordinated and re-written in a form
suitable for presentation ta the Wonourable Court. In order to expedite
matters in this regard as mucfi as possible, the following steps were,
inter dia, taken :
(a) The team of legal represcritatives, experts and officials was con-
siderably enlarged.
(bj Every effort was made by thc drafting tcam to teduce the length of
the Counter-hlemorial to the minimum reasonably required for
adequate presentation.
(c) Hegotiations rvith printers, in the Netherlands and in South Africa,
resulted in a considerable reduction of the original estimates of
printing time, the assessnient (in both countries) now being six
weeks, subject to a very fast fate of proof-reading and supyly of
COPY.
7..In practice, however, it has been found, as \vil1 be readily ap-
preciated, that there is a limitto the timc savings that can be accom-
plished even by means such asthe above. In view ofthe need for accuracy,
CO-ordination and unity in the end product, al1 the work must in its
finalstages necessariiy pass through the hands of relatively few persons-
who must also assist in the planning and CO-ordination of earlier stages
of production. The volume of the work involvcd is enormous. Preliminary
drafts (which are of necessity unco-ordinated and overlapping) run into
thousands of typed pages, with the result that critical rending alone
takes up considerable time. Onc of thc objects at the final stages is to
reduce the volunie of reading matter to sizeable proportions, for the
convenience of tht:HonourahIe Mcmbers of the Court, without thereby
doing injustice tothe case that requires to be presented on Rcsponclent's
behalf.
8. Respondent cxpects to have availabIe inprint, before 30September
1963, one self-contained portion of the Countcr-Memonal, dealing 115th
basic legal issues whicl-iwill requirc consideration at this stage of the
proceedings, asweII as with the historical background relative thereto.
Respondent will gladly make this volume available to Applicants as soon
as it iscompleted,in order to enablc them to proceed ~4th the preparation
of their answer and thus expedite the filing of their Reply. If the Court
or the Honourablc President should so desire, Respondent would also546 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
gladly file this portion of the Counter-Mernorial immediately upon its
completion.
g. In order to complete the rest of the Counter-Mernorial, however,
Respondent will, for the reasons indicated above, require time beyond
30 September 1963. But here also, if it should be so desired by Appli-
cants, Respondent is prepared to CO-operate in the adoption of special
methods with a view to reducing the period which Applicants rnay need
to file their Reply.Thus, as and whcn further portions of the Counter-
lllemorialrnay become availablein final roneoed form pnor to printing,
Respondent would be prepared to render them available to Applicants.
Although Respondent would in such event reserve the right to effect
alterations at the printing stage, such alterations, if any, would inal1
probability be of minor irnport only.
IO. The possible special steps referred to in paragraph8 and g hereof,
are respectfully submitted merely as suggestions with a view to mini-
mizing the delay and inconvenience that might arise from the extension
now applied for. They need not be taken ifnot favoured by the Honour-
able President or t.he Court. Respondent would also gladly consider any
reasonable alternative suggestions having the same purpose in view.
Ir. Having regard to al1 the relevant factors, Respondent's repre-
sentatives, to the best of their ability. estimate thatfurther seven and
a half months will be required for completion of the Counter-Mernorial.
1thereforerespectfully apply on Respondent's behaIf, for extension of
the time-limit for the filingof the Counter-Memorial in the South West
Africa cases until15 hlay 1964.
1 have, etc.,
59. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNXIBNTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
TO THE REGIÇTRAR
6 September 1963.
Sir,
Reference is made to Communication No. 38386 dated 30 August 1963,
from the Deputjr-Registrar, transmitting a copy of a letter dated
21 August 1963, atldressed to the Registrarby the Agent for the Govern-
ment of the Repiiblic of South Africa, Respondent in the South West
Afvica cases. Respondent has requested a seven and a half months
extension of the time-limit fixed for thefilingof its Counter-Memorial in
these cases, the said request having been received anfilein the Registry
of theCourt on 29 August 1963, one month prior to the expiration of the
time-limit of30 September 1963.
Prornptly upon receipt of telegraphic advice from the Registry of the
aforesaid letter, the Applicants, through the underçigned Agent, dis-
patched a cable dated 30 August 1963, opposing any extension of time CORRESPONDEXCE 547
for filing the Counter-Mernorial, and reserving the right to submit a
Memorandum upon receipt of the copy of Respondent's letter. Having
now received said copy, Applicants respectfully renew their vigorous
objection to granting of Respi~ndent's request, and in support of such
objection cal1 to the Court's attention the considerations enumerated
below.
Kespondent's request for an extension of time follows its consistent
pattern of requesting unreasonably long periods to prepare its pleadings,
while, on the contrary, Applicants have at al1 times sought to proceed
with expedition, at no stage having requested longer than five months to
submit ripleading herein.
1.The Applications were fileon 4 November 1960.
2.AppLicants requested and received a 5 months' time-limit for filing
their Memorials, which were tluly filed 15 Apnl 1961. Respondent by
letter of31 December 1960, requested until 15 February 1962 to file its
Counter-Memorial, a period ofmore than 15 months from the date of the
Applications and ten months f'romthe date of the Mcmorials. Respon-
dent sought to justify its request for so lengtayperiod primarily on the
ground that the Applications dealt "not only with a number of intricate
legal and constitutional poi~itsbut also with a large number of factual
questions relating to almost everp facet of the administration of the
Territory of South West Afriça. over a period of40 years".
3. Objection to the request having been made by Applicants, th<
Agents for the respective Parties met on 13 January 1961 with the
President of this Honourable Court, in terms of Ai 'icl37 of the Rulesof
Court, and both Parties submitted Blemoranda in support of their
respective views l.Having heard the Parties and haiijng considered the
views set forth in their written submissions, this Honourable Court by
Order dated 13 January 1g61, fised15 December 1961 as the time-limit
for the filing of the Counter-BIcmorial.
Accordingly, Respondent had virtually the entire year of 1961 to
gatlier al1documents and source material relevant to the issues raised in
the Applications,to engage in requisite resenrch and to prepare argument
upon the legal issues raised thercin, with al1of ïvhich Respondent had a
unique familiarity and access, arising from over 40 years' administration
of South IlTest Africa.
Shortly prior to the expiral.ion of the aforesaid tirne-limit, viz. on
30 November 1961, Respondent filed its Preliminary Objections and
Applicants thereupon requested and received a period of 3 months in
which to file their Observations.
4. Following the Judgment of 21 December 1962 on the Preliminary
Objections, Respondent requested and received a period of I month for
formulating its views concerning the tirne-limit required for Counter-
Mernorial.
5. By memorandum dated 19 January 1963, Respondent requested a
period of 12 months in which to file its Counter-Rfcmorial. Such request
was for a period more than twice that accorded to any party in any case
l Not filcd withe Registry.54& SOUTH WEST AFRICA
previously before this Court for filing a Counter-Mernorial, inclzrding
extensions,following a Judgment on Prelirninary Objections. Respon-
dent's supporting arguments for so lengthy a period were basically the
same aç those adduced in its initial request of 31 December 1960.
6. Bp Memorandum dated 30 January 1963,Applicants opposed the
request for 12 months as dilatory. The Court allowed Respondent
g months.
7. Respondent, repeating for'the third tirne in two years the same
basic contentions as to the necessity for compilation of material and
extensive research, now seeks an additional seven and a half months.
Respondent now concedes, however, that printing can be completed
in 6 weeks rather than the 15 weeks it previously represented, but con-
tends that it underestimated by what is, in effect, more than half a
year the time required to prepare its Counter-Mernorial.
III
Applicants refer the Court to their blemorandum of 30January 1963
setting forth the grounds for opposing as dilatory Respondent's earlier
request for 12 months in which to fileits Counter-Memorial. Conceding
Respondent's right to have reasonably adequate opportunity to present
its case, Applicants then submitted and now reiterate their equally valid
international accountabilityioand legal protection of human rights in-
voIved in these cases.
of the respective interests of the Parties called that a fair balancing
tember 1963 as the time-limit for filing the Counter-Mernorial is now
confronted, at virtiially the last minute. with a mere repetition of argu-
ments, already twice made, for unreasonably long periods. Nothing
is added by Respondent by way of justification except the contention
that Respondent fiiids it "impossible" to complete the Counter-Rlemorial
in time.
A plea of"irnpossibility", concerning a matter in which discretion and
diligence play so decisive a part, and which iiivolves collection and
preparation of material within Respondent's unique knowledge and
control, should, it is submitted, be appraised against the history of the
pleadings in these caçeç.
I. Applications were filed 4 November 1960.
2.Applicants requested and received 5 months for filing Memorials.
3, Respondent rcquested 15moiiths from thedate of the Applications
for filing its Counter-Mernorial largely on the grounds that such a period
is required to deal with the factual issues concerning its administration
of South West Afnca; received 13 rnonths; filed Preliminary Objections
z weeks before expiration of time-limit for the Counter-Mernorial, which
objections, of course, do notdeal with the aforesaid factual issues at all.
4. -4pplicants requested and receivcd 3 months for filingObservations.
5. After a lapseof I month following the Court's Judgment of 21 De-
cember 1962, Respondent requested 12 months for filing its Counter-
Mernorial; the Court granted until 30 September 1963, a period of ap-
proximately g months from the date of Judgment and of almost 3 years
from the date of the filing of the Applications. CORRESPONDENCE 549
In its appraisal of Respondent's plea of "impossibility" of completing
its Counter-Mernorial, Applicants respectfully urge upon the Court the
consideration that pursuant to Article 41 of the Rules of Court, the
Parties herein will have the opportunity to file further pleadings. Ilrfiile
calling attention to the danger that Respondent may seek to continue its
dilatory procedures in connection with the exercise of its right of
Rejoinder, Applicants submit that any residual rnatters which Respon-
dent rnay feel it lias overlooked or has been unable to analyse during the
almost 3-year period which h:is elapsed since the filing of the Applica-
tions herein, may be included in its Rejoinder and, if necessary, in the
Oral Hearings as well.
In conclusion, Applicants respectfully reaffirm the reasons set forth in
their Memoranda of 12 January 1961 and 30 January 1963, and oppose
the granting of any extension of time for fiiing the Counter-Mernorial.
Applicants respectfully request the opportunity to be heard at the
earliest possible time,ursuant to Article 37 of the Rules of Court, in the
event the Court does not see fit in the absence of such a hearing to deny
any extension of the time-lirnit presently fixed for the fiIing of the
Counter-Memorial herein.
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
60. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA '
18 September 1963.
Sir,
I have the honour to inforni yau that by an Order *of today's date
the International Court of Justice has extended to IO January 1964the
time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memonal of the Government of
the Republic of South Africa in the South West Africa cases, the sub-
sequent procedure being reserved for further decision.
1 shall send you in due course the officia1copy of the Order for your
Government.
1 have, etc.,
1 The ssme communication was sentto theAgents forthe Governments of
Ethiopiaand Liberia.
I.C.J. Reports 1963.12.550 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
61. LE GREFFIER AU DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL DU BUREAU INTERNATIONAL
DU TRAVAIL
xeroctobre 1963.
Monsieur le Directeur général,
Comme suite A ma lettre du IO juillet 1963, j'ai l'honneur de vous
faire savoir que je n'ai pas manquéde portervotre lettre du 8 juillet 1963
à.la connaissance du Président.
L'information qu'elle contenait a étécommuniquée Ala Cour, qui en a
pris note.
Veuillez agréer,etc.,
62. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TOTHE REGISTRAR
IO January 1964.
Sir,
The Counter-Memonal' of the Republic of South Africa in the Soztth
WeslAfricacases isfiledherewithin terms ofthe Order of the Honourable
Court of xS Septernber 1963.
1have, etc.,
[Signed) J. P. VERLORE VNAS THEUAAT.
IO January 1964.
Sir,
In the preparation of my Government's Counter-Memorial. a large
number ofdifferent documents have been used. For the convenience of
the Court two photostatic copies have been prepared of the relevant
portions of those documents referred to in the Counter-Mernorial which
are not available in the Court Libraries, even though they may have
been published and available to the publiin terms of Rule 43 (1).
The systeni followed in subrnitting these documents to the Court is
similar to thnt used in connectionwith my Government's Preliminary
Objections in that the photostatic copies were arranged in the order in
which they appear in the Lists of the Relevant Documentation. NO
photostatic copies have been made of documents available in the Court
Libraries orfiledwith the Preliminary Objections although such doc-
uments also appear in the Lists of the Relevant Documentation.
See II, Iand IV,pp. 1-195. The documents submitted are referred to in Books III to VI11of the
Counter-Mernorial. Keference to two documents only is made in Book 1.
Both these documents are available in the Court Libraries. Ali the
documents referred to in Book 11 are either available in the Court
Libraries or have been submitted with the PreLiminary Objections.
Book IX has no documentation.
The documentation submitted for the convenience of the Court as
referred to in Books III, VI and VI1 of the Counter-Rlemonal, is sub-
mitted herewith. Owing largely to transport difficulties, it was found
impossible to submit the documents referred to in Books IV, V and VI11
before 13 January. Certain supplementary documents referred to in
Books III and VI which, as now appears, are not available in the Court
Libraries, will also be fonvarded on that date.
I have, etc.,
20 January 1964.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that by an Order *oftoday's datethe
President has fixed the following time-limits for the further proceedings
in the South West Africa cases:
for the fihg of the Reply of the Government of Ethiopia and the
Government of Liberia, 20 June 1964;
for the filing of the Rejoinder of the Government of South Afnca,
20 November 1964.
1 shall sendyou in due course the officia1copy of the Order for your
Govemment.
1have, etc.,
Sir,
In paragraph 35 (II, pp. 476-477)of Book IV of the Counter-Rlemorial
an expected Report ofa Comniiçsion on South West Africa was referred
to. This Report has just been published and is available to the public.
For the convenience of the Court, it is the intention to include two
copies of this Report among the documentatiori submitted with the
' The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governmentsof
Liberiaand South Africa.
* I.C.J.Reporis1964, p.3.552 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Counter-Mernorial, in two folders both marked Volume IV-5, and thesc
folders will be submitted to you by our Embassy.
Although the said Reporthas nothing to do with the Counter-Memorial
as such, Members of the Court may find it convenient to have copies
thereof constaritly at their disposa1 for reference purposes. For this
purpose it is our intention to forward a further 23 copiesof this Report
to you through our Embassy, if you consider such procedure to be in
order.
1 have, etc.,
66. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
25 February 1964.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge, with thanks, your letter düted
18 February 1964, transmitting a copy of a letter dated 12 February
1964, addressed to you by the Agent for the Respondeiit in the Sozltk
West Africa cases. Pursuant to your request to be informed promptly
whether the Agents for the Applicants desired to make any observations
in connection with the aforesaid correspondence, a cablegram was
dispatched to you by the undersigned as prornptly as possible followiiig
the receipt of your letter, advising you of our intention to do so.
The Agents for the Applicants gratefully accept the invitation to
express their views concerning matters raised in the letter dated12 Feb-
ruary 1964 from the Agent for the Respondent, and respectfully submit
herewith observations which thcy regard to be both relevant and
significantto the proper course and conduct of the pending litigation.
Inhis letter o12 Febmary 1964, the Agent for the Respondent advises
the Rcgistrar of his intention to include among the documentation
submitted with Respondent's Counter-Mernorial, two copies of a certain
"Report of a Commission on South West Africa". The addition of this
Report to the documentation previousIy submitted with the Counter-
hlemorial, is asscrted in the letter of12 February 1964 to be designed
"for the convenience of the Court". The Ictter does not, however, make
clear how or to what end the "convenience of the Court" isserved by the
inclusion of thisReport among tlie documentation. The averment in the
letter that "the said Report hns nothing to dowith the Counter-Mernorial
as such" appears inconsistent with the Agent's comment that "Members
of the Court may find it convenient tohave copies thereof constantly ai
their disposa1 forrcference purposes".
