PART IV
CORRE SPO NDENCE
QUATRIÈME PARTIE
CORRESPONDANCE 5II
I. THEDEPUTYPRIMEMINISTER ANDTHEMINISTER FORFOREIGN AFFAIRS
OFETHIOPIATOTHEREGISTRAR
28 October 1960.
Sir,
1 have the honour to send you herewith a letter from the Agents of the
Government of Ethiopia, transmitting to you on behalf of the Ethiopian
Government an Application 1 instituting proceedings before the Inter
national Court of Justice and relating to a dispute with the Govemment
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 H.E. Dr. Tesfaye
Gebre-Egzy and Hon. Ernest A. Gross have been appointed Agents of the
Ethiopian Govemment in this case.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Tsahafe Tezaz Aklilu HABTE-WOLD.
2. THE AGENTSOF THE GOVER!'<MEN OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR
28 October 1960.
Sir,
\Ve have the honour to address to you, on behalf of the Government
of Ethiopia, an Application institutlngProceedings 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.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
1 See 1, pp. 4-24.srz SOUTH WEST AFRICA
3• THE AMBASSADOR OF LIBERIA TO THE NETHERLA:-o-DS TO THE REGISTRAR
4 ~ovembe rr6o.
Sir,
I have the honour to send you herewith a letter from the Agents of the
Government of Liberia, transmitting to you, on behalf of the Liberian
Government, an Application 1 institutingProceedings 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, Attorney 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 GOVERNMENT OF LIBERIA TO THE REGISTRAR
4 November rg6o.
Sir,
We have the honour to address to you, on behalf of the Government
of Liberia, an Application instituting Proceedings beforethe 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 for South West Africa.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Joseph W. GARBER.
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
5· THE REGISTRAR TO THE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES 2 A.I.OF SOUTH AFRICA
TO THE NETHERLANDS
4 November rg6o.
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that an Application has today been
filed in the Registry of the InternationaCourt of Justice on behalf of the
Government of Ethiopia instituting proceedings before the Court against
1 Sec I, pp. 26-28.
2 A similar communicationwas sent ta the Chargé d'Affaires a.i. of South Africa
in respect of the Applicatifiled by the Governmenof Liberia. CORRESPONDE:-l"CE. 5I3
the Union of South Africa and relating to a dispute with the Government
of the Union of South Afr:ica conceming the interpretation and applica
tion of the Mandate for South West Africa. I enclose herewith a copy of
this Application and of the letter of transmittal of H.E. the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia. I shaH in due
course transmit to you certifi.ed printed copies of the Application in the
English and French edition which will be prepared by the Registry.
You will observe that the Applicant refers to Article 8o, paragraph r,
of the Charter of the United Nations and founds the jurisdiction of the
Court on Article 7 of the Mandate for German South West Africa made
at Geneva on 17 December 1920, and on Article 37 of the Statute of the
Court.
I take this opportunity of drawing your attention to Article 35 of the
Rules of Court which provides (paragraph 3) that the Party against
whom the Application is made and to whom it is notifi.ed 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 must be accompanied by a statement of
an address for service at the seat of the Court to which ail communica
tions relating to the case should be sent.
I have the further honour to inform you that the question of the fixing
of time·limits for the fi.lingof the pleadings in the case will form the sub
ject of a later communication. In this connection, I would venture to
draw your attention to Article 37, paragraph r, of the Rules of Court.
I have, etc.
6. THE REGISTRAR TO THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER FOR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ETHIOPIA 1
5 November rg6o.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's letter
of 28 October rg6o which was accompanied by a letter from the Agents
of the Govemment of Ethiopia, transmitting to me on behalf of the
Ethiopian Govemment an Application instituting proceedings before the
International Court of Justice and relating to a dispute with the Govern
ment of the Union of South Africa, concerning the interpretation and
application of the Mandate for South West Africa.
I have the further honour to inform Your Excellencv that due note
has been taken of the appointment of H.E. Dr. Tesfaye Gebre-Egzy and
Hon. Ernest A. Gross as Agents of the Ethiopian Government in this
case and of their address for service at the seat of the Court.
1 have, etc.
1 A similar communication was sent to the Ambassadorof Liberia to the Xether
lands. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
7· THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA 1
5 November rg6o.
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to the letter of 28 October rg6o by which
H.E. the Deputy Prime i\Iinister and l\linister for Foreign Affairs of
Ethiopia informed me of your appointment as Agent of the Government
of Ethiopia in the proceedings instituted by that Government against
the Union of South Africa, and to acknowledge your letter of 28 October
rg6o transmitting the Application in that case.
I have the further honour to inform you that the Application was
filed in the Registry on 4 November 1960 and was the same day com
municated to the Chargé d'affaires at The Hague of the Union of South
Africa.
The question of the fixing of time-limits for the filing of the pleadings
in the case will form the subject of a later communication. In this con
nection I would venture to draw your attention to Article 37, paragraph 1,
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 herewith, and to confirm that on 4 November 1g6o
Applications were respectively filed on behalf of the Government of
Ethiopia and the Government of Liberia instituting proceedings against
the Union of South Africa, each relating to a 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 accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of
the Statute of the Court, you would be good enough to notify the M.em
bers of the United Nations of the filing of these Applications.
For this purpose, I shall forward to you as soon as possible 125 certified
true copies of each of the Applications, marked "Attention Director,
General Legal Division".
I have, etc.,
1
The sa me communication was sent separatelyto the two Agents of the Govern
ment of Ethiopia and similar communications were sent separately to the two
Agents of the Government of Liberiain respectof the Application tiled by their
Government. COIŒESI'ONDE~CE
9· LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ETRA:\'GÈRES D'AFGHAXISTAN 1
26 novembre rg6o.
Monsieur l'Ambassadeur,
Le 4 novembre rg6o a étédéposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale
de Justice, au nom du Gouvernement de l'Ethiopie, une requête par
laquelle ce Gouvernement a introduit contre le Gouvernement de l'Union
sud-africaine une instance relative au Sud-Ouest africain.
J'ai l'honneur, à toutes fins utiles, de transmettre ci-joint à Votre
Excellence un exemplaire de cette requête.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
IO. LE GREFFIER A L'AMBASSADEUR DE SUISSE AUX PAYS-BAS 2
26 novembre rg6o.
Monsieur l'Ambassadeur,
Le 4 novembre rg6o a étédéposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale
de Justice, au nom du Gouvernement de I'Ethiopie, une requête par
laquelle ce Gouvernement a introduit contre le Gouvernement de l'Union
sud-africaine une instance relative au Sud-Ouest africain.
Mc référantà l'article 40, paragraphe 3, du Statut de la Cour, j'ai
l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence un exemplaire de
cette requête.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
II. THE MINISTER OF EXTER~AL AFFAIRS OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
3 December rg6o.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the applications filed by the Govern
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia to institute contentions proceedings
against the Union of South Africain the International Court of Justice in
respect of South West Africa and to certify and declare, in terms of
Article 35 of the Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice-
1 La même communication a étéadressée à tous les autreEtats Membres des
Nations Unies et une communication analogue a étéfaite au sujet de la requête du
Gouvernement du Libéria.
2 La même communication a étéadressée aux autres Etats non membres des
Nations lJnies qui sont parties au Statde la Cour, ou auxquels la Cour est ouverte
aux termes de l'article 35, paragraph2,du Statut et une communication analogue
a étéfaite au sujet de la requête du Gouvernement du Libéria.sr6 SOUTHWESTAFRICA
I. that the Government of the Union of South Africa have been duly
notified that such applications have been filed;
2. that the address for service to which all communications relating to
the said applications and proceedings shall be sent shall be the Em
bassy of the Union of South Africa at The Hague;
3· that 1 have appointed
Dr. Joan Philip VERLOREN VANTHEMAAT
agent of the Union of South Africain 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 in respect of the said applications and proceedings, as
it considers expt:dient.
1have the honour to state further that the foregoing acknowledgement
of notification and appointment of the said Dr. verLoren van Themaat
as Agent of the Union of South Africa is made irrespective of the ques
tions asto whether the International Court of Justice has any jurisdic
tion in respect of such proceedings or not and asto whether the applica
tions of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia are in any respect
justifiedor not.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) EricH. LOEW.
12. THE AMBASSADOO RF LIBERIATO THE NETHERLANDT SOTHE
REGISTRAR
rg December rg6o.
Sir,
1 have the honour to advise that the Governments of Liberia and
Ethiopia will deposit on 15 April rg6r their Memorials re the application
instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice against
the Government of the Union of South Africa concerning the interpreta
tion and application of the Mandate for South West Africa.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) joseph GRAHAM. CORRESPONDENCE 517
lj. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
31 December rg6o.
Sir,
l have the honour to submit the following views on behalf of the
Government of the Union of South Africa.
The rsth April rg61, the date proposed by the Governments of Liberia
and Ethiopia for the filing of their 1\lemorials, is acceptable to us.
It is respectfully submitted that in the light of the following con~
siderations a lengthy period of time will be required for the preparation
of the Counter-Memorial of my Government. Although it is not possible,
at this stage, to say with any certainty what this period will be, it is
estimated that a period of at least 10 to 12 months after the Applicants
have filed their Memorials will not be unreasonable.
The Applications of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia caver
an extremely wide field. These Applications deal not only with a number
of intricate legal and constitutional points but also with a large number
of factual questions relating to almost every facet of the administration
of the Territory of South West Africa over a period of 40 years. Indeed
it is my submission that no case so far dealt with by the International
Court of Justice has had so wide a scope and contained so many ques~
tians 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 following questions
raised in the Applications:
(i) the provision, control and regulation of residence and housing
(paragraph 4 ( e) (3), (7) and (13) of the Applications);
(ii) the regulation of labour (paragraph 4 ( e) (4), (5) and (6));
(iii)the administration, control and disposai of public land (para
graph 4 (e) (n} and (12));
(iv) the various measures taken for the maintenance of law and
arder (paragraph 4 (e) (8)-(10) and (14)-(17) read with para
graph 4 (c) and (d));
(v) the provision and regulation of education (paragraph 4 (e)
(z));
{vi) the provisions as regards political rights (paragraph 4 ( e)(r));
(vii) the measures taken in respect of different sections of the
population (paragraph 4 (b) ). The scope of this question, in
itself, isextremely wide.
(viii) the measures taken to promote to the utmost the material and
moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants (para
graph 4 (a)).This question is also very wide.
(b) The legal issues caver numerous problems which have evolved over
at least 40 years. Sorne of these problems are unique in that 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 rescarch into historical and legal
records extending over a period of more than 40 years. FurthermoresrS 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 pleading which covers all the questions raised will no doubt be a
lengthy one and will most Iikely be accompanicd by many annexures.
The printing of such a document will doubtless take sorne time.
(e) In considering the question of the time now to be allowed to my
Government for filing its Counter-Memorial it is submitted that the
fact that the Applicants have had a long time to prepare their case
should be borne in mind. On the other hand the fi.rst official intima
tion to my Government of the Applicants' intention to institute
legal proceedings was only received at the same time when the
applications were transrnitted toit, viz. on the 4th November rg6o.
In this regard, it must be pointed out that the responsible Min
ister and most of the officiais concerned with this matter were at
that time abroad attending the General Assembly of the United
Nations.
In conclusion, 1 respectfully wish to state that my Government con
siders the allegations made against it in a very serious Iight. For this
reason, also, it is desirons of obtaining sufficient time to ena ble it to deal
properly and satisfactorily with the issues raised.
Wherefore 1 pray that the date which it may please the Honourable
Court to determine for the filing of the Counter-i\Iemorial of the Govern
ment of the Union of South Africa shall not be before the rsth February
1962. .
Please accept, etc.,
(Signed) J. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
14· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
(telegram)
6 January rg6r.
Have received your letter 3 January enclosing request of Agent of
South Africa for leave to file Counter-Memorial South \Vest Africa case
"not before 15 February rg6z". In view of Respondent's desire for so
long a delay we respectfully request opportunity for a meeting pursuant
Article 37,J~ul efCourt. We wish to co-opera te \\"ÎthCourt in assisting
find balance between interest of Applicants in expeditions determination
grave issues presented and right of Respondent to have adequate oppor
tunity to meet allegations. Respectfully, Ernest A. Gross. CORRESPONDENCE
519
15. THE REGISTRAR TOTHEAGENTFORTHEGOVERNMENO TFETH!OPIA 1
13 January 1961.
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to the Application instituting proceedings
in the South West A/rica case (Ethiopia v. Union of South Africa) and
to the President's interview today with the Agents for the Parties 2 ,and
to inform you that, having ascertained the views of the Parties, the
President bas, by Order of today's date 3,fixed the following time-limits
for the filing of pleadings:
For the 1\lcmorial of the Ethiopian Government: 15 April rg6r;
For the Counter-Memorial of the Government of the Union of South
Africa; 15 December 1961.
The subsequent procedure has been reserved for further decision.
The official copy of the Order for the Government of Ethiopia will be
despatched to you in due course.
I have, etc.,
16. THE MINISTEROF EXTERNAL AFFAIRSOF SOUTHAFRICATOTHE
REGISTRAR
r8 January rg6L
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to my letter of 3 December tg6o, whcrein I
notiiied 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 lctter, in which I intimated that the
Government of the Union of South Africa reserved the right to appoint
an additional Agent, 1 now have the further honour to inform you that
1 have appointed
l\Ir. Ross McGREGOR
as such additional Agent of the Union of South Africain respect of the
said Applications and Proceedings.
The appointment has been made subject to the same provisions stated
in the last paragraph of my letter of 3 December rg6o.
1 have, etc.,
For Minister of External Affairs.
(Signed)
Secretary for External Affairs
1 A similar communication was sent to the Agent for the Government of Liberia
in respect of the Applicatiofileby his Government and the same communications
werc sent to the Agent for the Government of South Africa.
2 See Ko. s<Jp. 546,par11.Il 3. infra.
3 I.C.j. ReportsI96I,pp. 3 and 6.520 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
17. THE AGE:>!T FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR 1
28 March rg6r.
Sir,
Reference is made to the Application of the Govemment of Ethiopia
in the case of South West A/rica.
In accordance with the order of IJ January rg6r, by which the
President of the Court bas fixed time limits for the filing of pleadings in
this case, the Memorial of Ethiopia will be filed on or before 15 April rg61.
The purpose of this letter is to notify the Registry that the Govem
ment of Ethiopia reserves the right, pursuant to Article JI of the Statu te
of the International Court of Justice and of Article J of the l{ules of
Court, to choose a person to sit as Judge in this case.
Pursuant to Article J, paragraph r, of the Rules of Court, it is respect
fully requested that the President of the Court fix a time-limit within
which the Govemment of Ethiopia may notify the Registry of its inten
tion to exercise its right to choose a Judge under Article JI of the Statute
and may state the name of such person, when and if chosen.
The undersigned will be grateful for your acknowledgment of the
receipt of this request and an indication that the procedure suggested
herein is acceptable to the Court.
Very tru]y y ours,
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
1
18. THE AGENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR
rs April rg61.
Sir,
In accordance with Article 4J of the Statu te of the International Court
of Justice and Article 41 of the Rules of Court, and in compliance with
the order of IJ January rg6r by which the President of the Court has
fixed time-limits for the filing of pleadings in the South West 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 of the Rules of the Court, copies of ali the rele
vant documents, or extracts therefrom, have been communicated to the
Registrar for use of the Court and of the other Party. A list of such rele
vant documents is given after the submissions, in accordance with the
requirements of Article 43·
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
1 A similar communication was sent to the Registrar by the Agent for the
Governrnent of Liberia.
2 See I, pp.32-21r. CORRESPONDENCE 521
19. THE REGISTRAR TO THE LEGAL ADVISER OF THE DEPARTMENT 1 OF STATE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
19 April rg6r.
Sir,
With reference to your Ietter of ro November 1960, I have the honour
to inform you that, the Parties in the South West A/rica cases (Ethiopia v.
Union of South Africa and Liberia v. 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,
ithas been decided under Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,
that the documents in question shall 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 sub judice.
I have, etc.,
2
20. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA
24 May rg61.
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to the letter of z8 1\Iarch rg6r by which I
was notified that the Government of Ethiopia reserved the right, pursuant
to Article 31 of the Statute and Article 3 of tlie Rules of Court, to choose
a person to sit as Judge in the South West A/rica case (Ethiopia v. Union
of South Africa). and in which it was requested that a time-limit be fixed
within which the Government of Ethiopia might notify the Registry of
its intention to exercise the right to choosc a Judge under Article 3I of the
Statute and state the name of such person, when and if chosen.
Your letter was immediately placed before the Court which has now
bad an opportunity to discuss it in conjunction with a similar request
submitted on behalf of the Government of Liberia in the South West
Ajrica case (Liberia v. Union of South Africa).
After deliberation, the Court, by an Order dated 20 May rg6r 3, has
joined the proceedings instituted by the Applications of the Government
of Ethîopia and the Governmcnt of Liberia and found that the Govern
ment of Ethiopia and the Government of Liberia are in the same interest;
it has fixed I5 November r96r as the time-Iimit within which the Govern
ment of Ethiopia and the Government of Liberia, acting in concert, may
choose a single Judge ad hoc.
1 A similar communication was sent to the Governmcnts of the United Kingdom
(24 April 1962), Israel (11 Septemberg62), Chile (r r April 1963), Canada (3 March
1964) and the United Arab Republic (rJ July rg64).
2 Similar communications were sent ta the Agents for the Governmentof Liberia
and South Africa.
3 l.C.j. Reports 1961p. IJ.522 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
1 have the honour to enclose herewith the official copy of this Order for
the Government of Ethiopia. Further copies will be despatched to yon
when printed.
1 have, etc.,
21. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
9 June rg6r.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letters Nos. 33730,
33731 and 33734 of 24 May rg6r, the annexcd letters from the Agent of
the Governments of Liberia and Ethiopia of 28 March rg6r, and the
Order of 20 May rg6r.
These letters and Order were received by me on 3 June rg6r, and, as
the notifications by the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia of 28 March
rg6r, had not been communicated tome before, it was only on that date
that 1 became aware of their contents. The competent South African
authorities were therefore not enabled to submit their views before the
Order was made, as they were entitled to do in terms of Article 3 (r)
of the Rules.
Furthermore, it would appear that the purview of Article 3 of the
Rules was exceeded in that, whereas the said Article requires the Appli
cants to decide prier to the time-limit fixed for the filing of the memorial
whether they will choose an ad hoc judge, the effect of their request of
28Marchand the Order made pursuant thereto is to enable them to defer
their decision until sorne seven months later.
As the Government of the H.epublic 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
raise any formai objection to the Order, but my Government is naturally
anxious to ensure that it will be informed timeously of any procedural
matters whereby its interests may be affected.
I also note that bath Orders, of 13 January and 20 May rg6r, refer to
a "dispute concerning the interpretation and application of the t.landate
of South West Africa". 1 assume that these words are employed merely
by way of descriptive reference to the allegations in the Applications and
Memorials of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia and not as signi
fying that the question whether such dispute exists could not be in
issue inthe proceedings.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) ]. P. VERLOREN VAN THD1AAT. CORRESPONDENCE 523
22. THE ACTING REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
.::OUTH AFRICA
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of the letter of 9 June 1961
in which you refer to the Order made by the Court on 20 May 1961 in the
South fVest A/rica cases (Ethiopia v. Republic of South Africa; Liberia v.
Republic of South Africa).
In accordance with Article 3 of the Rules, the Court in that Order
fixed a time-limit within which the Government of Ethiopia and the
Government of Liberia, acting in concert may choose a single Judge ad
hoc. In so doing it intended neither to deprive the Government of the
Republic of South Africa of its rights under the Rulcs nor to prejudice in
any way the exercisc of such rights.
lt is noted that it is not your intention to raise any formai 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 Govemments, acting in concert, within the
time-limit laid clown in the Order. These views will not be limited to the
identlty of any persan so chosen but will be entirely at large. It is the
intention of the President, if such a choice be made by the Applicants,
to fix a time-limit within which the Government of the Republic of
South Africa may submit its views in accordancc with paragraph I of
Article 3.
You state that the competent South African authorities were prevented
from submitting their views before the Order was made on 20 May 1961,
and indicate that this constituted a departure from the Rules, in parti
cular from Article 3, paragraph 1,thereof, and you ask whether this was
the result of any special circumstances. I would point out in the first
place that the provision to which you refer in no way requires that the
fixing of the time-limit first mentioncd therein should be delayed until the
other party should have submitted its views.
In the second place, I would draw your attention to the fact that in
making its Order of 20 May 1961 the Court was concerned with the appli
cation of paragraph 2 of Article 3 and in fact fixed a time-limit for the
choice of a single Judge ad hoc by the two Governments. Therc would
appear to be evident advantages in giving you an opportunity to express
your views after, rather than beforc, that decision bad been taken. It is
Clear that if no choice be made by the applicant Governments, acting in
concert, the Republic of South Africa cannot in any way be prejudiced.
In the event of such a choice being made, it will be immediately com
municated to you. If,aftcr you have submitted your views, any doubt or
objection should arise, the decision, in accordancc with the last sentence
of paragraph I of Article J, shall rest with the Court, if necessary after
hearing the Parties.
ln conclusion on this point, I am directed h:'-'the President to assure
vou that the Court's chief concern is that in ali matters there should be
complete cquality between the Parties. When the time cornes for the
Government of the Republic of South Africa to reach a decision con
cerning the choice of a .Judge ad hoc, any wishes it may express as to
time-limits to be fixed will be fully taken into consideration. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Finally, I would inform you that your assumption, expressed in the
last paragraph of your letter, with reference to the words there cited, 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 referring
the case to the Court. The employment of these descriptive words
prejudges no issue between the Parties.
1 have, etc.,
23. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
4 October rg6r.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the Order of 20 May rg6r in the South
West A/rica case whereby the Court fixed 15 November rg6r as the time
limit 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 Govemments may, on or before
15 November rg6r, nominate 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 Govemment need only reserve a right to do so and give its
final decision on the matter and the name of the persan chosen within a
time-limit to be fixed by the President in terms of Article 3 of the Rules.
On the other hand, should the Government of Ethiopia and the
Governrnent of Liberia, acting in concert, not choose a Judge ad hoc
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 Government of Ethiopia again be accorded the right to choose
a Judge ad hoc within a further time-limit to be fixed?
I have, etc.,
(Signed) ]. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
24. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
11 October rg6r.
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to the Order of the International Court of
Justice, dated 20 May rg6r. in which the Court fixed 15 November 1961
as the date within which the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia,
acting in concert, cxercise their right to choose a sinadehoc Judge to sit
in the South West A/rica cases. CORRESPONDENCE 525
This is to advise the Registry that Ethiopia and Liberia are prepared
to waive their right to appoint a Judge aa hoc to sit in the South West
A/rica 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 so within
suitable time-limits to be prescribed by the Court. In making this request,
it is the 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 to the Court
would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
25. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
rz October 196r.
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter, dated 4 October
rg6r and received in the Registry on II October rg6r, in which you refer
to the ûrder made by the Court in the South West A/rica cases on 20 May
rg6r, which fixed r5 November rg6r as the time-limit withîn which the
Government of Ethiopia and the Government of Liberia, acting in
concert, may choose a single Judge ad hoc.
You ask, in the first place, on the assumption that the applicant
Governments may nominate a Judge ad hoc within that time-limit,
whether your Government will have to nominate a Judge ad hoc on or
before the date that its first pleadings are filed or whether your Govem
ment need only reserve a right to do so and give its final decision on the
matter and the name of the persan chosen within a time-limit to be
fixed by the President in terms of Article 3 of thel~ules.
In reply to this question, I have the honour to point out that Article 3
of the Rules does not require that the name of a person chosen to sit as
Judge shall be communicated within the time-limit fixcd for the fi.lingof
the first pleading. That date, under the Article, is relevant to the state
ment of the Party's intention. Since the Court was ready to accept the
reservation of the right by the applicant Governments as sufficient
compliance with the requirements of the Rules and fixed the timc-limit
within which a Judge ad hoc may be chosen, it may be concluded that,
should your Government wish to adopt a similar course, it will be per
mitted to do so. In this connection, I have the honour to refer to my
letter of15 June rg6r, in which I informed you that the President bad SOUTH WEST AFRlCA
directed me to assure you that the Court's chief concern was that in all
matters there should be complete equality bctween the Parties.
You ask, in the second place, to be informed up to what time your
Governmcnt may exercise the right to choose a Judge under Article 31
of the Statute should the Government of Ethiopia and the Government of
Liberia, acting in concert, not choose a Judge ad hoc within the time
limit fixed by the Court.
I have 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 i\1ay 1961 would not affect the time
limits applicable to the Government of the Rcpublic of South Africa.
Finaily, you ask whether, in the eventuaJity contemplated in your
second question, the Governmcnt of Liberia and the Government of
Ethiopia would again be accorded the right to choose a Judge ad hoc
within a further time-limit to be fixed.
In reply to this question, 1 have the honour to rcfer you to the
Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) in the second phase of
which a situation arose similar to that which you envisage; no action
with reference to the choice of a J udge ad hoc was taken by the Applicant
at the timc of the filing of the Memorial (3 June 1952). The Respondent
having, within the timc-limit fixed for the filing of the Counter-Memorial
(20 April 1954), designated a persan to sit as judge ad hoc, the Agent for
the Government of Liechtenstein informed the Registrar that this
nomination left the Government of Liechtenstein with no alternative
but to exercise, in thcir turn, their right to nominate a Judge ad hoc
and that a name would shortlv be submitted to the Court in this con·
nection. At the same time the Agent indicated that it had not been the
original intention of the Government of Liechtenstein to nominate a
Judge ad hoc and that that Government was \villing to refrain from
nominating a Judge on the condition that the Governmcnt of Guatemala
withdrew their nomination and made no other. The latter Government,
not having acted upon this proposai, the Government of Liechtenstein on
26 July 1954 notified its choice of a Judge ad hoc who in due course sat to
consider the case.
The right conferrcd by Article 31 of the Statute is an absolute one
which affects the composition of the Court and the equality of the Parties.
Accordingly the provisions of Article 3 of the Rules could never be
interpretee! by the Court in such a way as to frustrate the abject of the
Statu te by introducing inequality as between the Parties. The Nottebohm
case serves to illustra te the principle in accordance with which the Rule is
applied.
In these circumstances it will be clear that the possibility can be
excluded of the Court's sitting with a Judge ad hoc chosen by one Party
only while the 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 Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia.
I have, etc., CORRESPO:-!DENCE 527
26. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
8 November II)6I.
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter No. 34438 of
17 October 1961, with annexure 1,and to advise you that, after due con~
sideration, the Governmcnt of the Republic of South Africa has decided
to exercise its right under Article 31 of the Statute of the Court. In terms
of Article 3 of the Rules of the Court, I therefore have the honour to
notify you that it is my Government's intention to choose a Judge ad hoc.
The name of the person chosen to sit as Judge will be stated in due
course.
In the circumstances, my Government will not accede to the proposai
contained in the annexure to your letter of 17 October rg6r.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) ]. P. VERLORE:-1 VAN THEMAAT.
27. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETH!OPIA AND LIBERIA
TO THE REGISTRAR
(telegram)
14 November rg6r.
Pursuant to Court Order zo May rg6r fixing rs November rg6r as date
within which Ethiopia and Liberia, acting in concert, may exercisc right
to choose single ad hoc Judge to sit in South West A/rica cases, Court is
hereby advised that said Governments, while reaffirming their willingness
to waivc such right subject to Government of Union of South Africa
doing likewisc, designate The Honourable Joseph Chesson of Liberia
to sit as Jmlgc ad hoc. In making this designation Governments concerned
reserve right to replace illr. Chesson with another qualified jurist if in
their opinion circumstances so require.
lSee ~·o 4, p.5Z4,supra.528 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
28. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
15 November rg6r.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the following telegram, dated
14 November rg6r, has just been received in the Registry from the Agent
for Liberia and Ethiopia in the South West Ajrica cases:
{See No. 27, p.527, supra]
I have the further honour to inform you that the President has
fixed rs December rg6r as the 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 Article 3 of the Rules of Court.
1 have, etc.
29. THE AGENT FOH THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
17 November rg6r.
Sir,
\Vith reference to your letter No. 34571 of 14 November rg6r and
further to my letter No. rfrS/rS/4 of 8 November rg6r, 1 have the
honour to notify you that the Government of the Republic of South
Africa has chosen The Honourable Jacques Theodore van Wyk, Judge of
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, to sit as
Judge ad hoc in terms of Article JI of the Statute and Article 3 of the
Rules of Court. Mr. Justice van Wyk's curriculum vitae will follow
hereafter.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) J. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
JO. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ETHIOPIA 1
17 November rg6r.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that by a letter dated 17 November
rg6r the Agent for the Government of the Republic of South Africa in
the South West A/rica cases has informed me that his Government has
chosen The Honourable Jacques Theodore van Wyk, Judge of the
Apellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa to sit as Judge
1
The same communication was sent ta the Agent for the Governrnent of Liberia. CORIŒSPONDENCE
ad hoc in tem1s of Article 3I of the Statute and Article 3 of the Rules of
Court.
1 have the further honour to inform you that the President of the Court
has fixed rS December rg6r as the time-limit \vithin which the Govern
ment of Ethiopia may submit its views to the Court in accordance with
the provisions of Article 3 of the Rules of Court.
1 haYe, etc.,
JI. THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
30 November rg6r.
Sir,
In reply to the Memorials filed by the Governments of Liberia and
Ethiopia on 15 April rg6r, I have the honour to file herewith the Pre
liminary Objections 1 of the Government 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 of the Court, the only authorities not available
are the Senate Debates, 1956, and The Republic of South Africa Con
stitution Act, No. 32 of rg6r. 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 weil as
of certain of the articles in periodicals quoted. If it might be considered
convenient, we would gladly make photostatic copies of any or a11
authorities referred to. A translation in English of the relevant part of a
Dutch and an Afrikaans publication referred to has also been supplied.
The documentation is contained in folders. A resumé of the contents of
each folder is attached 2.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) J. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
3
J2. THE REGISTHAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA
5 December rg6r.
Sir,
J have the honour to refer to my letter of I December rg6r and to
inform you that by an Order of today's date the President of the Inter
national Court of Justice has fi.xed r March rg6z as the time-limit
' See 1, pp.212-416.
t Xot reproduced.
3 The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governmentsof Liberia
and South Africa.
• l.C.J. Reports r96r, pôr. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
530
within which the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia may file a
written statement of their Observations and Submissions with regard
ta the Preliminary Objections raised by the Government of the Republic
of South Africain the South West Africa cases.
I shall send you in due course the official copy of the Order for your
Government.
I have, etc.,
33· THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGE:>IT FOR THE GOVERN~Œ: O-FlTTHIOPIA 1
20 December rg6r.
Sir,
1 now have the honour to inform you that the time-limit fixed by the
President having expired without any objections having been raised by
the Government of the Republic of South Africa to the designation of
The Honourable Joseph Chesson, J am sending him the file of the case,
in his capacity as Judge ad hoc.
1 have, etc.,
34· THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNME:->T OF SOUTH
AFRICA 2
20 December 1961.
Sir,
J now have the honour to inform you that the time-limit fixed by the
President having expired without any objections having been raised by
the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia to the designation of The
Honourable Jacques Theodore van Wyk, I am sending him the file of
the case, in his capacity as Judge ad hoc.
1 have, etc.,
1The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governmeof Liberia
and South Africa.
2The same communication was sent to the Agents for theGovernments of
Ethiopiaand Liberia. CORRESPO:-IDENCE 531
35· THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF LIBERIA TO THE REGISTRAR
zo December rg6r.
Dear Sir,
1 ha\·e the honour to rcfer to letter No. I.C.].-64r-'6o of 4 November
rg6o, sent to you by the Liberian Ambassador at The Hague and your
reply to him No. 32547 \VTfaps dated 5 November rg6o, with regard to
the Agents of Liberia in the proceedings before the International Court
of Justice rclating to a dispute with the Government of the Union of
South Africa concerning the interpretation and application of the Man
date for South West Africa.
l have the honour to notify you further of the appointment of Honour
able Joseph J. F. Chesson, Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia,
as Agent in succession toHonourablc Joseph W. Garber.
\Vith sentiments of esteem,
(St.gned) J.Rudolph GRDIES.
J6. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERKMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
TO THE REGISTRAR
8 January rg6z.
Sir,
Reference is made to the Order of the Court dated zo May rg6r
relating to the right of Ethiopia and Liberia to choose a single ad hoc
Judge to sit in the South West A/rt·ca cases, and to the cable dated
14 November rg6r to the Registrar from the undersigned as Agent for
Liberia and Ethiopia, advising that the said Governments desired to
designate The Honourable Joseph Chesson of Liberia to sit as Judge
ad hoc. The attention of the Court is respectfully called ta the reservation
by the aforesaid Governments of the right to replace ?!Ir. Chcsson with
another qualified jurist if circumstances in their opinion should sa
require.
This lettcr is to inform the Court that circumstances have ariscn which
make it appropriate in the opinion of the Governments of Ethiopia and
Liberia to designate His Excellency Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan of
Pakistan as Judge ad hoc to sit in the South West Africa cases in the
place and stead of the Honourable Joseph Chesson of Liberia, whose
designation is hereby withdrawn.
It is the hope and expectation of the Governmcnts of Ethiopia and
Liberia that Sir Zafrullah Khan will sit as ad hoc Judge for the duration
of this procecdings.
The Court is respectfully requestcd to take such action as is necessary
to give effect to this designation, including such notice as may be re
quired pursuant to Article .3of the Rules of Court.
The curriculum vitae of Sir Zafrulla Khàn is already availablc to the
Court by rcason of his having served as a Judge of the Court. lt only
remains to be added that Sir Zafrulla Khan is at the present time 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,
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
37· THE REGIST.RAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
rs January rg6z.
Sir,
I have the honour to send you herewith a certified true copy of a letter
dated 8 January rg62 which was received in the Registry on 13 J anuary
1962 from the Agent for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the
South West Africa cases.
I have the further honour to inform you that the President has fixed
15 February 1962 as the 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 Article 3 of the Rules of Court with regard to the
designation of His Excellency Sir .Muhammad Zafrulla Khan to sit as
Judge ad hoc.
1 have, etc.,
J8. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRlCA TO THE
REGISTRAR
23 February rg6z.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to the Order of 5 December 1961, whereby
the Court determined 1 March 1962 as the time-limit within which
Ethiopia and Liberia might file their observations in terms of Rule 62 (3).
1 assume that after receipt of such observations, the Court will con
sider the fixing of a date for the commencement of oral proceedings
regarding the Preliminary Objections. My Government respectfully
requests the Court to defer its decision in that regard for a short period,
say 14 days, after receipt of the Applicants' observations, in order to
allow an opportunity for possible representations conceming the further
proceedings. Before receipt of the observations,itwill not be possible for
my Government to decide whcther it will be necessary or desirable to
make such representations, e.g., as appears to be contemplated by Rule
62 (4) for leave to file further written replies or documents. The Court
might wish to take this into consideration in. determining the date of
commencement of the oral proceedings.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) J.P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT. CORRESPONDENCE 533
1
39· THE AGENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA TO THE REGISTRAR
1 March 1962.
Sir,
In accordance with Article 62 of the Rules of Court, and in compliance
with the order of 5 December 1961 by which the Court fixed the time
limit for the filing of Ethiopia's written statement of its Observations
and Submissions with regard to the Preliminary Objections raised by the
Government of the Repub1ic of South Africa in the South West A/rica
cases, we have the honour to present herewith the written Observations
of the Govemment of Ethiopia 2•
Pursuant to Article 43 of the Rwes of Court, copies of ali the 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 is given after the submissions, in accordance with
the requirements of Article 43·
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
40. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
(telegram)
3 March 1962.
Applicants South West Africa cases reserve right to abject in event
Republic South Africa requests privilege file further pleadings prior to
hearing.
Ernest A. GRoss.
41. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
(telegram)
I4 March 1962.
After consideration of Applicants' Observations my Government does
not consider it necessary at present stage to make representations con
cerning further proceedings. At a later stage, however, my Government
will probably seek to submit further documents under rule 48 but it is
unlikely that these will be of major extent.
1 A similar communication was sent to the Registrarby the Agent for the
Government of Liberia.
2 See 1, pp. 4r7-489. SOUTHWESTAFRICA
534
42. THEAGENTS FORTHEGOVERNl\Œt'TO SFETHIOPIAANDLIBERIATOTHE
REGISTRAR
Sir,
Reference is made to the Order of the Court dated 29 May rg6r
relating to the right of Ethiopia and Liberia to choose a single ad hoc
Judge to sit in the South West A/rica cases. In a communication to the
Registrar, dated 8 January rg62, the Govemments of Ethiopia and
Liberia designated His Excellcncy Sir î\Iohammad Zafrullah Khan to
sit as ]udge ad hoc.