The Report in question was, as the Agent for the Respondent points
out, referred to in paragraph 3j of Chapter VI1 of Book IV (II, pp. 476-
477) of the Counter-Mernorial. In this paragraph, Respondent set forth
the objective with which the Respondent had appointed the Commission,
the composition of the Commission, itsterms of reference, and the advice CORRESPONDENCE 553
to the Court that the Report of the Commission was "expected to be
published in the very near future".
\Vithout in any way commenting upon the merits at issueinthe pcnding
litigation, it seems highIy relevant to question how, under the foregoing
circumstanccs, it can be said that the Report "has nothing to do with
the Counter-hlemonal as such". The most cursory examination of the
Recommendatjons ofthe Report reveals a direct and decisively important
relationship to the merits of principal issues at bar.
It would be inappropriate to comment herein concerning the merits
of issues joined in the Pleadings previously filed by the Parties. It does
not, however, in any sense trench upon the merits to point out that
implementation of numerous key Recommendations of the Comniission
would be inconsistent with, and inderogation of, contentions made by
the Applicants and relief sought by them in the Applications aiid Sub-
missions. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully reserve their rights under
Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 61of the lirileç of
Procedure in the event Respondent should proceed with measures of
irnplementation of the lieport of the Commission.
Under these circumstances, the statement in the letter of12 February
1964. that the Report "has nothing to do with the Counter-hlemonal as
such", must be understood to constitutc an assurance to the Court that
imptementation of Recommendations of the Commission inconsistent
with contentions at issue inthe pending litigation, will be deferred in any
event until after the final Judgment of this Honourable Court, and upon
.this understanding, Applicants perceive no objection to the inclusion of
copiesof theReport amongthe documentation submitted with theCounter-
Memorial, in such quantities as the Court may find useful. Applicants,
in any event, resl~ectfullyreserve the right in their Keply and subscquent
stages to bring to the attention of the Court such considerations as
Applicants deem relevant, concerning objectives of Respondent in
appointing the Commission, its terms of reference, its Arguments,
Findings and Recommend at'ions.
I have, etc.,
(Signe4 Ernest A. GKOSS.
67. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TOTHE REGISTRAR
Sir,
r. 1 have the honour to ack~io~~lcdgereceipt under cover of your
letter No. 39244 dated 2 March 1964,of a copy of a letter o25 February
1964, addressed to you by the Agents for the Applicants in the South
TVcst -4fricacases.
a. In tlieir said letter the Agents for the Applicants express their
views concerning matters raiçed in n letter hy Ur. J. P. verLoren van
Themaat to you dated 12 February 1964. The views expressed by Appli-
cants reveal that there is a misconception on their part regarding the
purpose and effect ofDr. verLoren van Thernaat'sletter and offonvarding554 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
to you copies of the report of the Commission of Enquiry into South
West Africa Affairs. 1t is therefore necessary to clarify the position.
3. In its Counter-Mernorial in the South West Africa cases (II, p476),
the Government of the Kepublic of South Africa made mention of the
fact that the aforenientioned Commission had been appointed, set forth
the composition of the Commission and its terms of reference andstated
further :
"The report of this Commission has becn due for some months
now, and is expected to be published in the very near future.
Unfortunately it has not become available at an early enough stage
to be dealt with in thisCozlnter-Mernorial .n so far as its recornmen-
dations, and the Respondent Governrnent's reactians thereto, will
be relevant to the matters concerned in this case,Respondent will at
a subsequent stage take the necessary steps, with the leave of the
Court in so far as neccssary, to present such information to the
Court for its consideration."
4, When the lettcr of 12 February 1964, was written, the Commission's
report had been pirblished and made available to the public but the
Government's reactions to the recommendations of the commission had
not been announced as is still the position to date.
5. In fonvarding copies of the Commission's report to you for the
convenience ofMenibers of the Court, the matter dealt with in Dr. ver-
Loren van Themaat's letter of 12February 1964, it was not intended that
such report should thereby become part of the pleadings or procccdings
in the Case submitted to the Court for adjudication.
6. As indicated inthe above extract frorn the Counter-hIemoria1, our
contemplation was to defer steps in this last-mentioned respect until the
Government's reactions to the recornmendations becorne known. Such
is still Our intention as at present advised.
7. However, asthe Commission's report contains an up to date and
detailed survey of South West Africa and its peoples and is thus in
itself a useful reference work on that topic, it was considered that
Members of the Court might welcome facilities for ready access thereto
and the lettcr ofr2 Febniary 1964, çpecifically mentioned thatthe copies
ofthe report were being made available for that purpose.
8. The statement in the lctter that the report had "nothing to dowith
the Counter-hlemoria1"-which may possibly have given rise to mis-
understanding-was intended merely to draw attentionto the distinction
between the report andother documentsfonvarded. Theother documents
were either part of the Counter-Alemorial or documents "in support"
thereof in thesense contemplated in the Statute and Rules, Le., documents
cited in the Counter-Memorial in support of statements contained therein.
The report, however, fell into neither of these categories and the statement
under discusçion was not intended to convey anything more than this
obvious fact.
g. There is accordingly no justification for an understanding on the
part of the Applicants that the said statement in the letter of 12 Feb-
ruary 1964, constitutes ".. .an assurance to the Court that implernen-
tation of Recornmendations of the Commission inconsistent with con-
tentions at issue in the pending litigation, \vil1be dcferred in any event
until after the final Judgment of this Honourable Court, ..." or any CORRESPONDENCE 555
assurance at allThe letter of 12 February in no way touched upon any
question pertaining to irnplernentation or othenvise of recommendations
of the Commission.Likewise this letter must not be regarded as touching
upon that matter which is still under consideration by the Government.
IO. In their letter the Agetits for the Applicanls also state that Appli-
cants reserve their rights under Artic41 ofthe Statute of the Court and
Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure. On behaIf of Respondent I must
state that it is difficult to see what relevance the aforementioned pro-
visions have tothe forwarding to the Court of copies of the Commission's
report for the purpose mentioned in the Ietter of 12 February 1964.
1therefore at tliis stage refrain from commenting further on the Appli-
cants' reservation and argumentation insupport thereof.
II. 1 would appreciate conveyance of the above observations to the
Agents for the AppIicants.
1have, etc.,
68. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERKLIEXTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
8April 1964.
Sir,
Receipt isacknowledged of your letter No. 39463, dated 2 April 1964,
fonvarding a copy of a letter dated25 hfarch 1964 addressed to you by
the Agent for Respondent in the South WestAjrica cases.
In his letter, Agent for Respondent states that the Report of the
Commission of Enquiry into South West Africa Affairs is beingmade
available to the Court as a "uçeful reference work", but not as "part of
the pleadings or proceedings in the Case". Applicants perceive no basis
for objection to Respondent's presentation to the Court of "reference
works" which are considered to be relevant to and in support of its
pleadings, subject to the right of AppIicants to comment upon them as
such.
In the light of Respondent's failure to assure the Court that it will
refrain from measures of implementation of the Commission's recornmen-
dations while the proceedings are pending, AppIicants are constrained
respectfully to reaffirm the reservation of their rights under Articl41
of the Statute of the Court and Article61 of the Rules of Court.
Respectfully submitted,
(Sigrzed)Ernest A. GIZOSS.556 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
69. THE .4GENT FOR THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAK
28 May 1964.
Sir,
I. In Respondent's Counter-Mernorial and in subsequent correspon-
dence mention was made of a contemplation to place on record, at an
appropriate stage, the recomrnendations of the recent Commission of
Enquiry into South West Africa Affairs and the Respondent Govern-
ment's reactions thereto, in so farasrnay be relevant to the South T.liest
Africa cases. Reference may, in this regard, be made particularly to
paragraphs 3 to6 of my letter No. 1/18/15/8 o25 hlarch 1964-acknow-
ledged in your letter No.39462 of2 April1964-where the relevant pas-
sage in the Counter-Mernorial isalso cited.
2. bIy Government's reactions to the Commission's recommendations
were set out in a Mernorandurn published on zg April 1964, and the
decisions involved therein were approved by Resolution of the House of
Assembly of the South African Parliament on 8 May 1964 . hereafter
Respondent's legal represcntatives have lost no time in preparing and
causing to be printed a Supplement to the Counter-hIemoriali, CO\-ering
the above developments. 1 hereby apply in terrns of Rule37 (4)for Ieave
to filethis Supplement now as part of the Counter-Memorial. For thiç
purpose 150 copies of the Supplement together with 3 copies signed by
Respondent's Agents are hereivith fonvarded to you. Reasoning in
support of thisapplication isset out in the portion of the Supplement
headed "Introductory". I may further point out that the presentation
in the Supplenient is purely factual, without comment,and of the briefest
nature possible. The purpose is merely to bring the facts to the notice of
the Court in a convenient rnanner, so as to facilitate comment and
discussion in later stages of the procecdings.
3. 1 realise that the tirne-limit for the filing of Applicants' Keply will
soon expire. If,therefore, Applicants should wish to deal specifically
with thematters raised in the Supplement by way of an addition10 their
Reply, filed within a reasonable time after expiry of their tirne-limit and
while we are preparing the Rejoinder, we would have no objection.
4. As regards relevant documentation, this comprises only the Coin-
mission's Report and my Government's hlemorandum thereon. Tlic
Mernorandum is printed as an annex to the Supplement, and therefore
only two further copies are herewith fonvarded in terms of the Rules.
In regard to the Commission's Report, two copies have already been
fonvarded to you under cover of my letter No.1/18/15/3 of 12February
1964. I should be pleased if you woidd now treat these two copies as
tendered in terms of the RuIes. 1 am also forthwith fonvarding tnro
copies to the Carnegie Library in the Peace Palace, as a presentation
from rny Government. In further pursuance of my last-mentioned letter,
1 am fonvarding an additional 23 copies for the convenience of hlembers
of the Court, and shall be pleased to tiear from you whether this \vibe
adequate for your purposes.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) TC. RICGREGOR.
See IV.pp. 197-zig. CORRESPONDEXCE 557
29 May 1964.
Sir,
I. 1 have the honour to submit herewith 150 copies of a Book X1
of the Counter-Mernorial as cuntemplated in my letter Mo. 1/18/15/3 of
IO February 1964, and your reply No. 39188 of 18 February 1964. The
contents of this Book which, as will be observed, differs slightly froin the
Book as originally conceived, are as follows:
(a) lists of errata, i.e., corrections of slips or errors in respect of
Books 1 to VI11 of the Counter-Mernorial;
(b) a comprehensive table of casescited in the Counter-liernorial;
(c) a comprehensive list of documents cited in the Counter-hlemorial;
(d) individual tables of cases and lists of documentation, arranged
volume by volume. The individual lists of documentation :Ire riot
merely reprints of the listsannexed to the volumes of the Counter-
Mernoriai but embody corrections of slips and errorin the original
lists and should, therefore,be regarded as replacing those lists.
2. Whilst the lists mentioned in paragraph I (a} and (d) above are
submitted in ternis of Articl40 (5)of the Rules of Court, those meiitioned
inparagraph I (b) and(cl aboveare subrnitted forthe sake ofcampleteness
and for the convenience of the Honourable Court.
3.Beside each reference to a document in the individual lists of
documentation (mentioned in paragraph I fd) above) there nppear
symbols indicating where that document can be found. A full 13spla-
nation of the syrnbols used, which is repeated on ench page in so fnr as
applicable, is given in the Introduction to Book X.
4. As a result of the correction of certain slips and errors (reflected in
the listof errata) the folfoïvinfurther documents are nowrequired to be
introduced in support of the pleadings:
..,, ............................
5. It would be appreciated if the aforementioned documents, two sets
whereof with a liat for each are attached hereto, could after cornpliance
with the requirernents of Article 40 (5) of the Rules of Court be filed in
the Addenda Bos. The indication, "[A]", i.e., "filed in the Addenda Box",
has been used in the individiial lists of documentation (mentioned in
paragraph I (d) above) to dasignate documents already filcd in the
Addenda Bos as well as those ~ubmitted herewith ;ind listed in paragraph
4 above.
6. In addition to Book X and the documents listed in paragraph 4
above, 150 copies of each inciividual list of errata, relating to Books
1 to VIII, are forwarded herewith for insertion ineach copy of thc rele-
vant volumes already filed with the Court.
I have, etc.,
l SeeIV, pp. 139-195.Sa SOUTH WEST AFRICA
71. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVEKNMENTS OF ETHIOPJA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
IOJune 1964.
Sir,
On behalf ol the Applicantsin theSouth WestAfrica proceedings, 1 have
the honour to refer toyour letter dated 5 June 1964,In which you were
good enough to transmit Respondent's Supplement to the Counter-
Mernoriai, together with a letter dated28 May 1964 from the Agent for
Respondent concerning the Supplement. In response to your request for
prompt comment thereon, the following observations are respectfully
submitted.
It appears from Respondent's introductory note to the aforesaid
Supplement that the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into South
West Africa Affairs (Odendaal Commission), \vas tabledby Respondent in
Parliament on 27 January 1964 hat Respondent on 29April rg64 tabled
a Memorandum concerning the Report and that on8 May 1964 the House
of Assembly of thi: South Africa Governmcnt passed a resolution ex-
pressing approrralof the Goirernment 'sdecisions contained in the Merno-
randum.
The Commission's Report has been the subject of prior correspondence
to the Court, viz.,a letter dated 12 February 1964 from Respondent's
Agent tothe Registrar, Applicants' response thereto, dated 25 February
1964, a letter from Respondent's Agent to the Registrar dated 25 March
1964and Applicants' response thereto dated 8 April 1964.
In his letter dated25 March 1964, Respondent's Agent commented,
interdia, that in forwarding copies of the Camrnission's Report for con-
venience of llembers of the Court,"it was not intended that such Report
should thereby become part of the pleadings or proceedings inthe case
submitted to the Court for adjudication" (para. 5).In the same letter
(para. 6),Respondent adblsed the Court of its intention "to defer stins
this last-mentioned respect until the Government's reactions to the
recommendations tiecorne known".
In his letter dated8 April 1964,Agent for Applicants took note of the
foregoing representationand advised the Court that Applicants perceived
no basis for objecting to Respondent's presentation to the Court of
evidentlary material considered by Respondent to be relevant to, and in
support of, its pleadings, subjcct to the right of Applicants to comment
upon them as such. In the aforesaid letterof 8 April 1964,Applicants
reafirrned tlic resei-vation of their rights under Art41Iof the Statute
of the Court and Article 61 of the Rules of Court.
The Supplement tothe Counter-Mernorial States that the Report of the
Commission and Respondent Government's "policy and contemplated
course of action pursuani thereto" are "relevant to some of the major
issuesin the present proceedings, and in particular to those relating to the
alleged violations of Articleof the Mandate". Accordingly, Respondent
expresses its wish "to introduce the said Report and hlemorandum for-
mally to therecordilsrelevant documents". (Supplement, IV, pp. 197-198.)
In the light of the foregoing, it isapparent that Respondent now
intcnds that the two documents becorne part of the pleadingç and pro-
ceedings in the Case. Applicants perceive no basis for objection to such a
course, subject to their rights of reply in respect of the merits of the CORRESPONDENCE 559
aforesaid documents, at the same time respectfully maintainiiig the
reservation of tlieir rights in terms of Articl41 of the Statute of the
Court and Article 61 of the Kiiles of Court.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Ernest A. G~oss.
72. THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF LIBERIA TO THE REGIÇTRAR
Ij June 1964.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you tliatThe Ronourabie Joseph Chesson
has resigned as ail Agent of th(: Goveriimcnt of Liberia in South West
Africa cases and that in his stead W.E. Mr. Nathan Barneç has been
appointed an Agent by and on betialf of the Government of the Republic
of Liberia.The Honourable Ernest A. Gross remains, as heretofore,an
Agent of the Government of Liberia in these Cases.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) J.Rudolph GRIMES.
73. THE RBGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPlA
-4N13 LIBERIA
20 June 1964.
Sir,
1 have the honoiir to acknotvledge receipt of one original signed copy
and one hundred and forty-nine printed copies of the Reply l of the
Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia inthe South West Airica cases.
This pleading, which was lianded to me today, was filed within the
time-limit fixed by the Orderof zo January 1964.
1 have, etc.,
74. THE AGENT FOR THE GIIVERNPENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
5 October 1964.
Sir,
I. You are respectfully referrcd to the Order of zo Januarj. r964,
which fixedthe following time-limitsfor the filinof Applicants' Reply,
' SeeIV, pp.220-GIG.56~ SOUTH WEST AFRICil
20 Julie1964; and for the filing of Respondent's Rejoinder.20 November
192..Although every attempt has been made to expedite preparation of
the Rejoinder, it is already apparentthat, for the reasons set out herein-
after, it will not be completed for fiiing on 20 Xovember 1964. My
Government has açcordingly been compelled to ask the iridulge~ice of
an extension of the tirne-limit in terms of Article 37.4 of the Kules of
Court. This letter serves asan application in terms of the said Article.
3. The main problems in completin the Rejoinder within the time-
limit prescribed by the Court, arise from the nature of the material
containecl in theRepIy and its method of presentation. At the outset I
wish to ernphasize that any cornments made in this regard in the present
letter are not intentled in a spirit of criticisrn. 1would also ilot like to be
understood as suggesting herein that Applicants have exceeded the
degree of latitude permitted to litiga~its in frarning their Reply-for
present purposes, this question does not arise. Furthermore, 1 assume
that some of tlirnatters towhichI shallrefer,iwre themselves occasioned
by pressure of tirne. However, for the purposes of this letter, 1 must
point out that the Ilcply is an estrerneIy difficult pleading to deal with.
Our difficulty arises firstly from its method of presentatioii. It does not
follow the pattern either of the Memorials or the Counter-hlemorial nor
does it contain a systen~atic exposition of the subjects dealt with, but
frequently treats onetopic iii a number of different Chapters and annexes.
Such annexes often consist of reports, publications, articles, etc., which
have been incorporated by reference into the text. This method of
presentation renders itvery difficult to determine what the issues be-
tween the Parties really are-particularly since the various overlapping
parts of the Reply are not always consistent-and consequently the
task of drawing up a coherent and systematic repIy thereto is equally
difficult.
4. But an even more serious difficulty arises from the contentsofthe
Replx. Applicants have not confined theniselves strictly to matters
initially taised in the Memorials, but have included a large number of
fresh contentions or allegations in their Reply. To some extent this is
caused by the rnethod of presentation referred toin the previous para-
graph. Many of the documents incorporated iato the Reply as annexes
cover a much wider field tlian the issues as defined in the blemorials and
Counter-Mernorial. In addition, however, Applicants themsclves have
raised a number of new issues in the body of the Reply. Once again, 1do
not ïvant this letter to be underçtoodas making any technical objection
to this approach on Applicants' part. For prese~it purposes the only
point is that the broader arnbit of the Reply necessarily causes more
research and work in preparing the Rejoinder than is usualand than was
contemplated, certainly on Our part, when the time-limits were fixed.As
examples of new issues arising from the Reply, 1 may refer to AppIi-
cants' contention regarding the existence ofn "norm ofnon-discrimina-
tion and non-separationU-a contention which is spread over 29 pages
of the Reply (IV,pp. 491-519) and is based on a large number of publica-
tions, reports, treaties, resolutions, etc.; to Applicants' reliance on scien-
tific authority for some of their submissions (vide ibidpp. 302-307 and
600-602); and to their treatment of the topicof migratory labour, which
they have now introduced as one of their important points of attack
(vide ibid., p262, and thereafter at various places). CORRESPONDENCE 561
5. A further ~iroblemhas been the difficulty in obtaining sorne of the
documents on which Applicants have relied in their Reply. In many
instances their references \ver<:faulty, and although our probIem in this
regard has been reduced to some extent by receipt of their list of errata
forwarded under cover of your letter No. 40163 of S September 1964,it
has by no means been eliminated. In fact, there are still a number of
sources which weare entirely rinable to trace. In this regard it is relevant
to point out that with its Counter-Memorial Respondent filed, for the
use of Applicants, an estra set of copies of al1 supporting documents
which were not available in the Carnegie Library of the Peace Palace
(and even of some that werc). Applicants have not done likewise, thus
re6.eAsngwasrstated rvhen the tirne-limits were fixed,we could not Say
how much time wouId be required for the Rejoinder, since that depended
on the Reply. The usual procedure was thereupon followed in that an
equal period of time was fixed for the preparation of the Reply and the
Rejoinder. S.iThere1 am now asking for more time than was granted to
Applicants, 1 might respectfully point out that Applicants enjoyed cer-
tain advantages which we have not had. Chief amongst these arose from
the fact that Respondent transmitted parts ofits Counter-i\Iemorial to
Applicants in advance of the forma1filing so as to enable thern to com-
mence work thereon. Thus on 2 Navember 1963,we sent them copies of
Bvok II, on 15 Novernber 1963,copies of sections land C of Book VIII,
and on 7 Decernber rg63 copies of Books III and VI1 of the Counter-
DIemorial.In fact therefore A~iplicantshad considerably longer than the
5 months granted by the Court for the preparation of their Reply. In
addition, they received the benefitf copiesof the supporting documents
to ïvhich reference \vas made above.
7. For the reasons set out above, 1respectfully request that the Court
be pleased togrant an extension of the time-limit for filing Respondent's
Rejoinder. Ive estimate that 6 weekç'grace rvouldenable us to meet with
the minimum requirements of a coherent, syStematic and properly
finished Rejoinder. This wouid then entai1 an extension to the beginning
of January r965 .fit were ta meet with the Court's approval, 1 would
respectfully suggest that 8 January 1965, would be a suitable date,
inasmuch as it is, in terms of Artic25.1 of the Kules of Court, the first
Court day after the Christmas vacation; and 1hereby apply accordingly.
I have, etc.,562 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
75. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
13 October 1964.
Sir,
I
1. As Agent for the Govemments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the
South West Africa cases, 1 have the honour to refer to your telegraphic
communicatioiis No. 40297 and No. 40299 with regard to the reqiicst of
Respondent for an extension ofthe time-Iimit inwhich to fileits Kejoinder.
Reference is also made to cable dated 9 October 1964 dispatched by the
undersigned on behalf of Applicants promptly upon receipt of your
communication No. 40297.
2, In thejr cable of g October 1964, Applicants undertook to com-
municate their views promptly upon receipt of Respondent's letter and
requested an opportunity to present in writing the reasons for their
objection to the granting of Respondent's request. Respondent's letter
dated 5 October 1964 has now been received and Applicants, in accor-
dance with Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure, respectfully suhmit
their views arid reasons for urging the Court to deny Respondent's
request for an extension of the time-limit for filing the Rejoinder.
II
I. The time-limits for the filing of theReply of the Governments of
Ethiopia and Liberia, and for the filing of theRejoinder of the Govern-
ment of South Afnca, were fixed by the Preçident of the Court by Order
dated 20 January 1964 l. The time-limits set by the President, viz.,
'20 June 1964 for the filing of ApplicantsReply, and 20 November 1964
for Responderit's Rejqinder, were established following full discussion
and expression of views at a meeting at the Peace Palace on JIonday,
20 January 1964,in whicli the Agents of the parties met with the Pres-
ident of the Court.
2. In the course of the aforesaid meeting, Applicants' Agent, noting
the extreme hulk of the Counter-Memorial, undertook nonetheless to
exercise al1 diligence and exert al1 effort necessary to complete and file
Applicants' RepIy nithin a period ofj months. This undertaking, which
was faithfully carried out, reflected Applicants' conviction that the
protracted course of thislitigation threatened to work substaatial hard-
ship upon the inhabitants of the Territory, whose rights are in issue. The
Applications herein having been filed in November ~gGo, the time-limit
now fixed forthe filing of Respondent's Rejoinder marks the end of a
4-year period during which the instant Cases liave been pending. These
factors were adverted to in the discussions at the Peace Palace leading to
the fixingof the time-limits by Order of 20 January 1964.
3. Applicants urge that Respondent's request for an extension of the
tirne-limit within u-hich to file its Kejoinder violates the commitrnent
exchanged between Applicants and Respondent at the meeting with the
President, to inake a11necessary effort and to exercisc in good faith the
I.C.J.Reports 1964p. 3. CORRESPONDENCE 563
requisitc degree of self-discipline to honour tirne-limits which both
parties tlien perceivcd would involve strenuous effort.
4. Applicants submit that the explanations assigned by Respondent
in its letter o5 October 1964 to justify an extension of the time-limit,
are untenable. Although it would be neither seemly nor appropriate in
this eschange of corresponderice to discuss matters of form or substance
raised in the Pleadings, Appiicants are astonishcd by Respondent's con-
tention that the Keply raises new issues. On the contrary, matters re-
ferred to by Respondent are al1relevant and responsive to arguments of
law arid contentions of fact raised in the Counter-Xemorial. Furthermore,
with respect to Kespondent's compiaint of unavailability of documentary
and other sources, Applicants have been at pains at al1stages to comply
with the Rules and are unavare of any omissions or lacurtaeon thelr part.
III
Applicants have previously made clear, in their several communica-
tions of 12 January 1961, 30 Jririuaj 1963, and 6 September 1963,
opposing either unduly long periodç requested by Respondent, or ex-
tension of tirne-limits previously fixed by the Court, awareness of Kespon-
dent's right to have reasonably adequate opportunity to present its case.
As pointed out in their letter of 30 January 1963, however, Applicants
submit that Respondent's right in this respect must be balanced against
Applicants' right to obtain areasonably expeditious determination of the
issues raised in these Proceedings. Applicants respectfully reaffirm this
submission, to which added weight attaches by reason of Applicants'
strenuous and good-faith efforts to respect the time-liniit for tlieir own
Pleadings, fixed by the President after full discussion and due delibera-
tion.
1v
I. In view of the arguments set forth above, supported and con-
firmed by consicierations of justiceand equity, Applicants respectfully
but strenuously urge denial of Respondent's reqitest for an extension of
the time-limit which Respondcnt agreed to observe in the meeting with
the President on 20 January 1964.
3. In the everit tlie Court seesfit,notwitiistanding these objections,
to grant an extt:nsion of the tinic-llmit for filing the Rejoinder, Appli-
cants respectfully urge that any such extension should not be permitted
to delay the commencement of Oral Proceedings herein. Applicants'
research of cases before the Court,as reported for the years 1947 todate,
have not disclosed any previous case in which solong a period has elapsed
from the filing of Application to the closure of written proceedings.
Applicants have sorigl.it throiigliout these Proceedings to comply with
Orders of the Court fixing tirne:-limits for Pleadings, both in deference to
this I-Ionourable Court and out of a deep sense of the importance of
expeditious determination of causesremitted to the judicial yrocess.
SincereIy yours,
(Sigacd) Ernest A. GROSS.$4 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
76. THE REGIÇTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR TUE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
20 October 1964.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that by an Order ? made today the
President has extended to 23 December 1964the time-limit for the filing
of the Rejoinder of the Government of South Africa in the South West
Africa cases.
1shall in due course forward to you the officia1copy of the Order.
Ihave, etc.,
77. THE AGEKT FOR THE GOVERNMEST OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
Sir,
Upon the fiiing of the Rejoinder, the South WestAfrica cases will be '
ready for hearing, and a date for the commencement of the oral pro-
ceedings willhave tobe fixed in terms ofArticle 47 of the Rules of Court.
The said Article makes no provision for hearing the parties or ascer-
taining their views, and 1 am aware that the date of commencement of
oral proceedings is commonly fixed without reference to the parties ai
all. Nevertheless, in view of certain special circurnçtances pertaiiiing to
the present cases, the South African Government trusts tliat itwill not
be considered presumptuous on itspart to draw attention to certain con-
siderations set out herein, to which it is hoped that the Court or the
President will have regard in the exercise of the function envisaged by
Article 47. This letter isbeing wntten at this early stage since, if the
Court or the Presiclent is willing to give consideration to the contents
thereof, an opportunity will no doubt be afforded to the Applicants to
reply thereto, and my Government assumes that the Court would wish
tofinalizethis matter on or soon after thedate set for filing the Rejoinder,
i.e.,23 December 1964.
In previous comrnunications, 1 have had occasion to stress the \vide
ambit covcre~l by the pleadings in the present matters, and the large
number of issues. hoth of fact and of law, which arise therefro~n. Tt is
consequently unnecessary to elaborate in general on this feature, which,
itis submitted, distinguishes the present cases from any other matter
which has served before this Court. At the samc tirne the feature must
necessarilyhave an important bearing alço on the amount of work which
will be entailed in preparing for the oral proceedings; and it is to certain
practical implications in this regard that1wish, on behalf ofmy Govem-
ment, to dram attention.
'The same communicaticin was sent to the Agent for the Covernments of
Ethiopiaand Liberia.
1.C.j. Reports 1964, i 71. CORRESPONDENCE 565
After completion of the Rejoinder, Respondent's legal advisers will
first ofaU have to consider the full pleadings carefully with a view to
determining which matters require furthertreatment or substantiation in
the oral proceedings-a task which has been rendered more diffici~lt by
Applicants' method of pleadiiig, to which reference was made in rny
letter of5 October 1964.
Thereafter the actual preparations for the oral proceedings can be set
in train. The nature and cxtent of such preparations will be affected not
only by the wide ambit of the issues, but also by the further factor that
a large number of matters raised by Applicants are of a technical nature:
these concern particularIy the merits of economic, poiitical and social
policies appiied by Respondent or of those suggested as prefembie by
Applicants. In regard to such matters Respondent's legal advisers will
require the assistance of a number of experts, whether as advisers, or as
potential witnesses, or both. It is already evident at this stage of the
drafting of the Rejoinder that the treatment in the written pleadings of
these rnatters and attendant questions of fact, which may be in issue or
relevant to the içsues, will require amplification and elucidation at the
oral heanng, in al1 probability to a considerable extent-partly in evi-
dence and partly in argument.
Obtaining the services of silitable pesons-who, in some instances,
would first have to qualify tht:mselves regarding specific aspects of the
case-and thereafter arranging and holding consultations with them,
constitute time-consuming processes, which have to be completed çome
time earlier than the comrnencemeiit of the oral proceedings so as to
enable Respondent to comply with the provisions of Article 49 of the
Rules of Court.
With regard to some of these persons the processes have to some
extent been engaged upon during the course of the preparation of the
pleadings; but it wvillbe appreciated that the nature and extent of
assistance required from such persons during the drafting of pleadings
differ considerably from that required for purposes of the oral pro-
ceedings, particularly as regards the possible tendering of oral evidence
on certain aspects of the case.
Finally, 1 wish to advert to one further matter. In his letter to you
of 13 October 1964 the Agent of the Applicant Governments stated that
the Respondent's right to a reasonably adequate opportunity to present
itscase should be balanced against Applicants' right to obtain a reason-
ably expeditious determinatiori of tlic issues raiseinthese proceedings.