The Agents for Ethiopia and Liberia have been informa1ly advised
th at Sir Mohamm ad Zafrullah Khan is unable to sit as J udge ad hocin the
South West A/rica cases, and that the Court has been so informed.
Pursuant to the Order of the Court dated 20 May rg6r, the Govern
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia hereby designate Sir Adetokunbo A.
Ademola, Chief Justice of the Federation of Nigeria, as Judge ad hoc
to sit in the South West Africa cases in the place and stcad of Sir Moham
mad Zafrullah Khan, whose designation is hereby withdrawn.
The curriculum vitae of Chief Justice Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola is
enclosed 1.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Tesfayc GEBRE-EGZY.
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
43• THEIŒGISTRAR TOTHEAGENTI,ORTHEGOVERNMENO TFSOUTH AFIUCA
2 June rg6z.
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to my letter of 15 January rg62 and to
inform you that by a letter of 24 May rg6z the Agents for the Govern
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the South West Africa cases have
informed me that Sir i\Iuhammad Zafrulla Khan is unable to sit as Judge
ad hoc in these cases 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 stead of
Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, whose designation is withdravm.
The Agents for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia have sent me
the curriculum vitae of Chief Justice Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola a copy
of which I have the honour to enclose herewith.
1 have the further honour to inform you that the President has fixed
2 July 1962 as the time-Iimit within which the Government of the Reput
lie of South Africa may submit its views to the Court in accordance with
the provisions of Article 3 of the Rules of Court with regard to the desig
nation of Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola to sit as Judge ad hoc.
1 have, etc.,
1 Xot reproduced. CORRESPO~DENCE 535
44• THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGE~T FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA 1
2 July rg62.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the time-limit fixed by the
President having expired without any objections having been raised by
the Govcrnmcnt of the Republic of South Africa to the designation of
Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola, 1 am sending him the file of the case, in
his capacity as Judge ad hoc.
I have, etc.,
45· THE ACTI!'!G REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEI\T OF
ETHIOP!A 1
24 July 1962.
Sir,
I am directed and I have the honour to inform you that the date
provisionally fixed for the opening of the hearings on the Preliminary
Objections in the South West A/rica cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa;
Liberia v. South Africa) is Monday, 1 October 1962.
It is expectecl that the hearings will begin on that date, but the pos
sibility existsthat the date may be slightly altered, by not more than
a day or two.
1 shall not fail to inform you as soon as a firm date is decided upon.
I have, etc.,
46. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERN~ŒNT OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
(telegram)
19 September 1962,
Court is respectfully advised Ethiopia and Liberia have designated
Sir Louis Mbanefo as Judge ad hoc in South West A/rica cases. Sir Louis
isChief Justice of the High Court, Eastern Region of Nigeria. Any further
biographical material will be supplled urgently.
Ernest A. GRoss.
l The same communication was senttothe Agentsforthe Governments of Liberia
and South Africa SOUTH WEST AFRICA
47· THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
19 September 1962.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Govemments of Ethiopia
and Liberia in the South West A/rica cases have designated Sir Louis
Mbanefo, Chief Justice of the High Court, Eastern Region of Nigeria, to
sit as Judge ad hocin the place and stead of Sir Adetokunboh A. Ademola.
I have the further honour to inform you that the President has fixed
25 September rg6z as the 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 Article 3 of the Rules of Court with regard to the
designation of Sir Louis Mbanefo to sit as Judge ad hoc.
1have, etc.,
48. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
24 September 1962.
Sir,
With reference to your letter No. 36674 of 19 September 1962, 1 have
the honour to advise you that the Government of the Republic of South
Africa will raise no doubts or objections in respect of the designation of
Sir Louis Mbanefo to sit as Judge ad hocin the South West A/rica cases.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed.) J. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
49• THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERKMENT OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA Tû THE
REGISTRAR
23 October 1962.
Sir,
At the close of the proceedings on 22 October rg62 1,after the Agent
for the Respondent had amended its Submissions, the Applicants re
quested an opportunity to consider whether the amendment to Respon
dent's Submissions raised a new substantive issue asto which the Appli
cants would wish to submit comments.
During the course of the evening, you were good enough to advise me
that the Court is prepared, in the event Applicants deemed it necessary,
1See VII,pp.JSz-383. CORRESPONDENCE
537
to receive such comments, at a session of the Court on \Vednesday,
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 might relate to
the issue thus raised by Respondent, has reached the conclusion that no
further comments are required.
It would be appreciated if you would convcy this information to the
President of the Court.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
50. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA
AND LIBERIA 1
23 October 1962.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 23 Oc
tober 1962, in which you inform me that, having considered whether the
amendment to the Respondent's Submissions raised a new substantive
issue asto which the Applicants would wish to submit comments, you
have reached the conclusion that no further comments are required.
A copy of this Ietter has been transmitted ta the Agent for the Govern
ment of the Republic of South Africa.
I am instructed by the President of the Court to inform you that there
will be no further hearings in the South West Africa cases (Preliminary
Objections) and that the oral procedure is closed.
J have, etc.,
51. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA
AND LIBERIA 2
17 December 1962.
Sir,
In accordance with Article 58 of the Statute, 1 have the honour to
inform you that the International Court of justice will hold a public
sitting at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on zr December .1962,at 9.30 a.m.
for the delivery of the Judgment in the South West Africa cases, Pre
liminary Objections (Ethiopia v.South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa) 3•
1 have, etc.,
1 A similar communication was sent ta the Agent for the Government of South
Africa.
z The same communication was sent ta the Agent for the Govemment of South
Africa.
3 I.C.j. Reports 1y6z, p319.538 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
52. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERXMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
19 January 1963.
(Memorandum)
r. In most cases that come before the International Court, the issues
are of relatively limited extent. The South West A/rica cases, however,
cover an cxceptionally wide field embracing virtually all aspects of the
administration of South \Vest Africa over a period of more th an 40 years.
They may properly be described as a large number of cases rolled into one.
Chapters V to IX of the Applicants' Memorials (1, pp. 104·196) deal
specifically with the following:
(a) The well-being, social progress and development of the people of
Sou th \Vest Africa in the following aspects:
- (i)The Economie Aspect
Agriculture
Industry-Fishing Industry
Mining and Minerais
H.ailways and Harbours
Labour recruitment
Labour Conditions
(ii) Government and Citizenship
Suffrage
Participation in Territorial Government
General Administration
Local Government
Government within the Native Tribes and Reserves
(iii) Security of the Persan, Right of Residence and Freedom of
Movement
(iv) Education
Elementary and High School Education
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 l\Iilitarization of the Territory.
(d) Alleged Camouflaged Annexation of the Territory
(i) Conferment of South Airican Citizenship upon inhabitants.
(ii) Representation in the South African Parliament.
(iii)Administrative separation of the Eastern Caprivi ZipfeL
(iv) Vesting of NatÎ\'e Reserve land in the South African Native
Trust and the transfer of Administration of Native Affairs to
the South African Minister of Bantu Affairs.
(e) Alleged Unilateral Alteration of the Status of the Territory. CORRESPONDE:-ICE 539
2. The Applicants' accusations against Respondent, with reference to
the various subjects listed above, are concerned in part with standards of
development that have or have not been achicved, and in part with
alleged motives involved in the policies adopted by Respondcnt in the
Administration of South West Africa.
These features of the accusation necessitate a broad and full response
extending beyond the confines of the specifie matters raiscd by the
Applicants.
As at present advised Respondcnt should consequently include in the
Counter-Memorial (in addition to, or as part of the foundation for,
answering of the specifie allegations)-
(i) a geographical survey of the Terri tory;
(ii)an ethnological survey covering each of the numerous population
groups;
(iii) an economie survey;
(iv) general progress made in the development of the Territory and the
advancement of the well-bcing of the inhabitants;
(v) reasons for applying differing measures to the varions population
groups;
(vi) standards in comparable territories and States.
J. Acertain measure of research and preliminary compilation work has
been done over a period of nearly two years by a team of experts, of
ficiais and lawycrs.
A survey basecl on such work inclicates that the Counter-i\Icmorial may
run into r,soo printed pages of the 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 estima te made by Sijthoffs Publishing Company, the
Court's official printers in Leydcn, at least I5 wceks will be taken for
printing of a Counter-Memorial of r,soo pages.
5· In view of the above considerations, Respondent's representatives
cannot see how their task can properly and adequately be performed in
less than 12 months.
This estimate takes due account of the fact that Respondent's legal
tearn is now being substantially increased in numbers.
6. Respondent would very much appreciate an opportunity for
Messrs. de Villiers and Muller, Senior Counsel, to be present at prospective
discussions with the President in terms of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.
They have bad insight at first hand into the preparatory work now being
done, and will be able to furnish particulars of the nature and difficulties
of the task of preparing and filing the Countcr-l\femorial even within the
time limit of rz months respectfully requested by Respondent.
(Signed) J. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.540 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
53· LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES 1AFFAIRES ETRANGÈRES
D'AFGHANISTAN
28 janvier 1963.
Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de trans
mettre, sous ce pli, un exemplaire de l'arrêtrendu par la Cour le 21 dé
cembre rg62 sur les exceptions préliminaires dans les affaires du Sud
Ouest africain (Ethiopie c. Afrique du Sud; Libéria c. Afrique du Sud}.
J?'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordi
naire.
54· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
30 January 1963.
Sir,
I
As Agent for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia I have the
honour to refer to your communication No. 37249 dated 21 January rg63,
enclosing a copy of a Memorandum dated rg January rg63, addressed
to the Court by the Agent for the Republic of South Africa, Respondent
in the South West A/rica cases. Respondent requests the Court to fix a
time limit of 12 months in which Respondent may file its Counter
Memorial and requests the opportunity to be present at prospective
discussions with the President in terms of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court.
By cable datee! 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, in accordance with Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure,
respectfully submit their views and reasons for urging the Court to
reduce the length of time requested by Respondent for preparing and
filing its Counter-ll'lemorial.
II
r. 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 balanced against Applicants' right to obtain a reasonably
expeditions detennination of the issues.
The matters complained of by Applicants in the pending cases are
of a nature justifying and requiring reasonably expeditions resolution.
Applicants allege that rights have been unlawfully denied to the in
habitants of the Territory of South West Africa by Respondent. The
inhabitants of the Territory, as well as interested States, seek judicial
1La même communication a étéadressée a tous les autreEtats Membres des
Nations Unies et aux Etats non membres des Kations Unies qui sont partiesau
Statut de la Cour ou auxquels la Cour est ouvertaux termes de l'art. 35. par2,
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 denied by Respondent for a number of years.
2. The considerations adduced by Respondent in its request for
12 months' delay in filing its Counter-Memorial are that the issues are
complex and numerous, and that they caver a period of more than
40 years. Respondent cites the possible length of its Counter-Memorial
and urges that at least 15 weeks will be required for printing.
3· In December 1960, Respondent was called upon to submit its
views as ta the time-limit in which it should file its Counter-Memorial.
By letter dated 31 December 1960, addressed to the Registrar of the
Court, Respondent requested a period of "at least 10 to 12 months". In
support of its request, Respondent set forth basically the same con
siderations it now repeats, including then, as it does 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 official intimation" that there would be legal pro
ceeclings directed against it occurred when it received the Applications
on 4 November rg6o.
4· In its letter of 19 January 1963, Respondent acknowledges that "a
certain measure of research and preliminary comp11ation work has been
done over a period of nearly two years by a team of experts, officiais and
lawyers". ln the light of the long history of controversy regarding the
matters complained of in the Applications, and the fact that Rcspondent
has had official and explicit knowledge of them since at least 4 November
1960, it would have indeed been surprising had Respondent not acknow
ledged that it has already clonemuch of the work required for its Conn
ter-Memorial.
III
Respondent, more than 2 years aga thus requested "at !east 10 to
12 months" in which to file its Counter-Memorial. lt was, by order of the
Court dated 13 January 1961, given 8 months in which to do so. Appli
cants strongly urge that Respondent bas advanced no adequate reason
for now extending the length of time previously deterrnined by the Court
to be adequate. On the contrary, it is respectfully submitted that a period
shorter than 8 months would now be fair and adequate.
(r) The reasons adduced by Respondent in rg6o for an unduly long
time limit were basically the same reasons adduced now.
(2) \Vhereas Respondent asserted in rg6o 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
engaged 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 fixed. During the course of the Preliminary Objections certain of the
key legal issues were resolved.
(4) Since 21 December 1962, when the Court handed down its Judg
ment on Respondent's Preliminary Objections, Respondent bas bad more
than one month in which to continue work on its Counter-MemoriaL
(5) Not all of the 15 weeks envisaged by Respondent for printing
would have to be devoted solely to that purpose, even if Respondent's
Counter-Memorial were to reach the length forecast by Respondent. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Clearly, manuscript could be transmitted for printing in stages of com
pletion.
{6) The issues of fact involved in the South West A/rica cases have not
been newly raised. They have for many years been the subjcct of pub
lished reports by the United Nations Committee on South West Africa,
and have been debated in the General Assembly and in Committees of
the General Assembly. Moreover, information relating to the factual
issues is peculiarly within the knowledge and control of Respondent as
l\Iandatory for the Territory of South West Africa. Respondent has had
ready, and in sorne cases, unique access to relevant documentation and
source material. Indeed, for many years information concerning the
subject-matter of most of the factual issues was regularly compiled by
Respondent and submitted by lt to the Permanent Mandates Commission
of the League of Nations. It is reasonable to presume that current in
formation of a like nature has also been compiled and maintaincd by
Respondent.
IV
Applicants have researched the cases before the Court as reported for
the years 1947 to July rg6r (excluding the cases at bar). To Appli
cants' knowledge, never has a party been given a period as long as
I2 months in which to file a Counter-1\iemorial, even taking into account
extensions of time-limits. The longest period accorded to any party in
any case, so far as Applicants have found, was 9 months, and including
extensions, II months, prior to the filing of Preliminary Objections. The
average amount of time, induding extensions, appears to have been 3 to
6 months. The lo11gestperiod any party has been accorded for filing its
Counter-Memorial, after filing Preliminary Objections, and including ex
tensions, was 4 mo·nths.
The closest analogy to the case at bar appears to be Rights of Passage
over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India). At the initial stages of the pro
ceedings Indîa was accorded 6 months in which to file its Counter
Memorial, and thereafter was granted an additional4 months. India then
filed Preliminary Objections. After the Judgment dismissing the Objec
tions, India was accorded 3 months in which to file its Counter-1\Iemoria!.
It thereafter received a r-month postponement, during which time it
filed its Counter-Memorial.
In the case at bar, Respondent was accorded 8 months in which to file
its Counter-Memorial (the second longest period accorded to a party) on
its representation that it required such a lengthy period primarily be
cause of the large number of factual issues raised concerning the merits.
Respondent thereafter employed ail but 2 weeks of the 8 months in
preparing its Preliminary 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-l\Iemorial, and
thereafter files Prdiminary Objections near the expiration of that limit,
it should not thereafter be granted an equal-to say nothing of a longer
period to complete its pleading.
v
On the basis of the foregoing views and reasons, the Governments of COHRESPO:-!DENCE 543
Ethiopia 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 which to file its Counter-Memorial. If discussions are
helcl in the terms of Article 37 of the Rules of Court, Applicants rcquest
the privilege of attendance.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
55· THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFIUCA 1
5 February 1963.
Sir,
1have the honour to inform yon that by an ûrder 2"oftoday's date the
President of the International Court of Justice has fixed 30 September
1963 as the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of the
Government of the Republic of South Africa in the South West A/rica
cases, the subsequent procedure being reserved for further decision.
1 shall send yon in due course the official copy of the Order for your
Government.
I have, etc.,
56. LE DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL DU BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DU TRAVAlL AU
GREFFIER
8 juillet rg63.
Monsieur le Greffier,
J'ai l'honneur de vous informer, et vous prie de bien vouloir faire
savoir à 'M.le Président de la Cour, qu'à sa r56mcsession, par une résolu
tion en date du 29 juin rg63, le Conseil d'administration du Bureau inter
national du Travail a décidéque le Directeur généraldu Bureau inter
national du Travail se tienne à la disposition de la Cour internationale de
Justice pour fournir toutes les informations que la Cour pourrait deman
der à 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 lettre, deux exem
1
plaires du procès-verbal des séances du Conseil d'administration au
cours desquelles cette question a étédiscutée.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
(Signé) David A. MoRSE.
I The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governments for
Ethiopia and Liberia.
2 l.C.tj. Reports I96p. 6.
l Xon reproduit.544 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
57• LE GREFFIER AU DIRECTEUR GÉ:::-iÉRAL DU BUREAU INTERNATIOXAL
DU TRAVAIL
ro juillet rg6J.
Monsieur le Directeur général,
Par votre lettre du 8 juillet rg6J, vous voulez bien me faire savoir, en
me demandant d'en informer M. le Président de la Cour, qu'à sa rs6me
session,par une résolution du 29 juin rg6J, le Conseil d'administration du
Bureau international du Travail a décidéque le Directeur généraldu
Bureau international du Travail se tienne à la disposition de la Cour inter
nationale de Justice pour fournir toutes les informations que la Cour
pourrait demander à l'Organisation international 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 étédis
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
précède à la connaissance de M. le Président de la Cour.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
58, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
21 August rg6J.
Sir,
r. You are respectfully referred to the Order of 5 February rg6J,
fixing JO September rg63, as the time-limit for the filing of Respondent's
Counter-Memorial in the South West A/rica cases.
2. Despite utmost endeavours to expedite preparation, it bas been
found impossible to complete the Counter-Memorial in time for filing
on JOSeptember 1963. My Government is accordingly regretfully obliged
to apply, as it hereby does, for an extension of the time-limit in terms of
Rule of Court No. J7+
J. In previous communications, 1 have had occasion to refer to the
multiplicity and complexity of the issues raised in the South West A/rica
cases, resulting in a situation whereby they in effect amount to a large
number 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 rg January r9f53, submitting Respondent's views re
garding the time-limit for filing of the Counter-Memorial. In that docu
ment, the matters specifically dealt with in Chapters V to IX of Appli
cants' Memorials are tabuiated and a list is given of subjects with each
of which Respondent will have to deal systematically, as a necessary
foundation for, and thus in addition to, chapters answering the specifie CORRESPQ}IDENCE 545
allegations. On the basis of that analysis and of an estimated 15 weeks
required for printing, I then stated that-
"Respondent's representatives cannot see how their task can
properly and adequately be performed in Jess than 12 months."
4· Events since January 1963 have shown that the period of 12 months
in the above statement was a considerable underestimate on the part of
Respondent's representatives, for which 1 wish to convey our sincere
apologies.
s.As was intimated in the document of 19 January 1963, a team of
experts, officiaisand lawyers had been engagcd on research and pre
liminary compilation work relative to the Countcr-Memorial for a period
of neariy two years, i.e., commencing 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 fiiing of the Counter-Memorial,
the preparatory work had to be co-ordinated and re-written in a form
suitabie for presentation to the Honourable Court. ln order to expedite
matters in this regard as much as possible, the following steps were,
inter alia, taken:
(a) The team of legal representatives, experts and officiais was con
siderably enlarged.
(b) Every effort was made by the drafting tcam to reduce the length of
the Counter-Memorial to the minimum reasonabiy required for
adequate pre::entation.
(c) Negotiations with printers, in the Netherlands and in South Africa,
resulted in a considerable reduction of the original estimates of
printing time, the assessment (in both countries) now being six
weeks, subject to a very fast rate of proof-reading and supply of
copy.
J. In practice, however, it has been found, as will be readily ap
preciated, that there is a limit to the timc savings that can be accom
plishedeven bymeanssuch as the above. In view of the need for accuracy,
co-ordination and unity in the end product, all the work must in its
final stages necessarily pass through the hands of relatively few persans
who must aiso 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 reading alone
takes up considerable time. One of the abjects at the final stages is to
reduce the volume of reading matter to sizeable proportions, for the
convenience of the Honourable Mcmbers of the Court, without thereby
doing injustice to the case that requires to be presented on Rcsponclent's
behalf.
8. Respondent expects to have available in print, before 30 September
1963, one self-contained portion of the Countcr-Memoriai, dealing w:ith
basic legal issues which will require consideration at this stage of the
proceedings, as weil as with the historical background relative thereto.
Respondent will gladiy make this volume available to Applicants as soon
as it iscompletecl, in order to enable them to proceed \Viththe preparation
of their answer and thus expedite the filing of their Reply. If the Court
or the Honourablc President should so desire, Respondent would also SOUTH WEST AFRICA
gladly file this portion of the Counter-l\Iemorial immediately upon its
completion.
9· In order to complete the rest of the Counter-Memorial, 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 may need
to file their Reply. Thus, as and whcn further portions of the Counter
Memorial may become available in -gnal roneoed form prior 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 in aU
probability be of minor import only.
10. The possible special steps referred to in paragraphs 8 and9 hereof,
are respectfully submitted merely as suggestions with a view to mini
rnizing the delay and inconvenience that might arise from the extension
now applied for. They need not be taken if not favoured by the Honour
able President or the Court. Respondent would also gladly consider any
reasonable alternative suggestions having the same purpose in view.
II. Having regard to all the relevant factors, Respondent's repre
sentatives, to the best of their ability, estima te that a further seven and
a half months will be required for completion of the Connter-Memorial.
I therefore respectfully apply on Respondent's bchalf, for extension of
the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial in the South West
Africa cases until 15 May 1964.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) J.P. VERLOREN VAN TrmMAAT.
59· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
TO THE REGISTRAR
6 September 1963.
Sir,
1
Reference is made to Communication No. 38386dated 30 August 1963,
from the Deputy-Registrar, transmitting a copy of a letter dated
21 August 1963, addressed to the Registrar by the Agent for the Govern
ment of the Republic of South Africa, Respondent in the South West
A/rica cases. Respondent has requested a seven and a half months
extension of the time-limit fixed for the filing of its Counter-Memorial in
these cases, the said request having been received and filed in the Registry
of the Court on 29 August 1963, one month prior to the expiration of the
time-limit of 30 September 1963.
Promptly upon receipt of telegraphie advice from the Registry of the
aforesaid letter, the Applicants, through the undersigned Agent, dis
patched a cable dated 30 August 1963, opposing any extension of time CORRESPONDENCE 547
for filing the Counter-Memorial, 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 Respondent's request, and in support of such
objection caU to the Court's attention the considerations enumerated
below.
II
Respondent'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 all times sought to proceed
with expedition, at no stage having requested longer than five months to
submit a pleading herein.
r. The Applications were filed on 4 November 1960.
2. Applicants requested and received a 5 months' time-limit for filing
their Memorials, which were duly filed 15 April rg6r. Respondent by
letter of 31 December 1960, requested until 15 February 1962 to file its
Counter-Memorial, a period of more than 15 months from the date of the
Applications and ten months from the date of the Memorials. Respon
dent sought to justify its request for so lengthy a period primarily on the
ground that the Applications dealt "not only with a number of intricate
legal and constitutional points but also with a large number of factual
questions relating to almost every facet of the administration of the
Terri tory of South West Africa over a period of 40 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 A1'icle 37 of the Rules of
Court, and both Parties submitted Memoranda in support of their
respective views 1• Having hcard the Parties and having considered the
views set forth in their written submissions, this Honourable Court by
Order dated 13 January rg61, fixed 15 December 1961 as the time-limlt
for the filing of the Counter-i\lcmorial.
Accordingly, Respondent had virtually the entire year of 1961 to
gatl1er all documents and source material relevant to the issues raised in
the Applications, to engage in requisite rcsearch and to prepare argument
upon the legal issues raised thercin, with all of which Respondent had a
unique familiarity and access, arising from over 40 years' administration
of South West Africa.
Shortly prior to the expiration of the aforesaid time-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 rg62 on the Preliminary
Objections, Respondent requested and rcceived a period of 1 month for
formulating its views concerning the time-limit required for Counter
Memorial.
5· By memorandum dated 19 January 1963, Respondent requested a
periocl of12 months in which to file its Counter-Mcmorial. Such request
was for a period more th an twice that accorded to any party in any case
1
Not filcd with the Registry. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
previously before this Court for filing a Counter-1\iemorial, including
extensions, following a Judgment on Preliminary Objections. Respon
dent's supporting arguments for so lengthy a period were basically the
samc as those adduced in its initial request of 31 December 1960.
6. By i\Iemorandum dated 30 January 1963, Applicants opposed the
request for 12 months as dilatory. The Court allowed Respondent
9 months. .
7· Respondent, repeating for the third time 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-Memorial.
III
Applicants refer the Court to their Memorandum of 30 January 1963
setting forth the grounds for opposing as dilatory Respondent's earlier
request for 12 months in which to file its Counter-MemoriaL Conceding
Respondent's right to have reasonably adequate opportunity to present
its case, Applicants then submitted and now reiterate their equally valid
right to a reasonably expeditious determination of the grave issues of
international accountability and legal protection of human rights in
voived in these cases.
The Honourable Court, having earlier determined th at a fair balancing
of the respective interests of the Parties called for the fixing of 30 Sep
tember 1963 as the time-limit for filing the Counter-Memorial is now
confronted, at virtually 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 finds it "impossible" to complete the Counter-Memorial
intime.
A plea of "impossibility", conceming a matter in which discretion and
diligence play so decisive a part, and which involves 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 cases.
1. Applications were filed 4 November 1960.
2. Applicants requested and received 5 months for filing Memorials.
3· Respondent requested 15 months from the date of the Applications
for filingitsCounter-~femoria onltaergreunys that such a period
is required to deal with the factual issues concerning its administration
of South West Africa; received 13 months; filed Preliminary Objections
2 weeks before expiration of time-limit for the Counter-Memorial, which
objections, of course, do not deal with the aforesaid factual issues at ali.
4· Applicants requested and receivcd 3 months for filing Observations.
5· After a Japse ofI month following the Court's Judgment of 21 De
cember 1962, Respondent requested 12 months for filing its Counter
Memorial; the Court granted until 30 September 1963, a period of ap
proximately 9 months from the date of Judgment and of almost 3 years
from the date of the filing of the Applications. CORRESPONDENCE 549
IV
In its appraisal of Respondent's plea of "impossibility" of completing
its Counter-Memorial, 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. While
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 matters which Respon
dent may feelit has overlooked or has been unable to analyse during the
almost 3-year period which has elapsed since the filing of the Applica
tions herein, may be included in its Rejoinder and, if necessary, in the
Oral Hearings as weil.
v
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 filing the Counter-Memorial.
Applicants respectfully request the opportunity to be heard at the
earliest possible time, pursuant to Article 37 of the Rules of Court, in the
event the Court does not sec fit in the absence of such a hearing to deny
any extension of the time-lirnit presently fixed for the filing of the
Counter-Memorial herein.
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
60. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA 1
18 September 1963.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that by an Order 2 of today's date
the International Court of Justice has extended to 10 January 1964 the
time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of the Government of
the Republic of South Africa in the South West A/rica cases, the sub
sequent procedure being reserved for further decision.
I shallsend you in due course the official copy of the Order for your
Govemment.
I have, etc.,
1
The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governments of
Et2iopia and Liberia.
I.C.]. ReportI96J, p.12.550 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
61. LE GREFFIER AU DIRECTEUR GÉNÉRAL DU BUREAU INTERNATIONAL
DU TRAVAIL
Monsieur le Directeur général,
Comme suite à ma lettre du ro juillet rg63, j'ai l'honneur de vous
faire savoir que jen'ai pas manqué de porter votre lettre du 8 juillet rg63
à la connaissance du Président.
L'information qu'elle contenait a étécommuniquée à la Cour, qui en a
pris note.
Veuillez agréer, etc.,
62, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
ro January rg64-
Sir,
The Counter-Memorial 1 of the Republic of South Africa in the Sottth
West Africa cases is filed herewith in terms of the Order of the Honourable
Court of r8 September rg63.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) ]. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
6J. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
ro January 1964.
Sir,
In the preparation of my Government's Counter-Memorial, a large
number of different 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-Memorial which
are not available in the Court Libraries, even though they may have
been published and available to the public in terms of Rule 43 (r).
The system followed in submitting these documents to the Court is
similar to that used in connection with 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 or filed with the Preliminary Objections although such doc
uments also appear in the Lists of the Relevant Documentation.
1 See II, III and Ipp. I-195· CORRESPON DEN CE
551
The documents subrnitted are referred to in Books III to VIII of the
Counter-111emoriaLReference to two documents only is made in Book I.
Both thcse documents are available in the Court Libraries. Ali the
documents referred to in Book li are either available in the Court
Libraries or have been submitted with the Preliminary Objections.
Book IX has no documentation.
The documentation subrnitted for the convenience of the Court as
referred to in Books III, VI and VII of the Counter-Memorial, is sub
mitted herewith. Owing largely to transport difficulties, it was found
impossible to submit the documents referred to in Books IV, V and VIII
before 13 January. Certain supplementary documents referred to in
Books Ill and VI which, as now appears, are not available in the Court
Libraries, will also be forwarded on that date.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) J. P. VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT.
1
64. THE lŒGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA
20 January rg64.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that by an Order 2of today's date the
President has fixed the following time-limits for the further proceedings
inthe South West A/rica cases:
for the ftling of the Reply of the Govemment of Ethiopia and the
Government of Liberia, 20 June 1964;
for the filing of the Rejoinder of the Government of South Africa,
20 November 1964.
I shall send you in due comse the official copy of the Order for your
Government.
1 have, etc.,
65. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
12 February rg64.
Sir,
In paragraph 35 (II, pp. 476-477) of Book IV of the Counter-Memorial
an expected Report of a Commission 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 documentation submitted with the
1 The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governments of
Liberia and South Africa.
2 l.C.j.Reports I964, p. 3· SOUTH WEST AFRICA
552
Counter-l\Iemorial, in two folders both marked Volume IV-5, and thesc
folders will be submitted to you by our Embassy.
Although the said Report has nothing to do with the Counter-Memorial
as such, Members of the Court may find it convenient to have copies
thereof constantly at their disposai for reference purposes. For this
purpose it is our intention to forward a further 23 copies of this Report
to you through our Embassy, if you consider such procedure to be in
order.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) ]. P. VERLOREN VAN THE:UAAT.
66. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
25 February 1964.
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge, with thanks, your letter dated
rS February 1964, transmitting a copy of a letter dated 12 February
1964, addressed to you by the Agent for the Respondcnt in the South
West A/rica 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 promptly as possible following
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 conceming matters raised in the letter dated 12 Feb
ruary 1964 from the Agent for the Respondent, and respectfully submit
hercwith observations which they regard to be both relevant and
significant to the proper course and conduct of the pending litigation.
ln his letter o12 February 1964, the Agent for the Respondent advises
the Rcgistrar of his intention to include among the documentation
submitted with Respondent's Counter-Memorial, two copies of a certain
"Report of a Commission on South West Africa". The addition of this
Report to the documentation previously submitted with the Counter
Memorial, is asscrted in the letter of 12 February 1964 to be designed
"for the convenience of the Court". The lctter does not, however, make
clear how orto what end the "convcnience of the Court" is served by the
inclusion of this Report among the documentation. The averment in the
letter that "the said Report has nothing to do with the Counter-Memorial
assuch" appears inconsistent with the Agent's comment that "Members
of the Court may find it convenient to have copies thereof constantly at
their disposai for reference purposes".
The Report in question was, as the Agent for the Respondent points
out, referred ta in paragraph 35 of Chapter VII of Book IV (Il, pp. 476-
477) of the Counter-Memorial. ln this paragraph, Respondent set forth
the objective with which the Respondent had appointed the Commission,
the composition of the Commission, its terms 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".
Without in any way commenting upon the merits at issue in the pending
litigation, it scems highly relevant to question how, under the foregoing
circumstanccs, it can be said that the Report "has nothing to do with
the Countcr-Memorial as such". The most cursory examination of the
Recommendatlons of the Report reveals a direct and decisively important
relationship to the merits of principal issues at bar.
lt 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 Commission
would be inconsistent with, and in derogation of, contentions made by
the Applicants and relief sought by them in the Applications and Sub
missions. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully reserve their rights under
Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 61 of the I?.ules of
Procedure in the event Respondent should proceed with measures of
implementation of the Report of the Commission.
Under thesc circumstances, the statement in the letter of 12 Fehruary
1964, that the Report "has nothing to do with the Counter-Memorial as
such", must be understood to constitutc an assurance to the Court that
implementation of Rccommendations of the Commission inconsistent
with contentions at issue in the 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
copies ofthe Report among the documenta tion submitted with the Counter
Memorial, in such quantities as the Court may find useful. Applicants,
in any event, respectfully reserve the right in their Reply and subsequent
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 Recommendations.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
67. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNliŒNT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
25 i\Iarch 1964.
Sir,
x. I have the honour to acknowlcdge receipt under cover of your
letter No. 39244 dated 2 March 1964, of a copy of a letter of25 February
1964, addressed to you by the Agents for the Applicants in the South
1Vest A/rica cases.
2. In their said letter the Agents for the Applicants express their
views concerning matters raised in a Jetter by Dr. J. P. verLoren van
Themaat to you dated 12 February 1964. The views expressed by Appli
cants reveal that there is a misconception on thcir part regarding the
purpose and effect of Dr. verLoren van Themaat's letter and of forwarding SOUTH WEST AFRICA
554
to you copies of the report of the Commission of Enquiry into South
West Africa Affairs. lt is therefore necessary to clarify the position.
3. In its Counter-l\-1emorial in the South West Africa cases (Il, p. 476),
the Government of the Republic of South Africa made mention of the
fact that the aforementioned Commission had been appointed, set forth
the composition of the Commission and its terms of reference and stated
further:
"The report of this Commission has been duc for sorne 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 this Cmmter-Memorial. In so far as its recommen
dations, and the Respondent Government's reactions thereto, will
be relevant to the matters concerned in this case, Respondent will at
a subsequent stage take the nccessary 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 letter of 12 February 1964, was written, the Commission's
report had been published 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 forwarding copies of the Commission's report to you for the
convenience of Members 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 in the above extract from the Counter-Memorial, our
contemplation was to defer steps in this last-mentioned respect until the
Government's reactions to the recommendations become known. Such
is still our intention as at present advised.
7· However, as the 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 of 12 February 1964, specifically mentioned that the copies
ofthe report were being made available for that purpose.
8. The statement: in the letter that the report had "nothing to do with
the Counter-Memorial"-which may possibly have given rise to mis
undcrstanding-was intended mere!y to draw attention to the distinction
between the report and ether documents fonvarded. The other documents
were either part of the Counter-1\iemorial or documents "in support"
thereof in the sense contemplated in the Statu te and Rules, i.e., 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 discussion was not intended to convey anvthing more than this
obvious fact. "
9· There is accordingly no justification for an undcrstanding on the
part of the Applicants that the said statement in the letter of12 Feb
ruary 1964, constitutes "... an assurance to the Court that implemen
tation of Recommendations of the Commission inconsistent with con
tentions at issue in the pending litigation, will be dcferred in any e\'ent
until after the final Judgment of this Honourable Court, ... " or any CORRESPOND ENCE 555
assurance at all. The letter o( 12 February in no way touched upon any
question pertaining to implementation or otherwise 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.
10. In their letter the Agents for the Applicants also state that Appli
cants reserve their rights under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and
Article 6r 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 to the forwarding to the Court of copies of the Commission's
report for the purpose mentioned in the letter of 12 February 1964.
I therefore at this stage refrain from commenting further on the Appli
cants' reservation and argumentation in support thereof.
rr. I would appreciate conveyance of the above observations to the
Agents for the Applicants.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
68. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
8 April 1964.
Sir,
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter No. 39463, dated 2 April 1964,
forwarding a copy of a letter dated 25 March 1964 addressed to you by
the Ag_entfor Respondent in the South West A/rica cases.
In his letter, Agent for Respondent states that the Report of the
Commission of Enquiry into South West Africa Affairs is being made
available to the Court as a "useful 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 Applicants 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 recommen
dations while the proceedings are pending, Applicants are constrained
respectfully to reaffirm the reservation of their rights under Article 41
of the Statu te of the Court and Article6r of the Rules of Court.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Ernest A. Gnoss.556 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
69. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
I. In Respondent's Counter-Memorial and in subsequent correspon
dence mention was made of a contemplation to place on record, at an
appropriate stage, the recommendations of the recent Commission of
Enquiry into South \Vest Africa Affairs and the Respondent Go\·ern
ment's reactions thereto, in so far as may be relevant to the South TVest
A/rica cases. Reference may, in this regard, be made particularly to
paragraphs 3 to 6 of my letter No. I/18/IS/8 of 25 March 1964-acknow
ledged in your letter No. 39462 of 2 April 1964-where the relevant pas
sage in the Counter-Memorial is also cited.
2. i\Iy Government's reactions to the Commission's recommendations
were set out in a Memorandum published on 29 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. Thereafter
Respondent's legal representatives have lost no time in preparing and
causing to be printed a Supplement to the Counter-MemoriaP, coYering
the above developments. 1 hereby apply in terms of Rule 37 {4}for leave
to file this Supplement now as part of the Counter-Memorial. For this
put-pose 150 copies of the Supplement together with 3 copies signed by
Respondent's Agents are herewith fonvarded to you. Reasoning in
support of this application is set out in the portion of the Supplement
headed "Introductory". I may further point out that the presentation
in the Supplement 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 manner, so as to facilitate comment and
discussion in later stages of the procecdings.