With this proposition 1 am in full agreement; but in striking such a
balance the Court should, it is respectfully submitted, have regard to
the extent of inconvenience or detriment that would result to each of the
parties ifits submiçsions regarding the fixing of datcs were not accepted.
As regards Applicants, their Agent referred in hi5 said letter tohis"con-
viction that the protracted course of this litigation threatened to work
substantial hardship upon the inhabitants of the Territory, whose nghts
are in issue". Respondent sul-imits, however, that this is a much ex-
aggerated statement. On the one hand, the charges made by Appiicants
in these proceedings are undoubtedly of a verjr serions nature, and they
are strenuously conteçted by Respondent on that basis. But on the other
hand they relate more to general lines of policy, most of which have been
in operation for many years, than to conduct which would from its very
nature require extremely urgent redress: in the event of conduct of this566 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
latter nature supervening, the procedure for interim protection would
always be available to Applicants. In Respondent's submission, even if
Applicants' charges as formulated should be substantiated, a delay of a
few months could in a practical sense hardly make a substantial dif-
ference in regard to the inhabitants' interests.
In this regard it is, moreover, tbe borne in mind that, as is generally
known, Respondent is engaged upon extensive projects for accelerated
development of the Territory and the advancement of al1its inhabitants
in the economic, educational, health and general social spheres; and
recommendations for development projects in the political and admin-
istrative sphercs, which are contentious for purposes of the present
proceedings, are being held in abeyance until the temination of the
proceedings. (Vide Supplement to the Counter-Nemorial, IV, pp:215-216,
read with pp. 213-215.) The prospect of substantial hardship for in-
habitants involved in a few months' delay must thereforc be accounted
a very slendcr one indeed. On the other hand, the lack of a sufficient
period for Respondent to prepare fully and properly for the oral pro-
ceedings invoives a very real prospect of irremediable prejudice, not
only for Respondent but also for the peoples of South Iliest Africa. It is
surely in their long-tcrm interest inparticularthat the case to the Court
should, from both sides,be presented in as thorough a manner as pos-
sible.
In the light of allthe circumstances, my Government would respect-
fully request that in fixing the date for the coinmencement of the oral
proceedings, the Court or the President have regard to the various
considerations set out above which result in Respondent requiring a
longer period for preparntion than is usually the case. Altliough I would
hesitate to suggest any definite date, it is nevertheless my conviction
that a date prior to Nay or June would render itextremely difficult for
Respondent to do justice to its case, as well as to provide such assistance
to the Court in this complicated matter as it would like to do.
1have, etc.,
78. THE RECISTRAR TO THE AGEKT FOR THE GOVER Y MENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
z December 1964.
Sir,
1have the honour to refer to your letter of 12 Novembcr 1964 which,
as 1 informed you in mine of 20 November, has been placed before the
President.
1 am now instructed to inform you that the practice hitherto followed
by the Court, which does not involve the consultation of the Parties with
regard to the date to be fixed for the opening of the hearings, will be
adhered to in the South West Airieu cases.
As soon as the Iiejoinder of the Government of South Africa has been
filed and the written procedure thus completed, the date for the com- CORRESPONDENCE 567
mencement of the oral proceedings ivivile fixed by the President inthe
light ofal1the relevant circumstances, and you will, of course, be notified
immediatcly.
1 am sending a copy of this letter to the Agent for the Applicants.
1 have, etc.,
79, THE AGENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
TO THE REGISTRRR
7 December 1964.
Sir,
The Agents ior the Governments ofEthiopia and Liberia in the South
West Afric cases have receivetl your letter o25 November 1964 trans-
mitting copy of a letter dated 12 November 1964 addressed to the
Registrar by the Agent for the Government of South Africa. We have the
honour also to acknowledge receipt of your letter of z December 1964
transmitting copy of a letter of the same date mliicli you have sent to the
Agent for tlieGovernment of South Africa.
Note is taken of your advice to the Agent of South Africa that the
practice hitherto followed by the Court, which does not involve consulta-
tion of the parties with regard tohe date to be fixed for the opening of
the hearings, will be adhered to in the South West Africn cases. You
further advise that assoan as the Rejoinder haç been filed,the date for
the commencement ofthe oral proceedings niIlbe fixed by the President
in the light of al1the relevant circumstances.
Under these circumstances, the Agents for the Applicants assume that
the considerations set forth in the lctter date12 November 1964 from
the Agent for the Government of South Africa to tlie Court, purporting
to justify delayof the commencement of oral proceedings until "hIay or
June", will not be regarded in the context of "relevant circumstances"
affecting tlie decision concerning tfixingof thedate for thecommence-
ment of oral proceedings.
In deference to the wish of the Court to decide this matter in terms of
Article47 of the Rules of Court, without consultationof the parties with
regard to the date to be fixed for the opening of hearings, Applicants
forbear from pointing out to the Court the many countervailiiig con-
siderations which support theis urgent plea that tlic oral proceedings be
expedited.
\Wh a view to CO-operation with the Court in the interest of such
espedition, Applicants respectfully advise the Court that they will be
prepared to present theircaseat aiiy time following the end of the Court's
Winter vacation, and that they are prepared likewise to waive strict
application of Articleqg of the Rules of Court, ço that the parties may,
at any stage of the oral proceedings, subject to the Court's approval,
cornmunicate to the Regiçtry information regarding evidence which they
intend to produce or to request the Court to obtain.
TVehave, etc.,
(Signed) Teçfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
Nathan BARNES.
Ernest A. GROSÇ.568 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
80. THE ,%GENTFOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
22 December 1964.
Sir,
1have the honoiir to inform you that the Embassy of the Republic of
South Africa, The Hague, has been directed to arrange for the deliverp
to you on 23 December 1964, of 150 copies of Reçpondent's Rejoinder
(consisting of two volumes) ',together with those documents, cited in
Volume II of the Rejoinder, which are not available, or presumably not
available, in the Carnegie Library at the Peace Palace.
Part 1, Volume 1, of the Rejoinder contains a "General Introduction"
setting out the coniposition of the Rejoinder.
Respondent's Subrnissions, signed by its two Agents, will be found in
part VII, Volume II. Four copies of the Rejoinder, bearing the actual
signatures of the Agents (VI,p. 429). willbe handed to you personally.
You will note tliat the lists of documentation appear at the end of
each volume and that an indication is given, next to each document, as
to whether it isavailable in the Carnegie Library or whether it is filed
with the Rejoinder. In this connection I wish to explain that despite the
most strenuous effort, ithas not been possible to complete the colIection
of al1the documents cited in Volume I of the Rejoinder. Iîhe printing of
Volume I has continued until this morning with the rcsult that the
preparation ofthe documents and the making oftranslations of a nurnber
of documents could only be cornmenced ivith a few hours ago. However,
Respondent undertakes to fonvard to the Court the outstanding docu-
ments within one week.
1have, etc.,
(Signed) R. M~GREGOR
81. THE REGISTRAIt TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNXIEST OF ETHIOPIA~
29 December 1964.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the President has fixed hlonday
15 March 1965as the date for the commencement of the oral proceedings
in the South West Africa cases (Ethiopia u. South Africa; Liberia v.
South Africa).
The opening çitting will be held in the morning of that date at an hour
~vhichwill be notified to you in due course.
It is the intention of the Court to sit in the rnornings only. It has been
See V and VI.
See VI, PP430-473;
The same communrcation was sent to the Agentsfor the Governments of
Liberia andSouth .%frica. CORRESPONDENCE 569
decided that the proceedings will be sirnultaneously interpreted and the
speakers will accordingly not be invited to intempt their addresses
from time to time to ailow of conçecutive interpretation.It is proposed,
however, that tht:re should, in the course of the morning sitting, be a
short adjournment of about 15 minutes, of the timeof wllich you will be
informed prior to the commencement of the hearings.
1 have, etc.,
82. THE AGEKT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHtOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
30 Deccrnber 1964.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your communication
dated 23 December 1964 advisirig that the Respondent in theSouthWest
Africa cases has fileditsRejoinder, as wellas your cable dated 29 De-
cember rg64 in which you inform the Applicants that the President
of the Court has fixedNonday, 15 biarch 1965, as the commencement
date for the oral proceedings.
With the closiire of the writtcn proceedings, and the announcement
of thedate fixed for commencement of hearings, Applicants respectfullj~
advise the Court that, in terms ofArticle 44,paragraph 3, of the Rules
of Procedure, they would have no objection to an Order of the Court
authorizing the pleadings and annexed documents in the South West
Africa cases to be made accessible to tpublic at any time henceforward.
Ihave, etc..
(SigneriErnest A. G~oss.
20 January 1g6j.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge your ietter No.40825 oi II January
1965 fonvarding for my information a copy of a letter dated 30Decernber
1964 addressed to you by the Agent for Ethiopia and Liberia.
Concerning the second paragraph of the last-mentioned Ietter, Re-
spondent has no objection to the pleadings being made accessibleto-the
public as from the time of the commencement ofthe oral proceed~ngs
on 15 March 1965. Respondent, however, does not consent to the publi-
cation of the plesrlings before that time.
I have, etc., 57O SOUTH WEST AFRICA
84. THE DEPUTY-KEGISTRAK TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OP
ETHIOPIA '
IO March 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honoiir to refer to the letter of 30 December1964 ftom the
Agent for Ethiopia and Liberia and further correspondence concerning
the making accessible to the public of the pleadings and annexed
documents in the South West Africa cases.
Having regard to Article 44. paragraph 3, of the KuIes of Court, the
Court has authorized those pleadings and annexed documents to be made
accessible to the public as from the time of the commencement of the
oral proceedings on 15 March 1965.
1 have, etc.,
85. THE AGENT FOR THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
ir March 1965.
Sir,
1have thchonour to refer to my discussionwith you on the 10th instant
when 1intimated that Respondent intended to cal1witnesses and experts
in the oral proceedings and that I would addressa forma1communication
to you in that regard.
While confirming the intention to cal1 witnesses, 1 regret tohave to
inform you, however, that Respondent's representatives upon due
consideration find itimpossible at this stage to comply fully with the
requirements of ArticIe49 of the Rules of Court regarding submission
of a lisof witnesses.
Not only have we been unable within the lirnited time at our disposa1
to camplete consultationswith prospective witnesses, but we have ako a
more fundamental problem which arises from the attitude adopted by
the Applicants in the proceedings to date.
In the first placeApplicants have in their Reply to a large extent
avoideddealing specifically with factual allegations made in Respondent's
Counter-bIemorial, with the result that it is impossible to deterrnine on
thepleadings whichstatements of fact areadrnitted or denied by Appli-
cants. The same difficulty applies with regard to factual statements made
in Respondent's Rejoinder concerning which Applicants' attitude is not
as yet known to Respondent. The compilation of a list of w-itnesseswilI
thereforeto a very large extent depend on the attitude to be adopted by
Applicants reIative to the above matters.
Finally, although not a fundamental consideration, notification by
Applicants of their intentions regarding the possible presentation of oral
testirnonycould alsoaffect Respondent's position in that regard.
'A similarcommiinicationwas sentto the Agents for the Governrnents of
Liberia and South Africa.
4 COKRESPONDENCE 57I
We have given serious consideratiori tathe possibility of submitting a
provisional list at this stage, but on due reflection have decided that it
would be best, if so permitted, to rnise the whole matter at the dis-
cussions with the Honourable President of the Court at the meeting
schcdded tu take place at IO a.m. tomorrow.
1have, etc.,
86. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
12 March 1965.
Sir,
At the conference this moriiing in the chambers of the Wonourable
President of the Court, it was agreed that an opportunity wodd, ai the
outset of theproceedings on Monday, be given to Counselfor my Govern-
ment to present a proposa1 to the Court in regard to a possible inspection
in loco.Apart from expressing Our appreciation of your CO-operation in
this regard, 1hereby also wish to honour the undertaking given by us in
that regard, viz., to inform you by letter, at the earliest opportunity,
what the purport of the proposa1 will bc.
BrieRy the proposa1 will be that the Court, or a Cornmittee thereof, as
may be preferred, accompanied by legal representatives of the Parties,
undertake an inspection of
1. the Territory of South lVest Africa,in order to see whatever the Couri
or the Cammittee may ~vishat the instance of eitI-ier Party or at its
own request ;
2. the Territories of the Applicant States to a sufficient extent to gaina
general impression of comparable standards and circumstances which
could facilitate fair and proper evaluation of well-being and progress,
and Respondeiit's policies tliereanent, in South IVest Africa;
3. one or two other sub-Saharan African countries or territories of the
Court's own choosing, to an extent and for a purpose similar to those
in the case of2 above, but by way of contrast prefcrably including at
least one country thnt formcrly wasunder Mandatory and Trusteeçhip
administration.
The suggestion will further be that the inspection be undertaken at an
opportune time to be decided by the Court after consultation with the
parties, and that practical details in regard to itinerary, size of the
travelling group, and the like, be arranged by discussion or such other
means as the Court might think fit.
Yours faithfully,572 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
87. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEKT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
Sir,
With reference to rny letter of the 11th instant and to the conference
yesterday (12March 1965 in the chambers of the Honourable President
of the Court, 1have the honour to statethat in view of the facts that the
Applicants have stated that they do not intend to cal1 any witnesses
unless it becomes necessary to rebut evidenceled by the Respondent, and
that they have declared that for the purposes of their case al1 factual
avermentsmade by Kespondent and not specifically denied by them can
beregarded as undisputed,two of Respondent's difficultiesrelative to the
submission of a list of witnesses have been resolved, viz., those set out
in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of my letter of the 11th instant.
The third dificulty, however, remains, \.iz.that within the Iimited
time at its disposa1 Respondent has been unable to complete its con-
sultations with persons considered at this stage to be prospective wit-
nesses, which perçons are resident in different parts of the world.
In view of this difficulty Respondent still finds it impossible at this
stage to comply fuUywith the requirements of the relative Article of the
Rules of Court anci can at this juncture only submit a provisional list.
Theattached listshould l therefore beregarded as such, in the sense that
it may later prove necessary to add names to the list or to delete names
now appearing thereon. I trust that the list wiIlbeaccepted in this sense
andthat Respondent will not be precluded from filing such amendments
thereto, as may at a Iater date prove to be necessary. Any such amend-
ments will be subniitted in sufficient tirne to obviaany inconvenience
to the Court or prejudice to the Applicants.
1have, etc.,
88. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHlOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
14lfarch 1965.
Dear Mr. President,
Pursuant to the conference held on the morning of 12 llarch 1965,
in the chambers of the Honourable President of the Court, the Agents
and Counsel for the Applicants in the South Wesl Africa cases have been
in communication with the Agents and Counsel for Respondent, both in
writing and inperson, and have discuçsed the matters which were taken
up during the conference aforesaid.
This letter is respectfully submitted for the purpose of informing the
President concerning certain agreements reached between the Parties
as a result of their discussions.