3· 1realise that the time-limit for the filing of Applicants' Reply will
soon expire. If, therefore, Applicants should wish to deal specifically
with the matt ers raised in the Supplement by way of an addition lo their
Reply, filed within a reasonable time after expiry of their time-limit and
while we are preparing the Rejoinder, we would have no objection.
4· As regards relevant documentation, this comprises only the Com
mission's Report and my Government's Memorandum thereon. The
Memorandum 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. rjr8/I5/3 of 12 February
1964. I should be pleased if you WOlùdnow treat these two copies as
tendered in terms of the Rules. 1 am also forthwith forwarding two
copies to the Carnegie Library in the Peace Palace, as a presentation
from my Government. In further pursuance of my last-mentioned let ter,
I am fonvarding an additional 23 copies for the convenience of l\lembers
of the Court, and shall be pleased to hear from you whether this will be
adequate for your purposes.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed} R. l\lcGREGOR.
1 See IV.pp. 197·219. CORRESPO~ OENCE 557
JO. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
29 May 1964.
Sir,
r. I have the honour to submit herewith 150 copies of a Book Xl
of the Counter-Memorial as contemplated in my letter No. rjr8/I5/3 of
10 February 1964, and your reply No. 39188 of 18 February 1964. The
contents of this Book which, as will be observed, differs slightly from the
Book as originally conceived, are as follows:
(a) lists of errata, i.e., corrections of slips or errors in respect of
Books I to VI II of the Counter-Memorial;
(b) a comprehensive table of cases cited in the Counter-Memorial;
(c) a comprehensive list of documents cited in the Counter-Memorial;
(d) individual tables of cases and lists of documentation, arranged
volume by volume. The individuallists of documentation are not
merely reprints of the lists annexed to the volumes of the Counter
Memorial but embody corrections of slips and errors in the original
lists and should, therefore, be regarded as replacing those lists.
2. \Vhilst the lists mentioned in paragraph 1 (a) and (d) ahove are
submitted in terrns of Article 40 (5)of the Rules of Court, those mentioned
in paragraph I (b) and (c) abovearesubmitted fort he sake ofcompleteness
and for the convenience of the Honourable Court.
3· Beside each reference to a document in the individual lists of
documentation (mentioned in paragraph 1 (d) ahove) there appear
symbols indicating where that document can be found. A full expia
nation of the symbols used, which is repeated on each page in so far 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 lists of errata} the fol/owing further documents are now required to be
introduced in support of the pleadings:
5· It would be appreciated if the aforementioned documents, t\\'Osets
whereof with a list for each are attached hereto, could after compliance
with the requirements of Article 40 (5) of the Rules of Court be filed in
the Addenda Box. The indication, "[A]", i.e., "filed in the Addenda Box",
has been used in the individual lists of documentation (mentioned in
paragraph I (d) above) to designatc documents already filcd in the
Addenda Box as weil as those mbmitted herewith and listed in paragraph
4 above.
6. In addition to Book X and the documents Iisted in paragraph 4
above, rso copies of each individual list of errata, relating to Books
I to VIII, are forwarded herewith for insertion in each copy of the rele
vant volumes already filed with the Court.
J have, etc.,
(Signed) R. :\lcGREGOR.
1 See IV, pp. 139-I95·558 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
71. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHJOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
On behalf of the Applicants in the South West Africa proceedings, I have
the honour to refer to your letter dated 5 June rg64, in which you were
good enough to transmit Respondent's Supplement to the Counter·
Memorial, together with a ietter dated 28 ~lay rg64 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), was tabled by Respondent in
Parliament on 27 January rg64, that Respondent on 29 April rg64 tabled
a Memorandum concerning the Report and th at on 8 May rg64 the House
of Assembly of the South Africa Government passed a resolution ex
pressing approval of the Government's decisions contained in the Memo
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 to the Registrar, Applicants' response thereto, dated 25 February
1964, a letter from Respondent's Agent to the Registrar dated 25 March
1964 and Applicants' response thereto dated 8 April rg6+
In his letter dated 25 March 1964, Respondent's Agent commented,
inter alia, that in forwarding copies of the Commission's Report for con
venience of Members of the Court, "it was not intended that such Report
should thereby become part of the pleadings or proceedings in the case
submitted to the Court for adjudication" (para. 5). In the same letter
(para. 6), Respondent advised the Court of its intention "to defer steps in
this last-mentioned respect until the Government's reactions to the
recommendations become known''.
In his letter dated 8 April 1964, Agent for Applicants took note of the
foregoing representation and advised the Court that Applicants perceived
no basis for objecting to Respondent's presentation to the Court of
evidentiary material considered by Respondent to be relevant to, and in
support of, its pleadings, subject to the right of Applicants to comment
upon them as such. In the aforesaid letter of 8 April rg64, Applicants
reaffirmed the reservation of their rights under Article 41 of the Statu te
of the Court and Article 61 of the Rules of Court.
The Supplement to the Counter-Memorial states that the Report of the
Commission and Respondent Government's "policy and contemplated
course of action pursuant thereto" are "relevant to sorne of the major
issues in the present proceedings, and in particular to those relating to the
alleged violations of Articl2 of the 1\landate". Accordingly, Respondent
expresses its wish ''to introduce the said Report and Memorandum for
maily to the record as relevant documents''. (Supplement, IV,pp. 197-rg8.)
In the light of the foregoing, it is apparent that Respondent now
intends that the two documents become part of the pleadings 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 CORRESPONDE~CE 559
aforesaid documents, at the same time respectfully maintaining the
reservation of their rights in terms of Article 41 of the Statute of the
Court and Article 6r of the Rules of Court.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
72. THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF LIBERIA TO THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
lhave the honour to inform you that The Honourabie Joseph Chesson
has resigned as an Agent of the Governmcnt of Liberia in the South West
A/rica cases and that in his stead H.E. Mr. Nathan Eames has been
appointed an Agent by and on behalf 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 trul y yours,
(Signed) J. Rudolph GRIMES.
73· 1"HE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA
AND LIBERIA
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of one original signed copy
and one hundred and forty-nine printed copies of the Reply 1 of the
Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the South West A/rica cases.
This pleading, which was handed to me today, was filed within the
time-limit fixed by the Order of 20 January 1964.
I have, etc.,
74· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERN"ME~T OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
5 October 1964.
Sir,
r. You are respectfuHy referred to the Order of 20 January 1964,
which fixed the following time-Jimits: for the filing of Applicants' Reply,
1 See IV,pp. 22o-6r6. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
20 June 1964; and for the filing of Respondent's Rejoinder, 20 November
196+
2. Although every attempt has been made to expedite preparation of
the Rejoinder, it is already apparent that, for the reasons set out herein
after, it will not be completed for filing on 20 November 1964. My
Government has accordingly been compelled to ask the indulgence of
an extension of the time-limit in terms of Article 37·4 of the Rules of
Court. This letter serves as an application in terms of the said Article.
3. The main problems in completing the Rcjoinder within the time
limit prescribed by the Court, arise from the nature of the material
contained in the Reply and its method of presentation. At the outset I
wish to emphasize that any comments made in this regard in the present
letter are not intencled in a spirit of criticism. I would also not like to be
understood as suggesting herein that Applicants have exceeded the
degree of latitude permitted to litigants in framing theirReply~for
present purposes, this question does not arise. Furthermore,l assume
that sorne of the matt ers to which I shaHrefer, were themselves occasioned
by pressure of time. However, for the purposes of this letter, I must
point out that the Rcply is an extremely difficult pleading to deal with.
Our difficulty arises firstly from its method of presentation. It does not
follow the pattern either of the Memorials or the Counter-Memorial nor
does it contain a systematic exposition of the subjects dealt with, but
frequent! y treats one tapie in a number of different Chapters and annexes.
Such annexes often consist of reports, publications, articles,, which
have been incorporated by reference into the text. This method of
presentation renders it verv difficult to determine what the issues be
tween the Parties reallyare~partic sucl her larions overlapping
parts of the Reply are not always consistent~ consequently the
task of drawing up a coherent and systematic reply thereto is equally
difficult.
4· But an even more serions difficulty arises from the contents of the
Reply. Applicants have not confined themselves strictly to matters
initially raised in the Memorials, but have included a large number of
fresh contentions or allegations in their Reply. To sorne extent this is
caused by the method of presentation referredtoin the previous para
graph. Many of the documents incorporated into the Reply as annexes
caver a much wider field than the issues as defined in the :Memorials and
Counter-Memorial. In addition, however, Applicants themsclves have
raised a number of new issues in the body of the Reply. Once again, 1 do
not want this letter to be understood as making any technical objection
to this approach on Applicants' part. For present purposes the only
point is that the broader ambit of the Reply necessarily causes more
research and work in preparing the Rejoinder than is usual and than was
contemplated, certainly on our part, when the time-limits were fixed. As
examples of new issues arising fromthe Reply, 1 may refer to Appli
cants' contention regarding the existence of a "norm of non-discrimina
tion and non-separation"-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 sorne of their submissions (vide ibid., pp. 302-307 and
6oo-6oz); and to their treatment of the topic of migratory labour, which
they have now introduced as one of their important points of attack
(vide ibid., p. 262, and thereafter at varions places). CORRESPONOENCE s6r
s. A further problem has been the difficulty in obtaining sorne of the
documents on which Applicants have relied in their Reply. In many
instances their references were faulty, and although our problem in this
regard has been reduced to sorne extent by receipt of their list of errata
forwarded under cover of your letter No. 40163 of 8 September 1964, it
has bv no means been eliminated. In fact, there are still a number of
sources which we are entirely unable to trace. In this regard it is relevant
to point out that with its Counter-Memorial Respondent filed, for the
use of Applicants, an extra set of copies of aU supporting documents
which were not available in the Carnegie Library of the Peace Palace
{and even of sorne that werc). Applicants have not done likewise, thus
rendering 9ur task more onerous than it might have been.
6. As was stated when the time-limits were fixed, we could not say
how much time would 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. Where I am now asking for more time than was granted to
Applicants, I 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 of its Counter-Memorial to
Applicants in advance of the formai filing so as to enable them to com
mence work thereon. Thus on 2 November 1963, we sent them copies of
Book II, on 15 November 1963, copies of sections Band C of Book VIII,
and on 7 December 1963 copies of Books III and VII of the Counter
Memorial. In fact therefore Applicants had considerably longer than the
5 months granted by the Court for the preparation of their Reply. In
addition, they received the benefit of copies of the supporting documents
to which reference was made above.
7- For the rcasons set out above, 1 respectfully request that the Court
be pleased to grant an extension of the time-limit for filing Respondent's
Rejoinder. We estimate that 6 weeks' grace would ena ble us tome et with
the minimum requirements of a coherent, sy~temat ai c properly
finished Rejoinder. This would then entai! an extension to the beginning
of January 1965. If it were to meet with the Court's approval, I would
respectfully suggest that 8 January 1965, would be a suitable date,
inasmuch as it is, in terms of Articl25.1 of the Rules of Court, the first
Court day after the Christmas vacation; and 1hereby apply accordingly.
r have, etc ..
(Signed) R. McGREGOR. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
75· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO THE
REGISTRAR
13 October rg64.
Sir,
I
1. As Agent for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the
South West A/rica cases, 1 have the honour to refer to your telegraphie
communications No. 40297 and No. 40299 with regard to the requcst of
Respondent for an extension of the time-limit in which to fileits Rejoinder.
Reference is also made to cable dated g October rg64 dispatched by the
undersigned on behalf of Applicants promptly upon receipt of your
communication No. 40297.
2. In the~ 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 submit
their views and reasons for urging the Court to deny Respondent's
request for an extension of the time-limit for filing the Rejoinder.
II
1. The time-limits for the filing of the Reply of the Governments of
Ethiopia and Liberia, and for the filing of the Rejoinder of the Govern
ment of South Africa, were fixed by the President of the Court by Order
.dated 20 January 1964 1. The time-limits set by the President, viz.,
20 June 1964 for the filing of Applicants' Reply, and 20 November 1964
for Respondent's Rejoinder, were established fol!owing full discussion
and expression of views at a meeting at the Peace Palace on l\fonday,
20 January 1964, in which 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 extremc bulk of the Counter-Memorial, undertook nonethelcss to
exercise all diligence and exert ali effort necessary to complete and file
Applicants' Reply \vithin a period of 5 months. This undertaking, which
was faithfully carried out, reftectcd Applicants' conviction that the
protracted course of this litigation threatened to work substantial hard
ship upon the inhabitants of the Territory, whose rights are in issue. The
Applications herein having been filed in November rg6o, the time-limit
now fixed for the filing of Respondent's Rejoinder marks the end of a
4-year period during which the instant Cases have been pending. These
factors were adverted to in the discussions at the Peace Palace leading to
the fixing of the time-Iimits by Order of 20 J anuary rg64.
3· Applicants urge that Respondent's request for an extension of the
time-limit within which to file its Rejoinder violates the commitment
exchanged between Applicants and Respondent at the meeting with the
President, to make ail necessary effort and to exercise in good faith the
ll.C.J.Reports I964,p. J. CORRESPONDENCE
reqmslte degree of self-discipline to honour time-limits which both
parties then perceivcd would involve strenuous effort.
4· Applicants submit that the explanations assigned by Respondent
in its letter of 5 Octobcr 1964 to justify an extension of the time-limit,
are untenable. Although it would be neither seemly nor appropriate in
this exchange of correspondence to discuss matters of form or substance
raised in the Pleadings, Applicants are astonished by Respondent's con
tention that the Reply raises new issues. On the contrary, matters re
ferred toby Respondent are aU relevant and responsive to arguments of
law and contentions of fact raised in the Counter-i.Vlemorial.Furthermore,
with respect to Respondent's complaint of unavailability of documentary
and other sources, Applicants have becn at pains at all stages to comply
with the Rules and are unaware of any omissions or lacunae on their part.
III
Applicants have previously made clear, in their severa! communica
tions of 12 January 1961, 30 January 1963, and 6 September 1963,
opposing either unduly long periods requested by Respondent, or ex
tension of time-limits previously fixed by the Court, awareness of Respon
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 a reasonably 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-limit for their own
Pleadings, fixed by the President after full discussion and due delibera
tion.
IV
I. In view of the arguments set forth above, supported and con
firmed by considerations of justice and equity, Applicants respectfuily
but strenuously urge deniai of Respondent's request for an extension of
the time-limit which Respondent agreed to observe in the meeting with
the President on 20 January r964.
2. In the event the Court secs fit, notwithstanding these objections,
to grant an extension of the timc-limit 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 to date,
have not disclosed any previous case in which so long a period has elapsed
from the filing of Application to the closure of written proceedings.
Applicants have sought throughout these Procecdings to comply with
Orders of the Court fixing time-limits for Pleadings, both in deference to
this Honourable Court and out of a deep sense of the importance of
expeditions determination of causes remitted to the judicia1 process.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
76. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVER~MENT OF SOUTH
AFRICA 1
20 October rg64.
Sir,
2
I have the honour to inform you that by an Order made today the
President has extended to 23 December 1964 the time-limit for the filing
of the Rejoinder of the Government of South Africa in the South West
A/rica cases.
I shall indue course forward to you the official copy of the Order.
I have, etc.,
77· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEXT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
12 November rg64.
Sir,
Upon the filing of the Rejoinder, the South West A/rica cases will be
ready for hearing, and a date for the commencement of the oral pro
ceedings will have to be fixed in terms of Article 47 of the Rules of Court.
The said Article makes no provision for hearing the parties or ascer
taining their views, and I am aware that the date of commencement of
oral proceedings is commonly fixed without reference to the parties at
ail. Nevertheless, in view of certain special circumstances pertaining to
the present cases, the South African Government trusts that it will not
be considered presumptuous on its part 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 is being written at this carly stage since, if the
Court or the President 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
to finalize this matter on or soon after the date set for filing the Rejoinder,
i.e.,3 December rg64-
In previous communications, 1 have had occasion to stress the widc
ambit covcrcd by the pleadings in the present matters, and the large
number of issues, both of fact and of law, which arise therefrom. It is
consequently unnecessary to elabora te in general on this feature, which,
it is submitted, distinguishes the present cases from any other matter
which has served before this Court. At the samc time the feature must
necessarily have an important bearing also 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 th at 1 wish, on behalf of my Govem
ment, to draw attention.
' The same communication was sent to the Agent for the Governments of
Et2iopia and Liberia.
I.C.j. Reports r964p.171. CORRESPONDE:-l'CE
After completion of the Rejoinder, Respondent's legal advisers will
fust of ali have to consider the full pleadings carefully with a view to
determining which matt ers require further treatment or substantiation in
the oral proceedings-a task which has bcen rendered more difficult by
Applicants' method of pleading, to which reference was made in my
Jetter of 5 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 matt ers raised by Applicants are of a technical nature:
these concern particularly the merits of economie, political and social
policies applied by Respondent or of thosc suggestcd as preferable 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 matters and attendant questions of fact, which may be in issue or
relevant to the issues, will require amplification and elucidation at the
oral hearing, in ail probability to a considerable extent-partly in evi
dence and partly in argument.
Obtaining the services of suitable persans-who, in sorne instances,
would ürst have to qualify themselves regarding specifie aspects of the
case-and thereafter arranging and holding consultations with them,
constitute time-consuming processes, which have to be completed sorne
time earlier than the commencement of the oral proceedings so as to
enable Respondent to comply with the provisions of Article 49 of the
Rules of Court.
\Vith regard to sorne of these persons the processes have to sorne
extent been engaged upon during the course of the preparation of the
pleadings; but it will be 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, I 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
its case should be balanced against Applicants' right to obtain a reason
ably expeditious determination of the issues raised in these proceedings.
\Vith this proposition I 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 if its submissions regarding the fixing of dates were not accepted.
As regards Applicants, their Agent referred in his said letter to his "con
viction that the protracted course of this litigation threatened to work
substantial hardship upon the inhabitants of the Territory, whose rights
are in issue". Respondent submits, however, th at this is a much ex
aggerated statement. On the one hand, the charges made by Applicants
in these proceedings are undoubtedly of a very serious nature, and they
are strenuously contested 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 extremel y urgent redress: in the event of conduct of thiss66 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, to be borne in mind that, as is generally
known, Respondent is cngaged upon extensive projects for accelerated
development of the Territory and the advancement of ail its inhabitants
in the economie, education al, health and general social spheres; and
recommendations for development projects in the political and admin
istrative spheres, which are contentions for purposes of the present
proceedings, arc being held in abeyance until the terrnination of the
proceedings. (Vide Supplement to the Counter-:VJ.emorial,IV, pp. 215-216,
read with pp. 2IJ-2IS.) The prospect of substantial hardship for in
habitants involved in a few months' delay must therefore 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 involves a very real prospect of irremediable prejudice, not
only for Respondent but also for the peoples of South \Vest Africa. lt is
surely in their long-term interest in particular that the case to the Court
should, from both sides, be presented in as thorough a manner as pos
sible.
ln the light of ali the circumstances, my Government would respect
tully request that in fixing the date for the commencement of the oral
proceedings, the Court or the President have regard to the varions
considerations set out above which result in Respondent requiring a
longer period for preparation than is usually the case. Although I would
hesitate to suggest any definite date, it is nevertheless my conviction
that a date prior to ;\iay or June would render it extremely difficult for
Respondent to do justice toits case, as weil asto provide such assistance
to the Court in this complicated matter as it would like to do.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. 1\IcGREGOR.
78. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNliiENT OF SOUTH
AFR ICA
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to your letter of 12 November rg64 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 A/rica cases.
As soon as the Rejoinder of the Government of South Africa has been
filed and the written procedure thus completed, the date for the corn- CORRESPONDENCE
mencement of the oral proceedings will be fixed by the President in the
light of all the relevant circumstances, and you will, of course, be notified
immediately.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the Agent for the Applicants.
I have, etc.,
79· THE AGENTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
TO THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
The Agents for the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the South
West A/rica cases have received your letter of 25 November rg64 trans
mitting copy of a letter dated rz Novcmber 1964 addressed to the
l~egis tyrtaerAgent for the Government of South Africa. We have the
honour also to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 2 Decembcr 1964
transmit ting copy of a letter of the same date which you have sent to the
Agent for the Government 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 to the date to be fixed for the opening of
the hearings, will be adhered to in the South West A/rica cases. You
further advise that as soon as the Rejoinder has been filed, the date for
the commencement of the oral proceedings will be fixed by the President
in the light of all the relevant circumstances.
Under thcse circumstances, the Agents for the Applicants assume that
the considerations set forth in the letter date12 November rg64 from
the Agent for the Govemment of South Africa to the Court, purporting
to justify delay of the commencement of oral proceedings until "May or
June'', will not be regarded in the context of "relevant circumstances"
affecting the decision concerning the fixing of the dforthe commence
ment of oral proceedings.
In deference to the wish of the Court to decide this matter in terms of
Article 47 of the Rules of Court, without consultation of the parties with
regard to the date to be fi.xed for the opening of hearings, Applicants
forbear from painting out to the Court the many countervailing con
siderations which support their urgent plea that the oral proceedings be
expedited.
\Vith a view to co-operation with the Court in the interest of such
expedition, Applicants respectfully advise the Court that they will be
prepared to present their case at any time following the end of the Court's
Winter vacation, and that they are prepared Iikewise to waive strict
application of Article 49 of the Rules of Court, so that the parties may,
at any stage of the oral proceedings, subject to the Court's approval,
communicate to the Registry information regarding evidence which they
intend to produce or to request the Court to obtain.
"'e have, etc.,
(Signed) Tesfaye GEBRE-EGZY.
Nathan BAm-Œs.
Ernest A. GRoss.568 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
80. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
REGISTRAR
22 December 1964-
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Embassy of the Republic of
South Africa, The Hague, has been directed to arrange for the delivery
to you on 23 December rg64, of rso copies of Respondent's Rejoinder
(consisting of two volumes) 1,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.
PartI, Volume 1, of the Rejoinder contains a "General Introduction"
setting out the composition of the Rejoinder.
Respondent's Submissions, 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), will be handed to you personally.
You will note that the lists of documentation appear at the end of
2
each volume and that an indication is given, next to each document, as
to whether it is available 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, it has not been possible to complete the collection
of aH the documents cited in Volume I of the Rejoinder. The prin ting of
Volume I has continued until this morning with the rcsult that the
preparation of the documents and the making of translations of a number
of documents could only be commenced with a few hours ago. However,
Respondent undertakes to forward to the Court the outstanding docu
ments within one week.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
3
81. THE REGISTRAH TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA
29 December r964-
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the President has fixed Monday
rs l\iarch 1965 as the date for the commencement of the oral proceedings
in the South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v.
South Africa).
The opening sitting will be held in the morning of that date at an hour
which will be notified to you in due course.
It is the intention of the Court to sit in the mornings only. It has been
1See V and VI.
2See VI, pp. 430-4 73·
3The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Govemments of
Liberia and South Africa. CORRES PO;./DEN CE
decided that the proceedings will be simultaneously interpreted and the
speakers will accordingly not be invited to interrupt their addresses
from time to time to allow of consecutive interpretation.It is proposed,
however, that there should, in the course of the morning sitting, be a
short adjournment of about rs minutes, of the tinte of which you will be
infonned prior to the commencement of the hearings.
I have, etc.,
82.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHlOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE REGISTRAR
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your communication
dated 23 December rg64 advising that the Respondent in the South West
A/rica cases has filed its Rejoinder, as well as your cable dated 29 De
cember 1964 in which you infonn the Applicants that the President
of the Court has fixed :Monday, rs March 1965, as the commencement
date for the oral proceedings.
With the closure of the writtcn proceedings, and the announcement
of the date iixed for commencement of hearings, Applicants respectfully
advise the Court that, in terms of Article 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
A/rica cases to be made accessible to the public at any time henccforward.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) Ernest A. GRoss.
83. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE REGISTRAR
20 January rg65.
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter No. 40825 of rr J anuary
rg65 forwarding for my information a copy of a lett er dated 30 December
rg64 addressed to you by the Agent for Ethiopia and Liberia.
Concerning the second paragraph of the last-mentioned letter, Re
spondent has no objection to the pleadings being made accessible to the
public as from the time of the commencement of the oral proceedings
on rs March rg65. Respondent, however, does not consent to the publi
cation of the pleaclings before that time.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) R. 1\fcGREGOR.570 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
84. THE DEPUTY-REGISTR ... TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERN!IIENT OF
ETHIOPIA 1
ro March rg6s.
Sir,
1 have the honour tore fer to the letter of 30 December rg64 from the
Agent for Ethiopia and Liberia and further correspondence concerning
the rnaking accessible to the public of the pleadings and annexed
documents in the South West A/rica cases.
Havîng regard to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules 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 rs March rg65.
I have, etc.,
85. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
II March rg6s.
Sir,
1have the honour to refer to my discussion with you on the wth instant
when 1intimated that Respondent intended to cali witnesses and experts
in the oral proceedings and that I would address a formai communication
to you in that regard.
While confirming the intention to cali witnesses, 1 regret to have to
inform you, however, that Respondent's representatives upon due
consideration find it impossible at this stage to comply fully with the
requirements of Article 49 of the Rules of Court regarding submission
of a list of witnesses.
Not only have we been unable within the lirnited time at our disposai
to complete consultations with prospective witnesses, but we have also a
more fundamental problem which arises from the attitude adopted by
the Applicants in the proceedings to date.
In the first place Applicants have in their Reply to a large extent
avoided dea ling specifically with factual allegations made in Respondent's
Counter-Memorial, with the result that it is impossible to determine on
the pleadings which statements of fact are admitted or denied by Appli
cants. The sarne difficulty applies with regard to factual statements made
in Respondent's Rejoinder conceming which Applicants' attitude is not
as yet known to Respondent. The compilation of a list of witnesses will
therefore to a very large extent depend on the attitude to be adopted by
Applicants relative to the above matters.
Finally, although not a fundamental consideration, notification by
Applicants of their intentions regarding the possible presentation of oral
testimony could also affect Respondent's position in that regard.
1A similar communication was sent to the Agents for the Governments of
Liberia and South Africa. CORRESPONDÈNCE 571
We have given serious consideration to the possibility of submitting a
provisionallist at this stage, but on due reflection have decided that it
would be best, if so permitted, to raise the whole matter at the dis
cussions with the Honourable President of the Court at the meeting
schcduled to take place at ro a.m. tomorrow.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
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 morning in the chambers of the Honourable
President of the Court, it was agreed that an opportunity would, at the
outset of the proceedings on Monday, be given to Counsel for my Govem
ment to present a proposa! to the Court in regard to a possible inspection
in loco. Apart from expressing our appreciation of your co-operation in
this regard, I hereby 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 proposai will be.
Briefiy the proposai will be that the Court, or a Committee thereof, as
may be preferred, accompanied by legal representatives of the Parties,
undertake an inspection of
1. the Terri tory of South \Vest Africa, in order to see whatever the Court
or the Committee may wish at the instance of either Party or at its
own request;
2. the Territories of the Applicant States to a sufficient extent to gain a
general impression of comparable standards and circumstances which
could facilitate fairand proper evaluation of well-being and progress,
and Respondent's policies thereanent, in South West 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 of 2 above, but by way of contrast preferably including at
least one country that formerly was under Mandatory and Trusteeship
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,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.572 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
8]. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
13 March 1965.
Sir,
\Vith reference to my letter of the nth instant and to the conference
yesterday (12 March 1965) in the chambers of the Honourable President
of the Court, I have the honour to state that in view of the facts that the
Applicants have stated that they do not intend to caU any witnesses
unless it becomes necessary to rebut evidence led by the Respondent, and
that they have declared that for the purposes of their case ali factual
averments made by Respondent and not specifically denied by them can
be regarded as undisputed, two of Respondent's difficulties relative 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 nth instant.
The third difficuity, however, remains, viz., that within the Iimited
time at its disposai Respondent has been unable to complete its con
sultations with persons considered at this stage to be prospective wit
nesses, which persons are resident in different parts of the world.
In view of this difficulty Respondent still finds it impossible at this
stage to comply fully with the requirements of the relative Article of the
Rules of Court and can at this juncture only submit a provisionallist.
The attached list should therefore be regarded as such, in the sense that
it may later prove necessary to add names to the list orto delete names
now appearing thereon. I trust that the list will be accepted in this sense
and that Respondent will not be precluded from filing such amendments
thereto, as may at a later date prove to be necessary. Any such amend
ments will be submitted in sufficient time to obviate any inconvenience
to the Court or prejudice to the Applicants.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. MCGREGOR.
88. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
14 March rg65.
Dear Mr. President,
Pursuant to the conference held on the morning of 12 March 1965,
in the chambers of the Honourable President of the Court, the Agents
and Counsel for the Applicants in the South West Africa cases have been
in communication with the Agents and Counsel for Respondent, both in
writing and in person, and have discussed 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
1See pp. 573-575, infra. List of Witnesses and Experts in terms of the Rules of the International Court of Justice (See No. 87)
l'lace of Residence l'oints to which t.:vidence wil\ be directed
Surnamc First Namcs Description
BRETHOLZ Wolfgang Journalist Lausanne, Political and economie problems in Africa
Switzerland
BRUWER Johannes Petrus D.PhiL; Professor of Social and l'ort Elizabeth, Basic considerations regarding separa te
van Schalkwyk Cultural Anthropology, University S.A. devclopmcnt in South \\'est Africa
of Port Eli~abeth
CILLIE Petrus Jo hannes Journalist; Edi tor of Die Cape Town, S.A. Basic considerations rcgarding separa tc
Burger, Cape Town dcvelopment
l'eter Alan \Vilson Ph.D.; Deputy Secretary, Pretoria, S.A. Educational policy
COOK 0)
Department of Bantu ~
Education, Pretoria ~
CfJ
ÜAHLMANN Kurt Journalist; Editor of Allgemeine Windhoek, South Non-White political organizations in South ~
Zeilung, Windhoek ·west Africa \V est Africa 0
z
EISELEN Werner \Villi Max Ph.D.; Commissioner-General Sovenga via Basic considerations rcgarding separa tc tr1
for the Northern Sotho Pietersburg, S.A. clcvelopment and educational policies z
()
GER!CKE Jacobus Ste{Jhanus 1\linister of Religion in the Du teh Stcllen bosch, Views of church leaders and theological and tri
Reformed Church and Deputy S.A. ethical considerations regarding group
Rector of the University of relations and policies in Southern Africa
Stcllcnbosch
GIN!EWSKI Paul Author and Journalist; Editor Paris, France Practical considerations regarding group
of La Terre Retrouvée relations and policies in Sou them Africa
GROENEWALD Evert Philippus Th.D.; Prof essor in the Theo Pretoria, S.A. Views.of church leaders and theological and
logical Faculty, Dutch Reformcd ethical considerations regarding grou]J
Church, University of Pretoria relations and policies in Southern Africa
HOLLOWAY John Edward D.Sc. (Econ.); Economist; Johannesburg, Economie polici c. South \Vcst Africa ancl
Former South African High S.A. general considerations undcrlying separate
Commissioner in London devclopment List of Witnesses and Experts in terms of the Rules of the International Court of justice (See No. 87}
Surname First Names Description Place of Residence Points to which evidence will be directed
}EN :'>IV Hans Doctor of Economies; Author Zurich, Political and economie problems in Africa
Switzerland
KNOETZE Johannes Chasparus Manager, Municipal Non· Vanderbij!park, Policy regarding Native urban administration
European Affairs Department, Transvaal, S.A. and influx control
Vanderbijlpa.rk
KlWGII Desmond Charles D. PhiL ; Prof essor of Pretoria, S.A. Economie policy in South West Africa
Economies, University of South
Africa, Pretoria
LA~IBERTY Max Professer in Philosophy and Brussels, Problems of human relations and need for
Sociology, Brussels University Belgium separation in certain circumstances
LOGAN Richard F. Professer of Geography, Los Angeles, Geographical conditions as affecting economie
University of Califomia U.S.A. development in South \Vest Africa
;\IARÉ Johannes Albertus LL.Drs.; Rector of the Ngoye, Zululand, Educational polie y with particular reference to
Gerhard us University College of Zululand S.A. higher education
1\IILLS Johan Hendrik Secretary, Department of the Umtata, S.A. Ban tu authorities and political development in
Tau te Chief IVIinistcr and l\Iinister of the Transkei
Finance, Umtata
1\IOLNAR Thomas Professer of French, University New York, Political,social and economie problcms in
of Brooklyn, New York U.S.A. Africa, including Southern Africa
PEPLER Louis Andreas Director of Bantu Development, Pretoria, S.A. Economie dcvelopment of Native areas
Departmen tof Ban tuAdmin istra
tion and Development, Pretoria
PossoNv Stefan T. Professor; Director of Inter Stanford, Social and political relations between various
national Political Studies California, communitics and need for separation in
Programme, Hoover Institute, U.S.A. certain circumstances
Stanford University, California List of Witnesses and Experts in terms of the Rules of the International Court of justice (See No. 87)
Surnamc First Names Description Place of Residence l'oints to which evidence will be directed
RAUTENBACH Caspcr Hcndrik D.Phil.; Rector of the Pretoria, S.A. Basic considerations regarding separate
University of Pretoria developmcnt and separa te universities
SEARLE Charlotte D.PhiL; Member of the S.A. Pretoria. S.A. Polie y regarding training of nurses
Nursing Council
VANDEN BERG Jan Ex-Ambassador of the Eure, France Practical considerations regarding group
Netherlands relations and policies in Southern Africa
Ph.D.; :\lem ber of the Faculty New York, Sociological and psychological considerations
V.>.xDENHAAG Ernest
of New York University and the U.S.A. regarding group relations, group reactions, etc.
New School for Social Research
VAN DER \VATT Johan Jacobus Former Assistant Chief Ban tu Pretoria, S.A. Scparatc idcntitics of groups in South \Vcst
Affairs Commissioner, Africa and devclopment of Native areas of
South \Vest Africa South West Africa
VAN ZYL Hendrik Johann Ph.D.; Deputy Sccretary, Pretoria, S.A. Bantu education system
Department of Bantu Education,
Pretoria
WATT James Shaw D.V.SJI"L; Dircctor of Agriculture \Vindhoek, South Problems in combating stock diseases in South
in South West Africa \Vest Africa West Afriça
\VIPPLINGER Otto D.Sc. (Eng.); Director of \Va ter Windhoek, South Problems relating to water supplies in South
Affairs, South \Vest Africa \Vest Africa \Vest Africa SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Applicants' position with respect to avennents of fact in Respondent's
Pleadings, and the application of Article 49 of the Rules of Court, in the
premises.
The Applicants have re-affinned their position on these matters as
follows:
Reserving their right to contest the relevance of facts contained in
Respondent's Pleaclings, including the oral proceedings, the facts~as
distinct from inferences which may be drawn therefrom~a note
contested exceptas otherwise indicated, specifically or by implication, in
the Applicants' Written Pleadings or in the Oral Proceedings.
The Applicants, having been furnished a copy of l~espondent's
provisional list of witnesses 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 time with regard to the application of the aforesaid
..le,.exceptas follows:
(a) The Applicants reserve the right to cali any witnesses necessary
to rebut evidence led by 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 experts
furnished to the Court in the Annex to Respondent's letter of
IJ March rg65 fair!y refiects 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 brief explanation of the context in which
it was 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 Committee thereof, visit the Territory of South West Africa and
"certain other areas". The latter phrase is quoted in the words as beard
by all three representatives of the Applicants who were in attendance.
No further exp!anation or description was offered by Respondent con
cerning the "areas" intended to be covered in the proposai. The Appli
cants, in a spirit of accommodation, agreed to the suggestion that
Respondent might present its proposai at the outset of the oral proceed
ings, on the basis of Respondent's assurance to the President that the
total time required for such presentation would approximate a quarter
of an hour.
As a precautionary matter, however, the Applicants addressed a
request, which the President was kind enough to grant, that Respondent
reduce its intended proposai to writing and communicate a copy thereof
to the Applicants as soon as possible, preferablv 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 weil as others not designated in the
proposai, one of the foregoing States being in anv way subject of dispute
or complaint in these Proceedings. •
During the course of an extended discussion between the Parties
following receipt by the Applicants of the foregoing information, the
Applicants pointed out the diversionary and tendentious political nature CORRESPONDE~CE 577
of the proposai, which wouid impel the Applicants to request the Court
for Ieave to make immediate response thereto and which, in turn, might
Iead to the necessity for Respondent to exercise its right of rejoinder.
The risk of such a development at the outset of the oral proceedings in
these important cases would, moreover, be taken without any perceived
procedural necessity forthe interposition of the proposai, which trenches
on the merits, as the terms of the intended proposai makes clear.
Among the possibilities discussed, was that Respondent might defer
submission of its proposainntil after the three or four days which will
be required by the Applicants for the presentation of legal issues and
interrelated factual questions.