(1) The first area of agreement reached relates to the matter of the
'See pp. 573-575infra. List of 1Vifnessesund Experts in leurlis othe Rules ofthe Inler~iaiioizaCourl of,/uslice (SECNo. 87)
-
Surnan~c First Naincs Descrilition I'laceof Resideiicc l'oints to wkiicli cvideiice wiLiedirected
-
Journalist Lausanne, l'olitical and economic liroùlerns in Africa
Switzerland
lohûnnes Petrus D.Phil. ; Professor of Sociaa lnd I'orfElizabeth, 13asicconsidarations regarding separatc
van Schalkwyk Cultural hnthropology, University S.:\. dcvclopmcnt in South \\'est Africa
of Port Elizabetli
I'etrus Johannes Journalist ; Editor of Die Cape Town, S.A. 13asic considerations regarding separntc
Burger, Cape Town development
I'etcr Xlan \lrilson Ph.D. ; Deputy Secretary, Pretoria, S.A. IZducational policy
Department of Bantu
Education. Pretoria
Kurt Journalist; Editor of Allgemeine Windhoek, South Non-White political organizations in South
Zeilung, Windhoek West Airics \\TestAfrica
Werner Willi Max Ph.D.; Comrnissioner-General Sovenga via Basic considerations rcgarding separatc
Pieterçburg, S.A. dcveloliment and etlucational policies
for the Northern Sotho
Jacobus Stephanus Rlinister of Religion in the Dutch Stellenbosch, Views of church leaders and theological and
Heformed Church and Deputy S.A. ethical considerations regarding group
Rector of the University of relations and policies in Southern rifrica
Stcllcnbosch
I'aul Autlior and Journalist; Editvr I'srisFrance I'racticsl considerations regarding group
of La Terre Retrouvée relations and policies in Southern Africa
Evert Philippus Th.D.; Professor in the Theo- I'retorin, S.A. Vicws.of church leaders and theological and
logical Faculty, Dutch Reformed ethical considerations regarding grouli
Church, University of Pretoria relations and policies in Southern Africa
John Edu~ard DSC. (Econ.) ;Economist; Johannesburg, I.:conomic policics in South West Africa and
FormerSouth African High S.A. genersl considerations underlying sepsrate
Cornmissioner in London development List of Witnesses and Ex+evls in ternis ofthe Rules of the International Court ofJustice (See No. 87)
Surname First Names Description Placc of Rcsidence Points to which evidencc will be directed
-- - - - ~-
Zurich. Political and economic problems in Africa
Doctor of Economics: Author
Switzerland
Johannes Chasparirs Manager, BIuiiicipal Non- Vanderbijlliark, Policy regarding Native urbnn adrninistratiun
Iiuropean Affairs Department. Transvnitl. S.A. and influx çontrol
S'anderbijlliwk
ncsrnond Charlcs U.Phil.; Profcssor of Pretoria, S.A. Economic policy in South \Vest Africa
Ecoiiomics. University of South
Airica, Pretoria
Profcssor in t'tiilosophy and Rrussels. Problenis of human relations and need for c
Sociology, Drussels University Belgium separation in certain circumstances 2
Richard F. Professor of Geography, Los Angeles, Geographicsl conditions as aflecting economic 2
University of California U.S.A. dcvelopment in SouthWest Africa
Y
Johannes Albertus LL.Drs. ; Rector of the Ngoye, Zliluland, Educationnl policy with particular reference to z
Gcrhardus University College of Zululand S.A. highcr education *
2
Johan Hendrik Sccretary, Dcpartment of the IJmtata, S.A. Bantu aiithorities and politic:~l development in 2
l'aute Chief Ninistcr and Minister of the ï'ransküi
Finance, Unitata
Thomas I'rofcssor of French, University New York, Political, social and economic problcms in
of Brooklyn, Kew York U.S.A. Africa, including Southcrn Xfrica
Louis rlndreas Director of Dnntu Dcvelopment, Pretoria. S.A. Economic developrnent of Sative areas
Department of Rnn tuAdministra-
tion and llevclo~>ment, Pretoria
Stcfnn T. T'rofessor;Director of Inter- Stan lord, Social and political relations between various
national I'olitical Studieç California, cornmunitics and need for separation in
Programme, Hoover Institute, U.S.A. ccrtain circumstances
Stanford University, Ca1iforiii:i List of Witnesses and Experts in tevms of the Rules of the International Coirvt of Juslice (Seo No. 87)
Surnatiic First N:imes Description Place of Residencc L'oints to wliich evidence will be directed
D.Phi1.: Rector oftlie Pretoria, S.A. Basic considerstions regarding separate
University of Pretoria developmcnt and separate universities
SEARLF: Cliarlotte D.Phil. ;hIember of the S.A. Pretoria. S.A. Policy regarding training of nurscs
Nursing Council
VAN DEN BERGJan Ex-Ambassador of the Eure, France Practical coiisiderations regarding group
Ketherlands relations and policics in Southern Africa
Ph.D.; Alember of the Faculty Sew York. Sociological and psychological considerations
of New York University and the U.S.A. rcgarding group relations, group reactions, etc.
Seru School for Social Itesearch
VAK DER \\IATT Joliai1 Jacobus Former Assistant Chief 13antu Pretoria, S.A. Separatc identities of groups in South lXrcst
Afiairs Commjssioner, Africa and development of Native areas of
South West Alrica. South West Africa
Ph.D.; Deputy Sccretary, Pretoria, S.A. Bantu cdticÿtion system
Department of Bantu Education,
Pretoria
WATT James Shaw D.V.S.M. :Director of i\griculture Windhoek, South I'roblems in combatingstock diseases in South
in Sauth Wcst Africa West Africa West Afriça
\VIPPLINGER Otto D.Sc. (Eng.) ; Uirector of Water Windhoek, South Problems relating to water supplies in South
Affairs, SouthWest Africa \?'est Africa West Africa576 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Applicants' position ivitli respect to averments of fact in Respondent's
Pleadings, and the application of Article49 of the Rules of Court, in the
premises.
The Applicants have re-affirmed their position on these matters as
follows :
Reserving their iight to contest the relevance of facts contained in
Respondent's Pleaciings, including the oral proceedings, the facts-as
distinct from inferaences which may be drawn therefrom-are not
contested except as otherwise indicated, specifically oby implication, in
the Applicants' Written Pleadings or in the Oral Proceedings.
The Applicants, having been furnished a copy of liespondent's
provisional list of ~vitnesses and experts intended to be called by Re-
spondent, in terms of Article 49 of the Rules of Court, raise no further
question at this tiine with regard to the application of the aforesaid
mule,-except as follows:
(a) The Applicants reserve the nght to cal1 any witnesses necessary
to rebut evidence leby Respondent, and to comment on the evidence
given,in terms of Article 50 of the Rules of Court;
(b) The Applicants understand that the list of witnesses and esperts
furnished to the Court in the Annex to Respondent's letter of
13March 1965 fairIy reflects the ambit of evidence which Respondent
intends to produce, and the general terms of the points to which
Respondent's evidence will be directed.
(2)Reference also is made concerning further agreement reached
between the Parties, as described below. Appraisal of the significance
of this agreement requires a bief explanation of the context in whicli
it \vas reached.
During the later stages of the conference in the chambers of the
Honourable President, Respondent's Counsel made reference to Re-
spondent's intention to propose to the Honourable Court that the Court,
or a Cornmittee thmeof, visit the Territory of South West Africa and
"certain other areas". The latter phrase is quoted in the words as heard
by al1 three representatives of the Applicants who were in attendance.
No further explanation or description was offered by Respondent con-
cerning the "areas" intended to be covered in the proposal. The Appli-
cants, in a spirit of accommodation, agreed to thc suggestion that
Respondent might prcsent its proposal atthe outsct of the oral proceed-
ings, on the basis of Respondent's assurance to the President that the
total time req~iired for such presentation would approximate a quarter
of an hour.
As a precautionary matter, however, the Applicants addressed a
request, which the Presideiit was kind enough to grant, that Respondent
reduce its intended proposa1 to writing and communicate a copy thereof
to the Applicants as soon as possible, preferabiy the same day.
Upon receipt thereof on that day, the Applicants first learned of the
nature and extent of the proposed visit, viz., to the territories of certain
designated Sovereign States, as well as others not designated in the
proposal, one of the foregoing Statesbeing in any way subject of dispute
or cornplaint in these Proceedings.
During the course of an extended diçcussion between the Parties
following receipt by the Applicants of the foregoing information, the
Applicants pointed out the diversionary and tendentious politicaI natureof the proposal, which would impel the Applicants to request the Court
for leave to make immediatc response thereto and which, in turn, rnight
lead to the necessity for Respondent to exercise its right of rejoinder.
The riçkof such a developmerit at the outset of the oral proceedings in
these important cases would, inoieover, be taken without any perceived
procedural necessity for the interposition of the proposal, which trenches
on the merits, as the terms of the intended proposal makes clear.
Among the possibilities discussed, was that Respondent might defer
submission of its proposa1 until after the three or four days which \vil1
be requiced by the Applicants for the presentation of Iegal issues and
interrelated factiial questions.
The poiiticai nature of the proposa1 and of the intended method of
its presentation was conceded by Respondent, as was the fact that the
proposa1 is related solely to the merits.
The Applicants, accordingly, urged Respondent ta reconsider the
proposed timing of its presentation.
Agreement was reached between the Parties that Respondent would
give further consideration to this matter, and advise the Applicants of the
result. It was expressly understood between the Parties that, in the
event Respondent adhered to its previousview in respect of the time for
presentationof its proposal, the Applicants vvould feel bound to request
the President for a meeting, arid that, if the President should be so kind
as to grant the request, it was iinderstood that the Applicants would
respectfully urge that the order of procedure bc fixed so that the Appli-
cants might start presentation of their case immediately following the
normal preliminaries.
Respectfully,
(Signed) Ernest A. G~oss.
89. AGREEMEST REGARDING FACTUAL AVERMENTS
(handed to the President on 14 March 196j)
Subject to reserving their right to contest the relevance of facts
contained in Respondent's pleadings, includingthc ORAL PROCEED-
INCS, AppIicants agree that such facts-as distinct from inferences
which may be drawn therefrorn-are not contested except as othenvise
indicated, specifically by implication, in Applicants' Written Pleadings
or in theORAI,PROCEEDINGS.
This agreement pertains alscito factual averments in respect of which
no documentary proof has betin filed, including çtatements made upon
Departmental Information.
Any denial of averments made in the Rejoinder will be intimated by
Applicants at the earliest convenient stage in the ORAL PROCEED-
INGS.578 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
90. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE DEPUTY-
REGISTRAK
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer you to my letter of 13 March 1965,under
cover of which 1sutimitted a copy of a letter 12March 1965 ,ddressed
to the Agent for the Govemments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the above
matter regarding ;L proposed statement to the Court on a possible
inspection ia EOCO 1.refer aIço to the further discussion on this subject
between representatives of the Parties and the Honourable President of
the Court at a conference yesterday afternoon,when ilwas intirnated to
us that any opportunity to raise at the outset the question of an in-
spection would be Iimited to part onlyofthe proposal which we actually
intended making.
I now wish to inform you, after further consideration of the matter,
that inasmuch as the subject of a possible inspection of various territories
should, in ourview, be dealt with and considered as a whole, we do not
intend to avail ourselves of the opportunityto raise the subject in a more
limited form at the outset of the proceedings. Our intention is, accord-
ingly, to raise the matter at an appropriate later stage.
1have, etc.,
91. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEKT OF SOUTH AFRICA
5 hlay 1965.
Dear Sir,
Reference is made to the formal proposa1 submitted to the Court by
the Applicants during the Proceedings of 4 May 1965 (IX, p. 123))and
the cofloquy which ensuecl, appearing in the same Verbatim Record, at
ibid.,pages 124-125,
In view of the fact that the Applicants' proposa1 contemplates a
stipulation betweeii the Parties, or failing such stipulation, an orbyr
the Court to the same efiect, it may be convenient to set out the terms
of such stipulation, which the Applicants consider to be both fair and
feasible in the circiimstances.
The Parties ~vouldstipulate asfollows:
r. In the event that ~is~ondent desireç to produce any evidence the
production of which is permitted by the Court, the Applicants agree
that a deposition, orritten statement in any other form, embodying
such evidence :ind properly authenticated, constitutes a full and
correct statement of evidence which such witness or expert would
have adduced if personalIy in Court.
2. The Applicants waive al1 right to be present during the taking of
such depositions or the preparation of such statements, for any
purpose, including the purpose of cross-examination. CORRESPONDENCE 579
3. The stipulation would be subject to the Court's desire to observe the
demeanour of any witnesscs or expert, or to address questions to
him personally in Court. Iriorder to cornpIy with the Court's possible
wish in this respect, Respondent agrees to produce any such witness
or expert for that purpose.
4. The Applicants waive al1 right to examine any witness or expert
who appears personally.
5. In the eveiit the Court intimates a desire to listen to, rather than
merely read, the evidence of any witness or expert whose deposition
or statement already has been introduced, such deposition or state-
ment would he read viva voce,in such manner as the Court may direct.
6. The Applicants reserve the right, in terms of Article 50 of the Rules
of Court, to comment upori any deposition or statement produced as
aforesaid, or upon evidence in any other form, the production of
which may bc permitted by the Court.
The Applicants would be glad to discuss mith Respondent details,
such as the appropriate time and manner of forrnalizing the stipulation
and submitting it tothe Court. If Respondent should have any questions
regarding the foregoing proposed terrns of stipulation, the Applicants
will be pleased to attempt to clarifyany such points.
Inasmuch as the Applicants haverequested the Court to issue an order,
or otherwise decide, that the aforementioned procedures should be
followed, in the event that the Partiesfaito reach agreement thereon, a
copy ofthis letter has been transmitted to the Court for its information.
Sincerey yours,
Ernest A. G~oss.
92. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBEKTA
IO May 1965.
Dear Sir,
1 refer to your letter of the 5th instant which sets forth a proposal that
the Parties agree by way of stipulation to evidence being adduced by
Respondent in a rnanner otht:r than that provided for in the Rules of
Court, viz., by filing written depositions.
1 have to inform you that upon duc consideration of tlie proposal
1 am unable, for reasons which Counsel for the Respondent has already
intimated to the Court, to agree to theproposai.
Where, however, it may appear to Respondent during the covrse
of the hearing that, for good reasons, it may be necessary or convenient
to adduce the testimony of a particular witness or witnesses in the
rnanner suggested by you Respondent dl, with the permission of the
Court, follow that course.
In view of what is stated in the last paragraph of your said letter a
copy of this reply will be transmitted to the Court for its information.
Sincerely yours,
(Stgnetl) R.MCGREGOR. '580 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
93. THE AGENT FOR THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA T0 THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
13May 1965.
Sir,
iiTith reference to my letter of 13 March laçt, with which was sub-
mitted a provisional.list of witnesçes1have the honour to enclosehere-
with, in duplicate, an sdditional List'of the witnesses whomRespondent
intends calling to testify on itç behalf.
Unfortunately this list is not a final oneas a few mare prospective
witnesses must still be consulted towards the end of this month. 1,
however, anticipate that I shall be in a position to send you a finallist
early next month. 1 trust that this delay will not in ans way incon-
venience theCourt.
1have, etc.,
94. THE DEPUTY-RECISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERKMENTS OF
ETHlOPIA AND LIBERIA
Sir,
With reference to two documents mentioned by Counsel for the
Respondent in the course of the sitting of the Court yesterday, 24 May
(seeverbatim record IX, at pp. 401 etsq.) , hen,upon the direction of
the President, copies thereof were made available to you, and pursuant
to Article 48ofthe Rules ofCourt, 1have the honour to transmit herewvith
a copy of each of two documents of the Preparatory Commission of the
United Nations marked, respectively, PC/TC/II and PC/TC/302, each
being certifiedas a true copy of documents from the officia1files of the
United Nations Preparatory Commission, by the Chief of the Registry
Section of the United Nations.
1should be grateful if you would be good enough to inform me whether
it is the intention of the Applicants to lodge any objection to the pro-
duction of these doi:umentç.
I am transmitting a copy of the present letter to the Agent for the
Respondent for his information.
1 have, etc.,
See p.581, inira.
See Part IIIp.455,supa. -. .