The political nature of the proposai and of the intended method of
its presentation was conceded by Respondent, as was the fact that the
proposai is related solely to the merits.
The Applicants, accordingly, urged Respondent to 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 previous view in respect of the time for
presentation of itsproposai, the Applicants would fee1bound tarequest
the President for a meeting, and that, if the President should be so kind
as to grant the request, it was understood that the Applicants would
respectfully urge that the arder of procedure be fixed so that the Appli
cants might start presentation of their case immediately following the
normal preliminaries.
Respectf ully,
(Signed) Ernest A. GROss.
89. AGREEMENT REGARDING FACTUAL AVERME:-ITS
(handed to the President on I4 ~Iarc rg65)
Subject to reserving their right to contest the relevance of facts
contained in Respondent's pleadings, including the ORAL PROCEED
INGS, Applicants agree that such facts-as distinct from inferences
which may be drawn therefrorn-are not contested except as otherwise
indicated, specifically ory implication, in Applicants' Written Pleadings
or in the ORAL PROCEEDINGS.
This agreement pertains also to factual averments in respect of \vhich
no documentary proof has been filed, including statements made upon
Departmental Information.
Any deniai of averments made in the Rejoinder will be intimated by
Applicants at the earliest convenient stage in the ORAL PROCEED
INGS. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
go. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE DEPUTY
REGISTRAR
rs March 1965.
Sir,
Ihave the honour to refer you to my letter of 13 March 1965, under
cover of which 1submitted a copy of a letter of 12 March rg65, addressed
to the Agent for the Govemments of Ethiopia and Liberia in the abovc
matter regarding a proposed statement to the Court on a possible
inspection in loco. I refer also 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 it was intimated to
us th at any opportunity to raise at the outset the question of an in
spection would be limited to part only of the proposai 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 our view, be dealt with and considered as a whole, we do not
intend to avail ourselves of the opportunity to 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.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
91. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Dear Sir,
Reference is made to the formai proposai submitted to the Court by
the Applicants during the Proceedings of 4 i\1ay rg65 (IX, p. 123), and
the colloquy which ensuecl, appearing in the same Verbatim Record, at
ibid., pages 124-125.
In view of the fact that the Applicants' proposai contemplates a
stipulation between the Parties, or failing such stipulation, an order by
the Court to the same effect, it may be convenient to set out the terms
of such stipulation, which the Applicants consider to be both fair and
feasible in the circumstances.
The Parties would stipulate as follows:
r. In the event that Respondent desires to produce any evidence the
production of which is permittcd by the Court, the Applicants agree
that a deposition, or written statement in any other form, embodying
such evidence and properly authenticated, constitutes a full and
correct statement of evidence which such witness or expert would
have adduced if personally in Court.
2. The Applicants waive all 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 witnesses or expert, or to address questions to
him personally in Court. In order to comply 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 all right to examine any witness or expert
who appears personally.
S· In the event 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 heen introduced, such deposition or state
ment would be 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 upon any deposition or statement produced as
aforesaid, or upon evidence in any other fonn, the production of
which may be permitted by the Court.
The Applicants would be glad to discuss with Respondent details,
such as the appropriate time and manner of formalizing the stipulation
and submitting it to the Court. If Respondent should have any questions
regarding the foregoing proposed terms of stipulation, the Applicants
will be pleased to attempt to clarify any such points.
lnasmuch as the Applicants have requested the Court to issue an order,
or otherwise decide, that the aforementioned procedures should be
followed, in the event that the Parties failtoreach agreement thereon, a
copy of this letter has been transmitted to the Court for its information.
Sincerely yours,
Ernest A. GRoss.
92. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
10 May 1965.
Dear Sir,
1refer to your letter of the sth instant which sets forth a proposai that
the Parties agree by way of stipulation to evidence being adduced by
Respondent in a manner other than that provided for in the Rules of
Court, viz., by filing written depositions.
1 have to inform you that upon duc consideration of the proposai
I am unable, for reasons which Counsel for the Respondent has already
intimated to the Court, to agree to the proposai.
\Vhere, however, it may appear to Respondent during the course
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
manner suggested by you Respondent will, 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,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR. SOUTH WEST AFRlCA
93· THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRlCA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
13 May rg65.
Sir,
\Vith reference to my letter of 13 March last, with which was sub
mitted a provisionallist of witnesses, I have the honour to enclose here
with, in duplicate, an additionallist 1 of the witnesses whom Respondent
intends calling to testify on its behalf.
Unfortunately this listis not a final one as a few more prospective
witnesses must stiJl be consulted towards the end of this month. I,
however, anticipate that I shaH be in a position to send you a final list
early next month. J trust that this delay will not in any way incon
venience the Court.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
94- THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF
ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
25 May rg6s.
Sir,
With reference to two documents mentioned by Counsel for the
Respondent in the course of the sitting of the Court yesterday, 24 May
(see verbatim record IX, at pp. 40I et seq.), when, upon the drrection of
the President, copies thereof were made available to you, and pursuant
to Article 48 of the Rules of Court, 1have the honour to transmit herewith
a copy of each of two documents of the Preparatory Commission of the
United Nations marked, respectively, PCJTCfn and PCJTC/Joz, each
being certified as a true copy of documents from the official files 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 documents.
I am transnùtting a copy of the present letter to the Agent for the
Respondent for his information.
1 have, etc.,
t See p.581, infra.
2 See Part III, p. 455supra. Surnamc First Names Description l'lace of Residence l'ointq to which evidl.!ncc will be din:cted
DON HOFF (Count) Christoph Director of the German-South Munchen, Political and economie problems in Africa
African Society \Vest German y
LEWIS Percy Charles B.Sc., A..l\I.I.C.E.; Chief Windhoek, South Road transportation in South \\'est Africa:
Engineer, Roads Branch, South West Africa problems and development.
West Africa Administration
MARSBALL (Brigadier-General) 1\Iilitary critic, editorial writerBirmingham, 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.
ÜOSTHUYSEN Jacobus Arnold us 1\I.B., Ch.B.; Director of Health Windhoek, South Health problems and development of health
Services, South West Africa West Africa services in South West Africa
PINAY Antoine Former Prime Minister of France Paris, France Political aspects of policy in South Africa and
and Former President of the South West Africa.
Council in France. Industrialist
ScHMITTLEIN Raymond Vice President of the National Belfort, France Political aspects of policy in South Africa and
Assembly of France. Former South \Vest Africa.
Cabinet Minister. Author and
Journalist.
VoN RoHR Hans Olof Dr. Juris.; Industrialist. Koldingen, Political and economie pmblems in Africa.
Bei Hannover,
West Germany SOUTH WEST AFRICA
95· THE DEPUTY-REGlSTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF
ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
28 May rg6s.
Sir,
In reply to your letter No. 41537 of 25 May rg65, with regard to the
filing on the part of Respondent of the two documents referred to therein,
this is to 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 weil asto 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. GRoss.
96. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF 1OUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
r6 June 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honour to enclose herewith a further lisP of witnesses
proposed to be called on Respondent's behalf. Inasmuch as it has been
impossible to consult with ail prospective witnesses, I regret that 1 am
not at this stage in a position to furnish a final list.
In view of the fact that Applicants are now relying, in so far as their
Submissions Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, solely on the alleged existence
of a normand/or standards, ~ wish to bring the following to your atten
tion:
(a) It is considered that it will not be necessary to cali all the witnesses
whose names have been included in the original and supplementary
lists of witnesses which have already been filed with you. I shall in
due course notify you which witnesses will not be called.
(b) The testimony of ali the witnesses to be called will be directed
solely to the question whether a norm and/or standards such as
contended for by Applicants exist and are applicable to South West
Africa. One wit:ness wilJ also tesbfy with regard to the issues arising
under Applicants' Submission No. 6.
In addition to the witnesses who will give oral testimony it is intended
at a later stage to put in as evidence depositions of certain persans. This
will be done after consultation with the Agents of the Applicant States.
I have, etc.,
(Signol) R. McGREGOR.
• See VIII, p. 6r.
2See p. 583,infra. Surname First Namcs Description l'lace of Residence l'oints to which evidence will be rcquired
Charles Anthony B.A., B.C.L. (Oxon); Emeri tus l.ondon, Concerning a norm andjor standards such as
IVoodward Professor of International England contended for by Applicants relative ta South
Relations, London. School of \Vest Africa.
Economies, University of London.
Mcl:>:TYRE Claude Vincent Bushman Affairs Commissioner Tsumkwe, South -ditto-
in South \\'est Africa. \\'est Africa
LORD Arthur Frederick G.C.M.G.; Retired Governor of Cox Green, -{Îitto-
MIL VERTON Richards various British Colonies, Berkshire,
the last being Nigeria. England SOUTH WEST AFRIC:\
97· THE AGE!'{TFOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFIUCA TO THE DEPUTY
REGISTRAR
19 June 1965.
Dear Sir,
1 refer to my letter of the r6th instant and to the direction of the
Honourable President of the Court in the session of the r8th instant 1
that Respondent should indicate which of the prospective witnesses
whose names are included in the original and supplementary lists of
witnesses filed of record will, for reasons mentioned by Counsel for the
Respondent, no longer be called.
Although 1 am unable as this stage to give a complete list of aU the
prospective witnesses who will no longer be called to testify 1 can state
that the testimony of the following persans will not be necessary and
th at they will not be called to test ify:
W. Bretholz,
P.C. Lewis,
J. A. Oosthuysen,
J. A. Watt,
O. Wipplinger.
As intimated to the Court there are certain other persans 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 persans will be
addressed to you in due course.
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
98. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA A2D LIBERIA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
20 June 1965.
Sir,
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated r6 June
1965 in which you forwarded a copy of a letter of the same date, ad
dressed to the Deputy-Registrar by the Agent for the Government of
South Africain the South West A/rica cases.
The Applicants have deferred acknowledgement of receipt of the
foregoing correspondence pending further action on the part of Re
spondent in respect of presentation of evidence, in the expectation that
such further action might clarify Respondent's contemplated procedures
in compliance with the Statute and Rules of Court, as weil as with
1
2 See VIIIp. 57·
Ibid.,p.61. CORRESPONDENCE sss
the practice of the Court. More particularly, 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, Vm, p. 48, as weil as Articles 49
and 50, inter alia, of the Rules of Court.
During the course of the oral proceedings of 18 June 1965, Respondent
made a so-called "explanatmy introductory statement", purporting to
explain "what the broad pmposcs will be of the evidence to be led".
(X, p. 82.) On the same day, immediately following Respondent's
• comments, a witness was called, for the purpose of adducing evidence
directed toward broadly stated and ambiguously worded points.
The Applicants forebore from requesting leave to intervene, in order
that they might have an opportunity to read the verbatim 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 to a confusing oralstatement. TheApplicants
deem it necessary for the protection of their rights, fully reserved at the
time of the submission of the ir case (IX, p. 373), 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 are said to be "now relying", as well as
comments which purport also to re-formulate the Applicants' case and
to indicate that the testimony of ali witnesses "will be directed solely"
to the case so reformulated. Respondent's comments in these respects
appear to be argumentative, and inappropriate 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) to reserve full right to abject to the introduction of, orto comment
upon, any evidence directed to issues or points which are based
upon, or reftect, 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 considerations:
(a) in the Applicants' respectful submission, the procedures envisaged
by arder of the Court, announced 24 May 1965, consistently with
Article 49 of the Rules of Court, entitle the Applicants to due notice
ofthe witnesses or experts intended to be called, as well as clarity in
the scheme proposed to be followed by Respondent in the presen
tation of such witnesses and experts, and reasonable particularity,
made ciear in advance, so asto constitute due notice, concerning the
point or points to which the evidence of each witness or expert
will be directed;
(b) contrary 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 qualifiee! as witnesses and
experts to testify indistinguishably on undefmed fact and law
points;
(c) in addition to lack of due notice concerning the identity of witnesses
to be called, the lack of a comprehensible scheme concerning the
objective of their evidence, and lack of particularity concerning thesB6 SOUTH WEST l.FRJCA
point or points to which their testimony is to be directed, the course
pursued, or proposed, by Respondent would visit an unconscionable
burden of time and expense upon the Applicants. As is clear from
the course of the testimony led on r8 June 1965, the evidence sought
to be introduced is of the most doubtful relevance or materialitv and
cumulates material already embodied in voluminous written plead
ings.
4· In the course of its so-called "explanatory introductory statement" _
on r8 June 1965, Respondent made certain references to "activities in
the international bodies", indicating an intention to offer evidence of an
unspecified nature with regard thereto. (X, p. 84, inter alia.)
5· \Vith respect to ail the foregoing, the Applicants deem it necessary
to make general objection to all evidence sought to be adduced without
further clarity of scheme or particularity, as well as a general reservation
of their right to raise questions of relevance, materiality and/or propriety
of any such testimony, as weil as their rights under the Statute and
Rules of Court, including, but without limitation, Articles 49, 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 GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
21 June rg65.
Sir,
1 wish to confirm that Dr. Ernest van den Haag will testify tomorrow,
1
22 June 1965 .
In pursuance of the direction of the President in Court towards the
close of the session toda y 2 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 is a 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 phenomenon of prejudice, factors tending to
increase or decrease prejudice, and merits and demerits of separation or
attempted integration in particular circumstances. On the basis of such
researches and general principles recognized in his fields of study, he will
testify to the effect that a norm and/or standards of non-discrimination
or non-separation as contended for by Applicants are not applied in
1
2See X, pp. 130-r82 and 427-478.
Ibid.,p. 124. CORRESPONDENCE
sorne parts of the world and could, if attempted to be so applied, lead to
unfavourable resuits for the weil-being and progress of the peopies
concemed.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
IOO. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
29 June rg6s.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that after the Parties1have responded
to the questions put by the Court on 22 June 1965 , Respondent will
cali as a witness and expert Professor Johannes Petrus van Schalkwyk
Bruwer.
Professor Bruwer is a Professor of Social Anthropology at the Uni
versitv of Port Elizabeth, South Africa. His evidence will be relative to
the issue raised under Applicants' Submissions Nos. 3 and 4; viz.,
whether a norm and/or standards such as contended for by Applicants
exist and are applicable to South West Africa. The points to which his
evidence will be directed will be the following:
(r) the differences between the various population groups of South
West Africa, the consciousness of a separate identity amongst the
different groups, their wishes to maintain their separate identities;
and •
(z) what, in the opinion of the witness, the effects would be if all mea
sures of differentiation on the basis of membership in a population
group were to be done away with in South West Africa.
Yours faithfully,
(Sz'gned) R. McGREGOR.
lOI, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVER~MENTS OF ETHWPIA AND LIBERIA TO
THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
30 June 1965.
Sir,
Further to my letter to you of 28 May rg65 and to your acknow
ledgement thereof, dated r June 1965, enciosed herewith is a Mem
orandum 2 of today's date, by which Applicants exercise their right to
1
2 See X, pp.238-335.
See Part Ill,p.461, supra.sss SOUTH WEST AFRICA
comment upon the documents produced by Respondent on 24 1\'lay
1965 and referred to in your letter of 25 May 1965. Attached to such
Memorandum are certain Annexes, identified therein and incorporated
thereby, which consist of documents which may be of assistance to the
Court or otherwise relevant, in terms of Article 48 of the Rules of Court,
equally as referred to in the aforementioned correspondence.
Respectfull y yours,
(Signed) Ernest A. GROSS.
102. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNME~T OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENT
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETH JO PIA AND LIBERIA
6 July 1965.
Dear Sir,
The witness and expert following on Professor Logan will be Mr.
P. J. Cillie1, whose evidence will also relate to issues arising under
Applicants' Submissions 3 and 4· Mr. Cillie is a South African Journalist
of JO years' standing and Editor of Die Burger for the last II years.
Die Burger supports the policies of the present Govemment 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 political observer and analyst Mr. Cillie will testify
on the political aspects and implications of the policies of differentiation
applied in South Africa and South West Africa, and of possible alter
natives thereto, with special regard to the feasibility or otherwise of
'application in practice of a suggested norm andfor standards of a content
as contended for by Applicants.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. ~lcGREGOR.
IOJ. THE AGE:-JT FOR THE GOVERNME~T OF SOUTH AFRICA TO
THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
JO July rg6s.
Sir,
1 have the honour 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
2
names appear on the lists already furnished save the following :
1 See X, pp.sos-ss8.
z See Xl,p. r1 1. CORRESPO~DE~CE
589
1. K. Dahlmann 6. S. LA. Marshall
2. J.S. Gericke 7· LA. Pepier
3· E. P. Groenewald 1 8. S. T. Possony
4· D. C. Krogh 9· C. H. Rautenbach
5. C. A. W. Manning ro. H. J Van ZyL
Particulars of the said witm$ses and the points to which their evidence
will be directed are set out in the annexures hereto.
1have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
Name: DAHLMA~N.
First Name: Kurt.
Description :
Joumalist: Edi tor Allgemeine Zeitung, Windhoek.
Special field of knowledge: Political trends and political parties in South
\Vest 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 as expert.
Points to which his evidence wlll bedirected:
(r) 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 Names: Jacobus Stephanus.
Academie Qualifications: B.A., B.D.
Present occupation : Minister of the Dutch Reformed Church of South
Africa.
Other offices, etc.: Vice-Chairman of the Synod of the Dutch Reformed
Church of South Africa; Chairman of the Christian Students Associa
tion ofSouth Africa; Vice-Chairman of the General Mission Commis
sion of the Duteh Reformcd Church; Vice-Chancellor of the Univer
sity of Stellenbosch; 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 Applicants' Submis
sions Nos. 3 and 4, and will bt! directed to the following matters:
Considerations underlying the development in the Dutch Reformed
Church of a system of separate churches for Coloured and Bantu
members.
The advantages of such development for Coloured and Bantu members
and the communities to which they belong.
The significance of the Church's experience of different population
groups for the State in its administration of a heterogeneous popula
tion.
1 See XI,p.67. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
590
The Church's concern with the social, political and economie life and
circumstances of the various population groups and their members,
and with the formation and implementation of State policy in these
fields.
Name: GROENEWALD.
First Names: Evert Philippus.
Academie Qualifications: B.A., B.D., Ph.D.
Occupation: Professor of New Testament Theology, and Dean of the
Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Minister of
the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa.
Place of residence: Pretoria, South Africa.
As to the points to which this witness's evidence will be directed
please see the particulars specified in the case of witness Gericke.
Name: KROGH.
First Names: Desmond Charles.
Description :
Academie Qualifications: B.Com., University of Cape Town; l\LA., Uni
versity of Cape Town; Doctoral in Economies, University of Amster
dam; Dr. of Philosophy, University of Pretoria.