Surnanic First Namev Description l'lacc of Residence I'oiiits to whicli cvidcncc willbe dirïctcd
]>ON HOFF (Count) Christoph Director of the Gerrnan-South hlunchen. SJnlitical and economic problems in Africa
African Society West Germany
LEWIS Percy Charles B.Sc., A.hl.1.C.E.; Chief Windhoek. South Road transportation in South \\'est Africa:
Engineer, Roads Branch, South West Africa problems and development.
West Africa Administration
MARSHALL (Brigadier-General)
hlilitary critic, editorialwriter Birmingham, Alleged militarization in South West Africa.
Samuel Lyman and author Michigan, Political and social problems in South Africa
Atwood U.S.A. and South West Africa.
OOSTHUYSEN Jacobus Arnoldus B1.B..Ch.3.; Director of Health Windhoek, South Health problems and development of health
Services, SouthWest Africz West .%frics services in South IVcst Africa
I'INAY Antoine Former Prime Minister of France Paris, France Political aspects of policy in South Africa and
and Former President of the South West Airica.
Councii in France. Industrialist
SCIIM~TTLEIN Raymond Vice President of the National Belfort, France Political aspects of policy in South Africa and
Assembly of France. Former SouthWest Africa.
Cabinet Minister. Author and
Journalist.
Dr. Juris.; Industrialist. Koldingen, Political and ecnnnmic prohlemr; in Africa.
I3ei Hannover,
West Germany582 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
95. THE DEPUTY-RECISTFUR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERh'3lEXTS OF
ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
28 May 196 j.
Sir,
In reply to your letter No. 41537 of 25 May 1965w ,ith regard to the
filingon the part of Kespondent of the two documents referred to therein,
this isto advise that the Applicants do not perceive any objection to the
production of the documents in question, although reserving the right to
comment thereon, as well as to produce any other documents which may
be of assistance to the Court or otherwise relevant, in terms of Article 48
of the Rules of Court.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) Ernest A. G~oss.
96. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVEHNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR '
16 June 196j.
Sir,
1 have the honour to enclose herewith a further listz of witnesses
proposed to be called on Respondent's behalf. Inasmuch as ithas been
impossible to consult with al1prospective witnesses, 1 regret that 1 am
not at thisstage in a position to furnish a final iist,
In view ofthe fact that Applicants are now relying, in so far as their
Subrnissions Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, solely on the aiieged esistence
tion:orm andlor standards, 1 wish to bring the following to your atten-
(a) It isconsidered thatit will not be necessary to cal1 al1the witnesses
whose names have been included in the original and supplementary
listsof witnesses which have already been filed with you. 1shall in
due course notify you which witnesses will not be called.
(b) The testimony of al1 the witnesses to be called will be directed
solely to the question whether a norm and/or standards such as
contended for hy Applicants exist and are applicable to South West
Africa. One wit:ness willalço testjfy with regard to the issues arising
under Applicarits' Submission No. 6.
In addition to the witnesses who will give oral testimony it isintended
at alater stage to put in asevidence depositions of certain persons. This
wiUbe done after consultation with the Agents of the Applicant States.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) R. RICGREGOR.
' SeeVIII, p.61.
* Seep. 583, infra. S~irnnme First Names Description l'lilcc of Ilcsidcnce I'oints towliicli cvideiice will be rcquiretl
R~ANNING Charles Anthon y B.A.. R.C.L. (Oxon) ; Emeritus l,ondnii, Concernitig a norni ;tritl/standards siicli;is
IYoodwa rd Professor of Interna tional England contended for IlyApplicants relative to Sciutb
I<elations, London. School of \Vest Africa.
Economics, University of London.
~IC~STYRE Claude Vincent Hushman Affairs Commissioner Tsurnkwe, South
in South IiTest Africa. West Africa
LORD Arthur Frederick C.C.M.G.; Retired Covernor of Cox Green,
~IILVERTON Richards various British Colonies, Berkshire,
the last being Nigeria. England584 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
97. THE AGEKT FOR THE GOVERSXEXT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE DEPUTY-
REGISTRAR
19 June 1965.
Dear Sir,
1 refer to niy letter of the 16th instant and to the direction of the
Honourable President ofthe Court in the session of the 18th instant
that Respondent should indicate which of the prospective witnesses
whose naines are incliided in the onginaï and supplementary lists of
witnesses filed of record wiL1,for reasons mentioned by Counsel for the
Respondent, no longer be called.
Although 1am unable as this stage to give a complete list of al1the
prospective witnesses who no longer be called to testify 1 can state
that the testimony of the following persons will not be necessary and
that they will not be called to testify:
W. Bretholz,
P. C. Lewis,
J. A. Oosthuysen,
j.A. Watt,
O. Wjpplinger.
As intimated to the Court there are certain other persons whose
names appear on the lists filed of record with regard to whom it has not
yet been determined whether they will be called or not.
In accordance with the undertaking given by Counsel to the Court a
further notification regarding the testimony of such persons {vil1be
addressed to you in due course.
1have, etc.,
98. THE AGENT FOR THE GOYERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
DEPUTY-RECISTRAR il
20 June 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honour to ackno~vledgereceipt of your letter dated 16June
1965 in which you forwarded a copy of a letter of the same date, ad-
dressed to the Ueputy-Registrar by the Agent for the Goverriment of
South Africa in the South WestAfrica cases.
The Applicants have deferred acknowledgement of receipt of the
foregoing correspoiidence pending further action on the part of Re-
spondent in respect of presentationof evidence, in the expectation that
such further action might clarify Respondent's contemplated procedureç
in cornpliance with the Statute and Rules of Court, as well as with
See VIII, p. 57.
Ibid., 61. CORRESPONDENCE 585
the practice of the Court. Moreparticdarly, reference is made to Article 48
ofthe Statute of the Court and the Order of the Court announced during
the oral proceedings of 24 May 1965,VIII, p. 48, as well as Articles 49
and 50, inter ah, of the Rules of Court.
During the course of the oral proceedings of 18 June 1g6j,Respondent
made a so-called "explanatoiy introductory staternent", purporting to
explain "what the broad puiposes will be of the evidence to be led".
(X, p. 82.) 011 the same day, immediately following Respoiident's
comments, a witness was called, for the purpose of adducing evidence
directed toward broadly statedand ambipously worded points.
The Applicants forebore from requesting leave to intervene, in order
that they rnight have an opportunity to read the verbatirn record of the
oral proceedings and thus, in deference to the Court, be in a position to
present studied and deliberate comment, rather than merely immediate
and precautionary objection tci aconfusing oralstaternent. The Applicants
deem it necessary for the protection of their rights, fully reserved at the
time of the submission of their case (IX, p. 3731, respectfully to submit
the following observations and reservations:
I. The Applicants take note of certain comments in Respondent's
letter dated 16 June 1965, aforesaid, which purport to characterize
certain of the Applicants' theories or contentions in these Proceedings,
upon which the Applicants :Ire said to be "now relying", as well as
cornments which purport also to re-formulate the Applicants' case and
to indicate that the testimony of al1 witnesses "will be directed solely"
to the case so rcformulated. Respondent's comments in these respects
appear to be argumentative,and inappropnate for correspondence.
2. The Applicants are constrained nevertheless:
(a) to make clear that they do not acquiesce in,but expressly disclaim,
the validity of such characterizations or formulations; and
(b) toreserve full right to object to the introduction of, or to comment
upon, any evidence directed to issues or poirits which are based
upon, or reflect, erroneous characterizations, reformulations, or
other distortions of the Applicants' case.
3. The foregoing observations and reservations are the more compelling
in light of the following consiclerations:
(a) in the Applicants' respectful submission, the procedures envisaged
by order of the Court, arinounced 24 May 1965, consistently with
Article 49 of the Rules of Court, entitle the Applicants to due notice
of the witriesses or expertsintended to be called, as weias clarityin
the scherne proposed to be followed by Respondent in the presen-
tation of such witnesses and experts, and reasonable particularity,
made clear in advance, so as to constitute due notice, conceining the
point or points to which the evidence of each witness or expert
will be directed;
fb) cantrary to the foregoing, Respondent has indicated an incom-
prehensible and illusory scheme, in which issues of law and fact are
inter-twined, and individuals are to be quaiified as witnesses and
experts to testify indistinguishably on undefined fact and law
points;
fc) in addition to lack of due iiotice concerning the identity of uritnesses
to be called, the lack of a comprehensible scheme concerning the
objective of their evidenca, and lack ofparticularity concerning thesg6 SOUTH WEST AFHJCA
point or points t:owhich their testimony is to be directed, thc course
pursued, or proposed, by Respondent would visit an unconscionable
burden of time and expençe upon the Applicants. As is clear from
the course ofthi: testimony led onIS June 1965,the evidence sought
to be introduced is of the most doubtful relevance or materiality and
cumulateç material already embodied in voiuminous written plead-
ings.
4. In the course of its so-called "explanatory introductorstatement" -
on 18 June 1965, Respondent made certain references to "activities in
the international bodies", indicating an intention to offer evideiiçe of an
unspecified nature with regard thereto. (X, p. 84, intealia.)
5T With respect to al1the foregoing, the Applicants deem it iiecessary
to make general objection to al1evidence sought to be adduced without
further clarity of scheme or particularitas well as a general reservation
of theirrightto raise questionsofrelevance, materiality andlor propriety
of any such testimony, as well as their rights under the Statute and
Rules of Court, including, but without limitation, Article49, 50 and 57
of the Rules of Court.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
99. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE COVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
21 June 1965.
Sir,
1 wish to confirrn that Dr. Ernest van den Haag will testify tomorrow,
22 June 1965 l.
In pursuance of the direction of the President in Court towards the
close of the session todayz to the effect that the Applicants should be
furnished with an indication of the points to which Dr. van den Haag's
evidence will be directed,1 wish to inform you as follows:
Dr. van den Haag isa professor of Social Philosophy, covering Psy-
chology and Sociology.
He has conducted extensive research into the subject of human
group formation, group relations, group reactions, relations between
individuals and group, the phenornenon of prejudice, factors tending to
increase or decreasr: prejudice, and merits and demerits of separation or
attempted integration in particular circumstances. On the basis ofsuch
researches and general principles recognized in his fields of study, he will
testify to the effect that aorm andior standards of non-discrimination
or non-separation as contended for by Applicants are not applied in
SeeX,pp. 130-18a 1nd427-478.
2 Ibid.. p124. CORRESPONDENCE 587
some parts of the worId and could, if attempted to be so applied, lead to
unfavourabie resuIts for the weI1-beingand progress of the peoples
concerned.
Yours faithfully,
IOO. THE AGENT FOR THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA 'l'O THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
zg June 1965.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that after the Parties have responded
to the questions put by the Court on 22 June 1965 l, Respondent will
cal1 as awitness and expert Professor Johannes Petrus van Schalkwyk
Bruwer.
Professor Bruwer is a Professor of Social Anthropology at the Uni-
versity of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. His evidence \vil1be relativeto
the issue raised under Applicants' Subrnissions Nos. 3 and 4; viz.,
whether a nom andlor standards such as contended for by AppIicants
exist and are applicable to South West Africa. The points to which his
evidence will be directed will be the following:
(1) the differences between .the various population groups of South
\Vest Africa, the consciousness of a separate identity arnongs! the
different groups, their wishes to maintain their separate identities;
and
(2) what, in the opinion of the witness, the effects would be if al1mea-
sures of differentiation on.the basisof membership in a population
group were to be done awny with in South West Africa.
Yours faithfully,
101, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBEKlA TO
THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
30 June 1965.
Sir,
Further to my letter to you of 28 May 1965 and to your acknow-
ledgemenr thereof, dated I June 1965, encIosed herewith is a Mem-
orandum2 of today's date, by which Applicants exercise thei- rig.~ to
1See X,pp. 238-335.
See Part III, y461, supva. SOUTH WEST AFRlCA
588
comment upon the documents produced by Respondent on 24 May
1965 and referred to in your letter of25 May 1965. Attached to such
Memorandurn are certain Annexes, identified therein and incorporated
thereby, which consist of documents which may be of assistance to the
Court or othenvise relevant, in terms of Articl48 of the Rules of Court,
equaiiy as referred to in the aforementioned correspondence.
Respectfully yours,
{Signed) Ernest A. G~oss.
102. THE AGENT FOli THE GOVERKMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
6 July 196 j.
Dear Sir,
The witness and expert following on Professor Logan will be Mr.
P. J. Ciiliel, whoçe evidence will also relate to issues arising under
Applicants' Siibmiçsions 3 and 4. Mr. Cillie asSouth African Journalist
of 30 years' standing and Editor of Die Burgu for the last II years.
Die Burger supports the policies of the present Government regarding
separate development of the various population groups in South Africa
and South West Africa, and has played a leading role in shaping and
propagating it. As poiitical observer and analyst Mr. Cillie wiH testify
on the political aspects and implications of the policies of differentiation
appiied in South Africa and South West Africa, and of possible alter-
natives thereto, with special regard to the feasibility or otherwise of
àpplication in practice of a suggested norm andlor standards of a content
as contended for by Applicants.
Yours faithfully,
103. THE AGEXT FOR THE GOVERXMEKT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO
THE BEPUTY-REGISTRAR
30 JU~Y 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honoiir to inform you that in view of the narrowing of the
issues in the case, Respondent has decided to limit further evidence,
and will therefore dispense with the testimony of the witnesses whose
names appeai-on the lists already furnished Save the following :
lSee X,pp. 505-558.
SeeXI,p. ri 1. CORRESPONDENCE 589
r. K. Dahlmann 6. S. L. A. Marshall
2. J. S. Gericke 7. L. A. Pepler
3. E. P. Groenewaldl 8. S. T. Possony
4. D. C. Krogh g. C. H. Rautenbach
5. C. A. W. Manning IO. H. J. Van Zy1.
Particulars of the said witnt:sses and the points to bvhichtheir evidence
will be directed areset out in the annexures hereto.
1 have, etc.,
Name: DAHLMASN.
Fz'rstName : Kurt .
Bescri$tiott :
Journalist: Editor AllgemeilzeZeitung, Windhoek.
Special field of knowledge: Political trends and political parties in South
iVest Africa.
Place of residence: Windhoek, South West Africa.
Evidence will relate to the issues raised under Applicants' Submissions
Nos. 3 and 4: both as witness and asexpert. 1
Points lo zeihickkis evidelzwill bedirected:
(1) The nature, programmes and activities of, and the extent of support
for non-White political parties in South West Africa.
(2) The relations between such parties.
Surname: GERICKE.
First Numes : Jacobus Stephanus.
Academic Qualifications :B.A., B.D.
Pr8sent occu~dion: hlinister of the Dutch Keformed Church of South
Africa.
Otker o@ces, etc.:Vice-Chairman of the Synod of the Dutch Keformed
Church of South Africa; Chairman of the Christian Students Associa-
tion of South Africa; Vice-Chairman of the General Mission Commis-
sion ofthe Dutch Reformcd Church; Vice-Chancellor of the Uiiiver-
sity of Stellcnbosch;Member of the South African Academy for Arts
and Sciences; Member of the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs.
Place of residence: Stellenbosch, South Africa.
The evidence concerns the issues raised under .4pplicants1 Submis-
sions Nos. 3 and 4, and will bt:directed to the following matterç:
Considerations underlying the development in the Dutch Reformed
Church of a çystem of separate churches for Coloured and 13antu
members.
The advantages of such deveiopinent for Coloured and Bantu members
and the communities to which they belong.
The significance of the Church's esperience of different popiilation
groups for the State in its administration of a heterogeneous popula-
tion.
See XI, p. 67.5g0 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
The Church's concern with the social, political and economic life and
circumstances of the various population groups and their members.
and with the formation and irnplernentation of State policy in these
fields.
Kame : GROENEWALD.
First ~Vames : Evert Philippus.
AcademicQudifications: B.A., B.D., Ph.D.
Occupation: Professor of New Testament Theology, and Dean of the
Faculty of Theology, University ol Pretoria, South Africa; Minister of
the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa.
Place of residejtce:Pretoria, South Africa.
As to the points to which this witness's evidence will be directed
please see the particulars specified in the caseof witness Gericke.
1
Name: KROGH.
First .+Vame :sDesmond Charles,
Description :
Academic Qualifications: I3.Com., University of Cape Town; i\I.h., Uni-
versity of Cape Town; Doctoral in Economics, University of Amster-
dam; Dr. of Philosophy, University of Pretoria.
Presen t position : Professorof Economics : Head of the Department of
Economics, Univt:rsity of South Africa.
Special field of study: Economic accounting and development.
Place of Residence :Pretoria, South Alrica.
Evidence will relate to the issues raised under Applicants' Submis-
sions Nos. 3 and 4:both as witness and as expert.
Points lo whichhis evidencewill bedirccted:
(1) Circumstances and conditions in South West Africa which materially
influence and affect economic development of the territory.
(2) The necessity of applying measures of differentiation between the
various population groupç in South IVest Afnca in the economic
devclopment of the Territory.
A'ame : ~IANNISG.
First i17ame s Charles Anthony Woodward.
Descri$tio?z:
Academic achievements: B.A. (Oxon) Greats 1920; B.A. (Oxon) Juris-
prudence 1921; R.C.L. 1922.
Career: Barrister Middle Temple 1922; Persona1 Assistant to Secretary
General of the League of Nations, 1922; Tutor Zirnmern School of
International Studies, Geneva, 1925, and subsequent sumrners; Pro- CORRESPONDESCE 59'
fessor of InteriiationalLaw and Diplomacy. Oxford, 1927; Emcritus
professor ofInternational Relations, University of London, 1930-1962.
Place O/ Reside~ic: London, England.
Evidencc concerns the isçi~esraised under Applicants' Submissions
Nos. 3 and 4. Witness and expert.
Point ls whz'chevidencewill bedz'rected:
Professor Manning's evidence will be directed to the following points:
(1) Group relations generally.
(2) The advisability of applying measures of differentiation between
population groups in couritries such as South 1I7estAfrica.
Name :MARSHALL.
First Names: (Brigadier-General) Samuel Lyman Atwood.
Academic Qualificatimzs: L.H.D., \Vaync State University; LI,.lI.,
St. Bonaventure University.
Description :Military critic, ec:litorialwriter and autlior.
Place of residence: Birmingham, Michigan, U.S.A.
Exfierience: BIajor, l3rig.-GeneralU.S. Army,1942-195 2hief orienta-
tion, U.S. Army, ~948;Chief historian, U.S. Amy, in various theatres;
Afember Army Hist. Adv. Cornm., Army Public Relations Comm.,
Michigan Civil Defence Comm. ; Author of a number of books dealing
with rnilitary matters; official military testand manuals; rnilitary
contributor to Am. GoEl.Dictiowary, Crowell-Collier Encyclopaedia
Brit.
Points towhichevidencewill bedirected:
Whether the facilities in South West Africa which are dcscribed by
Applicants as military bases, can be regarded assuch.
Name : PEPLER.
First Names : Louis Andreas.
Descrifition:
Academic qualifications: B.%. (Agriculture) University of Pretoria.
Present position :Director of Bantu Development in South Africa.
Formerly: Senior lecturer in Farrn Management of the Glen and Pot-
chefstroom Colleges of Agriciilture (1933-1941 Su);erintendent of
Orange River Irrigation Sizhemes at Upington and at the Loskop
Irrigation Schi:me (1942-1949) ;Chief Professional Officer in Charge of
agricultural planning and tlevelopment of Bantu Homelands (1950-
r956) ; Director of Bantu Agriculture (1954-1961).
Place of Resideptc: Pretoria.
Points to whickevidencewiZlbedirected :
His evidence willrelate tothe issues raised under .4pplicants' Submis-
sions Nos. 3 and 4. Witness and expert.
Bis evidence will be directed to the following points:
(1) The different agro-economic regions of South West Africa.592 SOUTH WEST .4FRIC.4
(2) Schemes and methods applied in the promotion of economic
development of the çaid regions particularly in the field of agri-
culture.
(3) The reasons for differential treatment (in the economic develop-
ment) of the areas occupied by different population groupç.
A7ame : POSSOI~Y.
First Kames : Stefan Thomas.
Descriftion :
Academic Qualifications: Ph.U. LL.D. (Hon.), principal subjects of
study being psychology, philosophy and sociology (major) and etli-
nology (minor).
Fields of Research and Teaching: International Relations, Sociology,
Modern History, Comparative Constitutions, Economics.
Previous Positions Occupied: Special advisor to U.S. Air Force and con-
sultant to other Uriited States govemmental and congressionalagencies,
including the \!'hite House, in spheres of policy sciences,including the
handling of naturai science data for the purpose of policy formulation;
Carnegie Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J.;
Professor of International Politics, Graduate School, Georgetown Uni-
versity; Associate of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Uni-
versity of Pcnnsylvania; Visiting Professor, University of Cologne.
Present Position: Director of International Political Studies Program,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University, California.
Publications: Co-author of Text-book on International Relations (two
editionç) and autlior of several historical works.
Place of Residence : Los Altos, California, U.S.A.
Points towhich eviiit:nwill bedirected :
\Vil1be directed to the issues arising under Applicants' Submissions 3
and 4, more particularly towards sho~ving,on the basis of scientific and
empirical knowledge regarding group reIations in various parts of the
world-
(a) the absence of a general practice of a suggested norm andior
standards of "non-discrimination and non-separation" as relied
upon by Applicants,
(bj that the attempted application of such a suggested norm andlor
standards would in many instances have an adverse effect on the
well-being and progress of the perçons concerned, and
(cl that on the basis of the facts concerning South West Africa as on
record from other evidential sources, the Territory falls within the
instances mentioned iii (b) .
h'ame : RAUTENBACH.
First Numes : Casper Hendrik.
Description: B.A., B.])., M.A., D.Phil., D.U. (h.c.) (Montreal), Rector
(Principal) of the University of Pretoria, Republic of South Africa; hIember of the Council of the University of South Africa; Chairman of
the Council of the Bantu Collegc of the North; Member of National
Council for Social Researcli and Chairman of its General Purposes
Cornmittee; Chairman of National Advisory Council on Education.
Place ofResidence: Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
Issues in regard towhichmidence is tendered:
The issues arising from Applicants' Subrnissions 3 and 4, ris twhich
Prof. Rautenbach will speak both as witness and as expert.
Points lo whichevidencewill bcdirected:
The basic corisiderations i-egnrding separate development, partic-
ularly in the sphere of higher cducation, and the consequences of apply-
ing a policy involving an absence of separation in the said sphere. A
comparisoii between policies regarding higher education in South Africa
and recent trends elsewhere in Africa.
Name: VANZYL.
First Names : Hendrik Johanri.
Description: Ph.U. (Ethriology). Deputy Secretary, Department of
Bantu Education. Pretoria; Chaimian of the 1958 Commission of
Enquiry into 13antu and Coloured Education in South West Africa.
Place of Kesidence : Pretoria, ICepublic of South Africa.
Issztesin regard towhich eoiderrceis lendered:
The issues arising from Applicants' Subrnissions 3 and 4, as to which
Dr. Van Zyl will speak both as witness and as expert.
Points 10 z~kichevidence will bedirecte:
Considerations underlying clifferential education for the various pop-
ulation groups in South Africa and South West Africa. The basic prin-
cipies of the 13aritu Educatioii System, its application and effects. The
probable consequences of doiiig away with differential measures in the
educational field.
ro August 1965.
Sir,
1have the honour to infonn you that the Honourable Edward R. Moore
has been appointed an Agent by and on behalf of the Government of the
Kepublic of Liberia in the Soirtl8West Africa cases.
His Escellency hlr. Nathan Barnes and the Honourable Ernest A.
Gross remain, risheretofore, Agents of the Governinent of Liberia in these
cases.
Very truly yoilrs,
(Signed) J. Rudolph GRIMES.594 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
105. THE AGEXT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE COVERFUENTS OF ETHIOPIA ASD LIBERIA
18 September 1965.
Sirs,
The firstwitness and expert to be called by Respondent in theSortth
West Africa cases when the hearing of these cases is resumed on tlie
20th instant,will be the Reverend J. S.Gericke l.
Particulars of thij witness and the points to which his eviderice \riIIbe
directed, were set out in the relative annexure torny lctter of30 July
lastto the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transrnitted
to you, but for the sakeof convenience 1 repeal them hereunder:
[SeeNo. 103, p.589, supra.J
Yours faithfully ,
106. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERXMENT OF SOUTH AFRlCA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
20 September 196j.
Sir,
1have the honoui to inform you that Dr. J.P. verLoren van Themaat,
S.C.,one of the Agents of Respondent in the South WestA frica cases has,
because of ill-health, returnedto South Africa.He nevertheless remains
an Agent but Mr. R. F. Botha of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Advocate of the Suprerne Court of South -4fricwho up to now has been
one of Respondent's Advisers, has been appointed an Agent also.
1have, etc.,
107. THE AGENT FOI3THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE COVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AN23 LIBERIA
20 September 1965.
Sirs,
1have to inform you that the next witness and expert to be called by
Respondent in the South West Afric~ cases after the Reverend J. S.
SeeXI, pp. 3-67. CORRESPONDENCE 595
Gericke-vide my letter of the 18th instant-will be Professor D. C.
Krogh l.
Particulars of this witness and points to whicli his evidence willbe
directed, were set out in the relative annexure tomy letter of 30 July
last to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy oi ~vhichhe transrnitted
to ÿou, but for the sake of convenience I repeat them hereunder:
[See No. 103, p. 590,supra.]
Professor Krogh will, during his testimony, refer to TheStrategy of
EconomicDevelofimentby A. O.Wirschman (New Haven :Yale University
Press, 1960).Thisbook appears inthe List ofDocumentation in VolumeII
of Respondent's Rejoinder (VI,p. 466).
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. RICGREGOR.
108. THE AGENT FOR THE COVIIRS~IENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
22 September 1965.
Sirs,
JIr. L.A. Pepler willbe the nest witness and expert to be called by
Respondent in the South West Ajrica cases after Professor Krogh, who
is referred to in my letter of the 20th instant, completes his testimony.
Particulars of Mr. Pepler and points to which his evidence will be
djrected, were set out in the relative annexure ta my letter of 30 July
last to the Beputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted
to you, but for tlisake of convenience 1 repeat them hereunder:
jSee No. 103, p. 591, supra,]
Yours faithfully,
(Signe d, MCGREGOR.
109. THE AGEiiT FOR THE GOVERNMI'NT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-HEGISTRAR
28 September 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honour to enclose a copy of the notes of Professor D. C.
Krogh concerning the occupational distribution of NativesinSouthWest
Africa, 1960which %ira seferred to inevidence today.
(Signe) R. F. BOTHA.
1 SeeXI, pp. 67-206.
ÇeeIbid., pp. ZOG-25r.
See XI, p191.5g6 SOUTH WEST AFRlCA
Occupation Arumber
A . Workersotherthanlabourers
I. Professional and technical
(a) Medical service ..............
(b) Teacher .instructor.............
(cl Religious service..............
(d) Other ..................
z. Administrative and managerial
(a) Headman. Induna ..........
(6) Manager ..............
3. Clerical.salm and relatedwork
(a) Clerk ...................
(b) Shop assistant...............
(c) Working proprietor ............
(d) Other ..................
4 .Craftsman.firoductionworker
(a) Textile. leather worker ...........
(6) Metal worker ...............
(c) Carpenter. joiner .............
(O!)Painter ..................
le) Bricklayer. plasterer ............
(f) Potter. brick and clay worker ........
(g) Food worker ...............
(la ) acker. InbelIer ..............
(il Stationary engine. other equipment operator
(j) Other ..................
5. Worker in lvansport andco?amunicalio~~
(a) Ships crew ................
(6) Driver (road) ...............
(c) Messenger ................
(d) Other ..................
6. Servicse porlad recreationworker
(a) Policeman ........................
(cl Caretakcr. cleanerwo............
(d) Domestic service and laundrywoman .....
(sJ Other pt:rsonal service ...........
(j) Other .................. CORRESPONDENCE 597
Occu~~ttion Number
7.Other skilled or semi-skilltd workor
[a) Hunter. ................. 237
(b) Fisherman ................
(c) Lumberman ............... 8go
(d) Miner, quarryman ............. 58
- 64
-=249
Sub-total A (1-7) 21,230
B. Labourers(id. " Unspecifit:d")
I.Farm labourer ................ 68,400
2.Other labourer ................ 30S3
3.Unspecified ................. 6.6,!
Sub-total B (1-3) 105,617
C. Farmer, farnamanager. .............. 40,497
D. Total economically active population (A-C) ..... 167,344
Source: Information obtained from the Bureau of Statistics.
110. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRlCA TO THE AGESTS
FOR THE COVERNMISNTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
28 September 1965. ..
Sirs,
The next witness and expert to be called by Kespondent in the South
West Africa cases after Mr. L. A. Pepler concludes his evidence, ivill be
Dr. H. J. Van Zyll.
Particularç of Ur. Van Zy1 and points to which his evidence will be
directed, were set outin the relative annexure to my letter of 30 July
last to the Deputy-Registrar ofthe Court, copy ofwhich he transrnitted
to you, but for the sake of corivenience I repeat them hereunder:
[SeeNo. 103, p. 593, supra.]
For your information 1 may add that Dr. Van Zyl willnot deal with
education at the Universitylevel.University education wjllbedealt with
by Professor Rautenbach.
Dr. Van Zyl will, in the courseof his testimony, refer to an article by
Professor IC.Ampon Darkwa, entitled "Educatioii for cultural intt:grity:
the Ghanaian Case", in New Eva,March 1965V ,ol.46,No. 3, atp. 69,and
to the test conducted in the Philippines which is recorded in Unesco
EducationAbstrucls,April-hlay 1958-Vol. X-Xos. 4-5, pp. 43-44.
Yours faithfully, (Signedj R. MCGREGOR.
SeeXI,pp. 251-326.598 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
III. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERZJMENTOF SOUTH AFRlCA TO THE AGENTS'
FOR THE GOVERNMENTÇ OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
30 September 1965.
Sirs,
After Dr. H. j. Van Zyl completes his evidence the next witness and
expert to be called by Respondent in the SouthWest Africn cases willbe
Professor C. W. Rautenbach l.
Particulars of Professor Rautenbach and points towhich his evidence
will be directed are as follows:
[See No. roj, p. 552, supra.]
Points to whichevidencewill be directed:
He will testifyon higher education, and the consequences of applying
a policy involving an absence of separation in the said sphere. He will
also make a cornparison between policies regarding higher education in
South Africa and recent trends elsewhere.
Professor Tiauteiibach will, in the course of his testimony, refer to
Stufing African Uwiversities by A. M. Carr-Saunders (A Developrnent
Pamphlet published by the Overseas Bevelopment Institute, London) ; a
report of a United Nations conference at Geneva on the Application of
Science and Technology indeveloping countries, appearing in Universileit
ea Hogeschool, Nr, 5,April1963 (Kemink en Zoon N.V., Utrecht) ;and an
extract from an addressentitled "The Diversity of Univerçities", by Sir
Eric Ashby at the 10th Conference of Associations of the Universities of
the Commonwealth on 15 Jul 1963, appearing in the Tydskrif uir
Ross-A angclerlhedc-Jot~r~z orl~ucial Agairs, No. I,Vol. 16,January
1965 (Sabra, Pretoria).
Yours faithfully,
112. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
2 October 1965.
Sirs,
The witness and expert who will follow after Professor C.H. Rauten-
bach completes his evidence, willbe Mr. K. I)ahlmann2.
Particulars of Mr. Dahlmann and points to ivhich his evidence will be
directed are asfollows:
[See No. 103, fi.589, supra.]
Pointts o whiclrhis evidence will bedirected:
(1)The nature, programmes and activities of, and the extent of support
for non-White political parties in South West Africa.
lSee XI,pp. 326-455.
Ibid.p.p,455-574 CORRESPONDESCE 599
(2) The relations between such parties.
(3) Circumstsnceç and conditions whicli materially influence political
developments amongst the non-White inhabitants i~ithe l'erritory.
Yours faithfiilly,
1x3. THE ACEST FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGEXTS
FOR THE GOVERSJIESTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
4 October 1965.
Sirs,
Further to my letter of the 2nd instant, 1 have to inform you that
Mr. Dahlmann will, in the course ofhis testimony, referin addition to
documents already before the Coiirt, to the following documents:
Press Statement by Moçes K. Katjiuongua, SLfrANU representative in
Dar-es-Salaam, dated IO September 1964.
U.K. Doc. A/AC. ~og/Pet. 3711Add.4. 14 September 1965. Petition
from Mbururnba Kerina, I'arty Chairman, NUDO, to the Chairman,
United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism.
U.N. Doc A/AC. ~og/Pet. 368. 13 April 1965, Petition from Chief
W. S. Witbooi and hlr.J. D. Gertze, President, SouthWest Africa
United National Independence Organisation (SWAUNIO), concern-
ing South West Africa.
Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the occurrences in theWind-
hoek location on the night ofIO torr December 1959 ,nd into the
direct causes which led to those occurrence(U.G. 23-'60.).
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. MCGREC.OH.
114. THE AGEST FOR THE GOVISRNMENTOF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGEKTS
FOR THE GOVERKMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
g October 136j.
Sirs,
1 have to inforrn youthat General S. L. A.Marshall1 willbethe nest
witness and espert to be calledby Respondent after Mr. K. Dahlmann
completes his testimony.
Particularsof General Alarshall and points to which his evidence wiil600 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
be directed are seout in the relativeannexure to myIetter of30July last
to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted to
you, but for the sake of corivenience I repeat them hereunder.
[SeeATo. 103, p. jgr, supra.]
Yours faithfully,
115, THE AGEXT FOR THE G0VERI;MEP;T OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE COVERSMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
II October 1965.
Sir,
After General hlnrshall completes his testimony the next witness and
expert to be called by Respondent \vil1be Prof. C. A.W. Manning1.
Particulars of Professar Manning and points to which his evidence
!vil1be directed are as follows:
[See No. 103. p. 590, supra.]
PoiOn the basis of Professor Manning's studies and reflections in the
sphere of International Relations, he will testify asto the importance
of the sociologicalphenornenon of group personality, particularly in the
case of ethnic and tribal groups, and particularly in relation to promo-
tion of such groups and their members.
He wil1 iiiustrate the theme with reference to practical examples
pertaining, inter alia, to the Polish nation, British Guiana, Mauritius,
India, Pakistan, the former Ruanda-Urundi, Cyprus, Canada, BeIgium,
the United Kingdom, and South Africa. Against this background he
wiII consider theeffects of the application of a suggested ruleof non-
differentiation in South IVestAfrica.
In the course of his testimony Professor Manning will refer to the
following publications which are not yet on record:
A ~reiiminar~ Report of the Royal Commission on BiIingualism and
Biculturalism
The London Times of 25 September 1965.
See XI, pp.599-642.116. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERShiENTS OF ETHlOPlA AND LIBERIA
14October 1965.
Sirs,
1 have to inform you that liespondent's last witness and expert will
be Professor S. T. Possonyl. Eie will be called after Professor Manning.
Particulars of Professor Possony and points to which his evidence
will be directed are asfollows:
[SaeNo. I03, fi.592, supra.]
The list of documents to which Professor Possony will refer in the
course of his testimony, cannotas yet be completed and will be furnished
as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) K. MCGREGOR.
1x7. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERlA
16October 1965.
Sirs,
With reference to rny letter of the 14th instant, 1enclose heretvith a
list of the docunientç to which Professor Possony $vil1refer in the course
of his testimony.
You will recall that in Our conference with the President yesterday
we intimated that Professor Possony'sevidence may not cover the total
fieldindicated inour letter under referenceI cannow inform you that his
testimony will not be directed tothe matter set out in paragraph (c) of
the points mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of rny letter under
reference.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. MCGREGOR.
Inter-Parliamentary Union, Co?zstZtutionaE and Parliamentary Infor-
mtim, 1952,1953,1954, rgfio,1956,1958,1959,1962,1963, and 1964,
3rd Series-No. 59.
Peaslee, A. J.,Constitutionsof Naticms, Vol. 1-111.
Jhabvala, Noshirvan H., ~Wohnmdan Law (N. hi. Tripathi Ltd.,
Bombay).
Khalil, hl., The ArabStates and theArab League,Vol. I (Constable & Co.
Ltd.).
l See XI,pp. 643-70s.602 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Freudenheim, Yehoshua, Die Siaatsordnung Israds (C. H. Beck'sche
Verlagçbundhandlung) ,
Immutabilitédu droit muszrlmanet réformes législativeesn Egypte (1955,
Agen, Imprimerie moderne).
The Future of Law in Afvica, Record of Proccedings-of the London
Conference 28 Dec. 1959-8 Jan. 1960 (Butterworth & Co.).
h'.Nigeria Penal Code, Cap.89.
Anderson, J. N.D.Islamic Law inAfrica (H.M.Stationery Office,London).
La supfiressiola des juridictions de statut personneleîz Egypte (1956,
Agen, Imprimerie moderne).
Colomer, A., Le Codedu statut $ersonne1marocain (Imprimerie Charry,
Alger).
Schacht, J., An I~itroducfionfoIsZamicLaw (Clarendon Press, Oxford).
Brunsching, R. ancl Schacht, J., StzrdiaIslanzica (Larose, Paris).
Anderson, J. N. D., Islanzic Law in the Modern World (New York Uni-
versity Preçs).
Tyan, E., Notes sommaires sur le noriveatirégimes$iccessoraazi Liban,
Annales de la Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques (Paris,
r960).
Fyzee, A. A. A., Outlinesof Muhammadan Law (3rd ed., 1964,Geoffrey
Cumberlege, Oxford).
Juynboll, Th. IV., Handleiding lotde kennis van De Moitammedaansche
Wet (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1930).
Brugman J., De Betekenis van het MohammedaanseRechtin het Heden-
daagscheEgypte (N.V. De Ned. Boek- en Steendrukkerij v/h H. L.
Smits, '+Gravenhage).
Konvitz, hl.R., "Liberia", published in Judicialand LegalSysfems in
Africa, edited byA. N. Allott.
Liberian Codeof Luws of 1956, Vols.1-111.
Sierra Leone (Law on Protectorate Land, Cap. 122)Cade.
Nigeria, Land Tenure Law, I~Gs o,f Northern Nigeria (N.N. No. 25 of
1962).
Rubin, L. and Rlurray, P., The Constitution and Govunment of Ghana
(Slveet% Dlaxi.vel1Ltd.).
Lecture by William L. Twining, "The Place of Customary Law in the
National Legal Systems of East Africa", delivcred at Univ. of Chicago
Law School in1963.
Recordof Proceediizgsof theLondonConference,28 nec. 1959- Jan. 1960,
"The Future of Law in Africa".
Nigeria, Native Courts Law, 1956(N.R.); Customary Courts Law, 1956
(E.K.).
Krzeczunowicz, G., "The Hthiopian CivilCode : 1ts Usefulness, Relation
to Custom and ApplicabiIity", appearing in the Journal ofAfrican Law
(Officia1Organ of the International African Law Association) Autumn
1963,Vol. 7, No. 3.
AIlott, A. N., "Towards the Unification of Laws in Africa" (Reprinted
from The Internr~tionaland CornfiarativeLaw Qztarterly-April 1965). CORRESPONDENCE 603
Manual O/ElectionLaw, Govt. of India (Delhi, 1951).
Kewenig, W., Die Koexistenz der Religionsgemeinscha /ten im Libanon
(IVaIter De Gruyter &ICo., Berlin, 1965).
Elias, T. O., Ghanaand Sierra Leone :Tlw Developmentof their Laws and
Constitutions (Stevens Bi Sons Ltd.).
Sierra Leone Interpretation Act, 1965 (No.7 of 1965).
The Swedish Institute for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries,
Israel Ruong, The Lafifis in Sweden, 1962.
ConslitutionO/ the United.IllexicanStates 1917(IVashington D.C., 1964).
Rackman, Emanuel, Israel'sEmergingConstittttion1948-195 (C1olumbia
University Press).
N.Y. Herald Tribune, Paris ed., 29 Sep. 1965, and 13Oct. 1965.
Scientific American, Aug. 1965.
Agriculturein A/rica,U.S. Govt. Printing Office,Washington D.C., 1965.
Marriage laws of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, &laqrland, Rlississippi,Missouri, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West
Virginia.
Kenya Immigration and Deportation (RliscellaneousAmendments) Act,
1964-
Tanganyika Immigration Act, 1963 (No. 41of 1963).
Sierra Leone Co~istitution Aniendment (No. 2) .4ct, 1962(NO. 12 of
1962).
Sierra Leone, IdandDevelopment (Protection) Act, 1962 (Ko. 61 of1962).
Sierra Leone, The Non-Citizens (Restriction of Retail Trade) Act, 1965
(No. g of 1965).
Bauer, P. T., WestAfrican Trude (Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Dhararn, P. Ghai and Yash P. Ghai, "Asians in East Africa: Problems
and Prospects", TlteJournal of Modern African Studies, 3, I (1965).
U.hT.Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 5, I Sep. 1952.
U.N. Yearbook on Numan Rights, 1948, 1950, 1955and 1961.
U.N. Yearbook, 1948149,1950, 1960, 1962, 1963.
Yearbookon Numan Relations, 1961.
Ecosoc, E/CN.4/873, E/CN.4/Sub.z/z41 of II Feb. 1964 and Annex
thereto.
Inter-Padiameiitary Union, Consdijarfionrrand Parliamenlary infor-
naation,3rd Series, No. IO, IApril 1952.
Resumémensuel destravauxdelaSociéttd !esNations, Vol. IO,No. 7, July
1930.
Ecosoc, E/CN.q/Sub.z/G, 7 Nov. 1947.
League of Nations, Oficial Journcrl,August 1922.
Tunisian Law of 28 Feb. 1963.
Park, A. E. W., The Sources of Nigerian Law (Law in Africa-XO. 6)
(AfricanUniversity Press-Sweet and Maxwell).
Schacht, J., Origins of Muharnmadan Jurisfirudence (Clarendon Press,
Oxford).604 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Reprint of the Statutes of New Zealand, 1908-1957,
Pagener, H., Dus Staatsangehosriglaeitsrecktdes Staates Israel (Alfred
Metzner Vedag, Frankfurt, 1954).
Foreign Afairs, Apri11965.
Anderson, J. N. D., International and ComfiaraliveLawQuarlerly,Vol. 12,
July 1963.
Anderson, J. N. D., Bulletin ofth School of OrientalandAfuicanStudies,
University of London, Vol. 17, 1955.
II~. THE AGENT FOR THE COVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO
THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
21 October 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to your letter of 2JuIy 1965,under cover
of which you fonvarded to me a copy of a letter dated 30 June 1965,
from the Agent for the Applicants together with a mernorandurn and
supporting documents. Inasmuch as Respondent wishes to dealwith the
matters raised by Applicants in the said memorandum, 1 enclose here-
with 30 copies of amemorandum by Respondent in reply l.It isintended
that counsel for Respondent, in the course of argument, will explain
the relevance of the said memorandum.
1aIso enclose herewith, for your information, copy of a letter this day
addressed to the Agent for the Applicants in which are set forth par-
ticulars of U.B. documents which will be dealt with by counsel in the
course of further argument 2.
1 have, etc.,
119. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ETHIOPIA
Sir,
I have the honour to inforrn you that the Court willhold a public
sittingin the SmithWestAfricacases at 3 p.m. on Monday, 29November
in order to give its decision on the request for an inspection in loco4.
1 have, etc.,
lSee Part III, p491.
Xot reproduced. See also X, p77 and84 and XI,p. 456.
'The same communication was sent to theAgents for the Governments of
Liberia andSouthAfrica.
+ I.C.J.Reporlsr965.p. 3. CORRESPOKDENCE 605
120. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE DEPUTY-
IXECISTRAR
28 hlarch 1966.
Sir,
It ismlr sad duty to infom you that Professor J. P. verLoren van
Themaat, one of the Agents of the Government of the Kepublic of South
Africa in the SouthWest Africa cases, died at Pretoria on 27 March 1966.
1 have, etc.,
8 July 1966.
Sir,
In accordance with Article 58 of the Statute, I have the honour to
inform you that the International Court of Justice will hold a public
sitting at the Pe:ice Palace, The Ha e, on 18 July 1966,at 3 p.rn., for
the delivery of the Judgrnent in theF outAWestAfrica cases (Ethiopia W.
South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) 2.
1have, etc.,
xerseptembre 1966.
Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de trans-
mettre, sous ce pli, unexemplaire de l'arret rendu par la Cour Ie 18juillet
1966dans les affaires du Sud-Ouest africain(Ethiopie c. Afrique du Sud;
Libériac. Afriquedu Sud) (deuxième phase).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiés ultérieurement par la voie
ordinaire.
' The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Covemments of
Liberia and South Africa.
* I.C.J.Repa~ts 1y66p.6.
La méme comtnunication a étéadress6e à tous les autres Etsts Membres des
Nations Unies et aux Etats non membres desNations Unies qui sont parties au
Statut de la Cour ou auxquels la Cour est ouverte aux termes de l35,tpar.2,
du Statut. The publications of the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE may be
ordered from any bookseller or from A. W. Sijthoff's Publishing Company,
1 Doczastraat. Leyden (Netherlands). For information regarding the sale of the
Courtespublications pleasewrite to thDistributionand Sales SectionOm of
the Uoited Nations, 1211Genevu 10 (Switzerland),or the Sales Section, United
Nations,New York,N,Y. 10017 (U.S.A.).
The publications of the PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL
JUSTICE (192G1946) are obtainable from Kraus Reprint Ltd., 9491 Nendeln,
Liechtenstein, to whichal1requests shoubeaddressed.
On peut se procurer les publicationde laCOUR INTERNATIONALE DE
JUSTICE auprès des librairies spécialisdu monde entier et auprèsde la société
d'éditionsA. W. SijthoiT1 Doezastraat,Leyde (Pays-Bas). Pour tous renseigne-
ments, priérede s'adresseA laSection de la distribution et des ventes, Ofice des
Notions Unies, 1211 Gen.?10 (SuIme) ou fila Section deventes,Nations Unies,
New York,N.Y. IO017 (Etais- Unis).
On peut seprocurer lespublications laCOUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONALE (192Ck1946auprés de Kraus Reprint Ltd.,9491 Nendeln,
Liechtenstein. Pourtous renseignements. prièrede s'adreàcettesoci6t.5.
PRINTEDIN THE NETHERLANDS
Correspondence