Present position: Professor of Economies: Head of the Department of
Economies, University of South Africa.
Special field of study: Economie accounting and development.
Place of Residence: Pretoria, South Africa.
Evidence will relate to the issues raised under Applicants' Submis
sions Nos. 3 and 4: both as witness and as expert.
Points to which his evidence will bedirected:
(r) Circumstances and conditions in South West Africa which materially
influence and affect economie development of the territory.
(z) The necessity of applying measures of differentiation between the
varions population groups in South West Africa in the economie
devclopment of the Territory.
Name: MANNIXG.
First Names: Charles Anthony Woodward.
Description:
Academie achievements: B.A. (Oxon) Greats 1920; B.A. (Oxon) Jmis
prudence 1921; B.C.L. 1922.
Career: Barris ter Middle Temple 1922; Persona! Assistant to Secretary
General of the League of Nations, 1922; Tutor Zimmern School of
International Studies, Geneva, 1925, and subsequent summers; Pro- CORRESPONDE:\ CE 591
fessor of InternationalLaw and Diplomacy, Oxford, 1927; Emeritus
professor of InternationaRelations, University of London, 1930-1962.
Place of Residence: London, England.
Evidence concerns the issues raised under Applicants' Submissions
Nos. 3 and 4· Witness and expert.
Points to wMch evt"dencewill be dùected:
Professor Manning's evidence will be directed to the fo!lowing points:
(1) Group relations generally.
(2) The advisability of applying measures of differentiation between
population groups in countries such as South West Africa.
Name: MARSHALL.
First Names: (Brigadier-General} Samuel Lyman Atwood.
Academie Qualifications: L.H. D., Wayne State University; LL.D.,
St. Bonaventure University.
Description: Military critic, editorial writer and author.
Place of residence: Birmingham, 1\Iichigan, U.S.A.
Experience: Major, Brig.-General, U.S. Army, 1942-1952; Chief orienta
tion, U.S. Army, 1948; Chief historian, U.S. Army, in various theatres;
1fember Armv Rist. Adv. Comm., Armv Public Relations Comm.,
.Michigan Civil Defence Comm.; Author of a number of books dealing
with military matters; official military texts and manuals; military
contributor to Am. Coll. Dictionary, Crowell-Collier Encyclopaedia
Brit.
Points to which evidence wilbt directed :
Whether the facilities in South West Africa which are described by
Applicants as military bases, can be regarded as such.
Name: PEPLER.
First Names: Louis Andreas.
Description :
Academie qualifications: B.Sc. (Agriculture) University of Pretoria.
Present position: Director of Bantu Development in South Africa.
Formerly: Senior lecturer in Farm Management of the Glen and Pot-
chefstroom Colleges of Agriculture (1933-1941); Superintendcnt of
Orange I~iv rrigation Schemes at Upington and at the Loskop
Irrigation Scheme (1942-1949); Chief Professional Offi.cerin Charge of
agricultural planning and development of Bantu Homelands (1950-
1956); Director of Bantu Agriculture (rg56-rg6r).
Place of Residence: Pretoria.
Points to which evidence will be directed:
His evidence will relate to the issues raised under Applicants' Submis
sions Nos. 3 and 4· \Vitness and expert.
His evidence will be directed to the following points:
(1) The different agro-economic regions of South West Africa.592 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
(2) Schemes and methods applied in the promotion of economie
development of the said regions particularly in the field of agri
culture.
(3) The reasons for differentiai treatment (in the economie develop
ment) of the areas occupied by different population groups.
Name: PossoxY.
First Names: Stefan Thomas.
Description:
Academie Qualifications: Ph.D. LL.D. (Hon.). principal subjects of
study being psychology, philosophy and sociology (major) and eth
nology (minor).
Fields of Research and Teaching: International Relations, Sociology,
Modern History, Comparative Constitutions, Economies.
Previous Positions Occupied: Special advisor to U.S. Air Force and con
sultant to other United States govemmental and congressional agencies,
including the White House, in spheres of policy sciences, including the
handling of natural science data for the purpose of policy formulation;
Carnegie Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, N.] .;
Professor of International Politics, Gradua te School, Georgetown Uni
versity; Associate of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Uni
versity of Pennsylvania: Visiting Professor, University of Cologne.
Present Position: Direct or of International Political Studies Program,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University, California.
Publications: Co-author of Text-book on International Relations (two
editions) and author of severa! historical works.
Place o.fResidence: Los Altos, California, U.S.A.
Points to which evidmce will be directed :
Will be directed to the issues arising under Applicants' Submissions 3
and 4, more particularly towards showing, on the basis of scientific and
empirical knowledge regarding group relations in various parts of the
world-
(a) the absence of a general practice of a suggested norm andjor
standards of "non-discrimination and non-separation" as relied
upon by Applicants,
(b) that the attempted application of such a suggested norm andjor
standards would in many instances have an adverse effect on the
well-being and progress of the persans concerned, and
(c) that on the basis of the facts concerning South West Africa as on
record from other evidential sources, the Territorv falls within the
instances mentioned in (b). •
Name: RAUTENBACH.
First Names: Casper Hendrik.
Description: B.A., B.D., M.A., D.Phil., D.U. (h.c.) (Montreal), Rector
(Principal) of the University of Pretoria, Republic of South Africa; CORRESPONDENCE 593
l\Iember of the Council of the University of South Africa; Chairman of
the Council of the Ban tu Collegc of the North; Member of National
Council for Social Research and Chairman of its General Purposes
Committee; Chairman of National Advisory Council on Education.
Place of Residence: Pretoria, H.epublic of South Africa.
1ssues in regard to which evide11ceis tendered:
The issues arising from Applicants' Subrnissions 3 and 4, as to which
Prof. Rautenbach will speak both as witness and as expert.
Points to wMch evidence will bedirected:
The basic considerations regarding separate development, partic
ularly in the sphere of higher education, and the consequences of apply~
ing a policy involving an absence of separation in the said sphere. A
comparison between policies regarding higher education in South Africa
and recent trends elsewhere in Africa.
Name: VAN ZYL.
First Names: Hendrik Johann.
Description: Ph.D. (Ethnology}. Deputy Secretary, Department of
Bantu Education, Pretoria; Chairm·an of the 1958 Commission of
Enquiry into Bantu and Coloured Education in South West Africa.
Place of Residence: Pretoria, Republic of South Africa.
1ssues 1'nregard to which evidence is tendered:
The issues arising from Applicants' Submissions 3 and 4, as to which
Dr. Van Zyl will speak both as witness and as expert.
Points to which evidence will be directed:
Considerations underlying differentiai education for the various pop
ulation groups in South Africa and South West Africa. The basic prin~
ciples of the l3antu Education System, its application and effects. The
probable consequences of doing away with differentiai measures in the
education al field.
104. THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF LIBERIA TO THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
Sir,
1have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Edward R. i\1.oore
has been appointed an Agent by and on behalf of the Government of the
Republic of Liberia in the South West A/rica cases.
His Excellency Mr. Nathan Barnes and the Honourable Ernest A.
Gross remain, as heretofore, Agents of the Government of Liberia in these
cases.
Very truly yours,
(Signed} J. Rudolph GRIMES.594 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
105. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
rS September 1965.
Sirs,
The first witness and expert to be called by Respondent in the South
West A/rica cases when the hearing of these cases is resumed on the
2oth instant, will be the Reverend J. S. Gericke 1.
Particulars of thi;; witness and the points to which his evidence will be
directed, were set out in the relative annexure to my letter of 30 July
last to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted
to you, but for the sake of convenience 1 repeat them hereunder:
[See No. IOJ, p. 589, supra.]
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. 1\IcGREGOR.
106. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
20 September rg6s.
Sir,
1have the honour to inform you that Dr. J. P. verLoren van Themaat,
S.C., one of the Agents of Respondent in the South West A/rica cases bas,
because of ill-health, returned to South Africa. He nevertheless remains
an Agent but Mr. R. F. Botha of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Advocate of the Supreme Court of South Africa who up to now bas been
one of Respondent's Advisers, bas been appointed an Agent also.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) R. l\IcGREGOR.
IOJ. THE AGENT FOH THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
20 September rg6s.
Sirs,
I have to inform you that the next witness and expert to be called by
Respondent in the South West A/rica cases after the Reverend J. S.
1
See XI, pp. 3-67. CORRESPONDENCE 595
Gericke-vide my letter of the I8th instant-will be Professor D. C.
1
Krogh •
Particulars of this witness and points to which his evidence will be
directed, were set out in the relative annexure to my letter of 30 July
last to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted
to you, but for the sake of convenience I repeat them hereunder:
[See No. IOJ, p.590, supra.)
Professor Krogh will, during his testimony, refer to The Strategy of
Economie Development by A. O. Hirschman (New Haven: Yale University
Press, rg6o). Thjs book appears in the List ofDocumentation in Volume II
of Respondent's Rejoinder (VI, p. 466).
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
108. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
22 September rg65.
Sirs,
l\1r. L. A. Pepier 2will be the next witness and expert to be called by
Respondent in the South West A/rica cases after Professor Krogh, who
is referred to in my letter of the 2oth instant, completes his testimony.
Particulars of Mr. Pepier and points to which his evidence will be
directed, were set out in the relative annexure to my letter of 30 july
last to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted
to you, but for the sake of convenience I repeat them hereunder:
[See No. IOJ, p. S9I, supra.]
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
109, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE
DEPUTY- REGISTRAR
28 September 1965.
Sir,
I have the honour to enclose a copy of the notes of Professor D. C.
Krogh concerning the occupational distribution of Natives in South West
3
Africa, rg6o which was referred to in evidence today.
(Signed) R. F. BoTHA.
2 See XI, pp.67-206.
3 See Ibid., pp. 206-2r.
See Xl, p.191. SOUTH WEST AFRICA
SouTH WEsT AFRICA: OccuPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIO:-< OF NATIVES, rg6o
Occupation Number
A. Workers other than labourers
r. Professional and technical
(a) Medical service . . zo8
(b) Teacher. instructor. 883
(c) Religious service. 222
(d) Other ..... . 35
1,348
2. Administrative and managerial
(a) Headman, Induna . 98
(b) Manager . . . . . ... ____f
qo
3· Clerical, sales and related work
(a) Clerk...... .
(b) Shop assistant .. .
(c) Working proprietor
(d) Other ..... .
4· Craftsman, production worker
(a) Textile, Ieather worker . IOJ
(b) Metal worker . . . . g8
(c) Carpenter, joiner ... 124
(d) Painter. . . . . . . . I2I
(e) Bricklayer, plasterer . . . . . 698
(/) Potter, brick and clay worker . 143
(g) Food worker ....... . rs6
(h) Packer, labelier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
(i) Stationary engine, other equipment operator . 67
(j) Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
433
2,040
s. Worker in transport and communication
18
(a) Ships crew .
(b) Driver (road) 577
(c} Messenger . 437
(d) Other ... 6
1,038
6. Service, sport attd recreation u10rker
(a) Policeman ........ . 307
(b) Other protective worker . . . 190
(c) Caretaker, cleaner . . . . . . 576
(d) Domestic service and laundrywoman . 13,219
(e) Other persona! service . . . 287
(/) Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rS
14,597 CORRESPONDENCE
597
Occupation Number
7. Other skilled or semi-skilled worker
(a) Hunter ..... . 237
(b) Fisherman . . . . 8go
(c} Lumberman ss
(d) Miner, quarryman . ..__§
1,249
Sub-total A (r-7) 21,230
B. Labourers (incl. "U nspeci/itd ")
r. Farm labourer 68,400
2. Other labourer 30,539
3· Unspecified . 6.678
Sub-total B (r-3) ros,6r7
C. Farmer, farm manager . .. 40.497
D. Total economically active population (A-C) !67.344
Source: Information obtained from the Bureau of Statistics.
110. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVER~!IŒNTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
28 September rg65.
Sirs,
The next witness and expert to be called by Respondent in the South
West Africa cases after Mr. L. A. Pepier concludes his evidence, will be
Dr. H. J. Van ZyP.
Particu]ars of Dr. Van Zyl and points to which his evidence will be
directed, were set out in the relative annexure to my letter of 30 July
last to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted
to you, but for the sake of convenience I repeat them hereunder:
[See No. IO], p. 593, supra.}
For your information 1 may add that Dr. Van Zyl will not deal with
education at the University level. University education will be dealt with
by Professor Rautenbach.
Dr. Van Zyl will, in the course of his testimony, refer to an article by
Professor K. Ampon Darkwa, entitled "Education for cultural integrity:
the Ghanaian Case", in New Era, March 1965, Vol. 46, No. 3, at p. 6g, and
to the test conducted in the Philippines which is recorded in Unesco
Education Abstracts, April-i\Iay rgsS-Vol. X-Nos. 4-5, pp. 43·44·
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
1 See Xl,pp. 251-326.598 SOUTH WEST AFRICA
III. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERSMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS'
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
30 September rg65.
Sirs,
After Dr. I-L ]. Van Zyl completes his evidence the next witness and
expert to be called by Respondcnt in the South West A/rica cases will be
Professor C. H. Rautenbach 1•
Particulars of Professor Rautenbach and points to which his evidence
will be directed are as follows:
{See No. IOJ, p. sr;2,supra.]
Points to which evidence will be directed:
He will testify on higher education, and the consequences of applying
a policy involving an absence of separation in the said sphere. He will
also make a comparison between policies regarding higher education in
South Africa and recent trends elsewhere.
Professor Rautenbach will, in the course of his testimony, refer to
Statfing African Universities by A. M. Carr-Saunders (A Development
Pamphlet published by the Overseas Development Institute, London); a
report of a United Nations conference at Geneva on the Application of
Science and Technology in developing countries, appearing in Universiteit
en Hogeschool,Nr. 5, April 1963 (Kemink en Zoon N.V., Utrecht); and an
extract from an address entitled "The Diversity of Universities", by Sir
Eric Ashby at the roth Conference of Associations of the Universities of
the Commonwealth on rs July rg63, appearing in the Tydskrif vir
Rass-Aangeleenthede o~ ]aciat r!fais, No. r, Vol. r6, January
rg6s (Sabra, Pretoria).
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. 11cGREGOR.
112, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
2 October rg65.
Sirs,
The witness and expert who will follow after Professo2 C. H. Rauten
bach completes his evidence, will be Mr. K. Dahlmann •
Particulars of Mr. Dahlmann and points to which his evidence will be
directed are as follows:
[See No. IOJ, p. sBg, supra.]
Points to which his evidence will be directed:
(r) The nature, programmes and activities of, and the extent of support
for non-White political parties in South West Africa.
1See XI,pp. 326-455.
2Ibid., pp. 455-574- CORRESPONDE:-;'CE 599
(z) The relations between such parties.
(3) Circumstances and conditions which materially influence political
developments amongst the non-White inhabitants in the Territory.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
llj. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVER:-lliiENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERN11ŒNTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
4 October rg65.
Sirs,
Further to my lctter of the znd instant, 1 have to inform you that
Mr. Dahlmann will, in the course of his testimony, refer, in addition to
documents already before the Court, to the following documents:
Press Statement by Moses K. Katjiuongua, SWANU representative in
Dar-es-Salaam, dated 10 September rg64.
U.N. Doc. AJAC. IogjPet. 371/Add. 4. 14 September rg65. Petition
from 1\l.burumba Kerina, Party Chairman, NUDO, to the Chairman,
United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism.
U.N. Doc AJAC. Iog{Pet. 368. 13 April rg65, Petition from Chief
H. S. Witbooi and Mr. ]. D. Gertze, President, South West Africa
United National Independence Organisation (SWAUNIO), concern
ing South West Africa.
Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the occurrences in the Wind
hoek location on the night of ro to II Decembcr 1959, and into the
direct causes which led to those occurrences. (U.G. 23-'6o.).
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
114. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNME:NTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
9 October 1965.
Sirs,
I have to inform you that General S. L. A. Marshall 1will be the next
witness and expert to be called by Respondent after Mr. K. Dahlmann
completes his testimony.
Particulars of General 1\Iarshall and points to which his evidence will
1 Sec Xl, PP· 574-599·6oo SOUTH WEST AFRICA
be directed are set out in the relative annexure to my letter of 30 J uly last
to the Deputy-Registrar of the Court, copy of which he transmitted to
you, but for the sake of convenience I repeat them hereunder.
[See No. IOJ, p. 59I, supra.]
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
115. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERXMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMEXTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
II October rg6s.
Sir,
After General Marshall completes his testimony the next witness a1d
expert to be called by Respondent will be Prof. C.A. W. M.anning •
Particulars of Professor Manning and points to which his evidence
will be directed are as follows:
[See No. IOJ, p. 590, supra.]
Points to which evidence will be directed:
On the basis of Professor Manning's studies and reflections in the
sphere of International Relations, he will testify as to the importance
of the sociological phenomenon of group personality, particularly in the
case of ethnie and tribal groups, and particularly in relation to promo
tion of such groups and their members.
He will illustrate 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, Belgium,
the United Kingdom, and South Africa. Against this background he
will consider the effects of the application of a suggested rule of non
differentiation in South West Africa.
In the course of his testimony Professor Manning will refer to the
following publications which are not yet on record:
A Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and
Biculturalism
The London Times of 25 September 1965.
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
1 See Xl,pp. 599-642. CORRESPONDE:NCE
6or
116. THE AGE~T FOR THE GOVERNME:-<T OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGE:-<TS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
I4 October rg65.
Sirs,
1 have to inform you that l~esponde nst w itness and expert will
be Professor S. T. Possony 1.He will be called after Professor Manning.
Particulars of Professor Possony and points to which his evidence
will be directed are as follows:
[See No. IOJ,p. 592, supra.]
The list of documents to which Professor Possony will refer in the
course of his testimony, cannot as yet be completed and will be furnished
as soon as possible.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
IIJ. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE AGENTS
FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND LIBERIA
r6 October 1965.
Sirs,
With reference to my letter of the 14th instant, 1 enclose herewith a
list ofthe documents to which Professor Possony will refer in the course
of his testimony.
You will recall that in our conference with the President yesterday
we intimated that Professor Possony's evidence may not cover the total
field indicated in our letter under referenceIcan now inform you that his
testimony will not be directed to the matter set out in paragraph (c} of
the points mentioned in the penultimate paragraph of my letter under
reference.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed} R. 1\ICGREGOR.
Inter-Parliamentary Union, Constitutional and Parliamentary Infor
mation, rgsz. 1953, 1954, 1960, 1956, 1958, 1959,rg6z, rg63, and rg64,
3rd Series-No. 59·
Peaslee, A. J., Constitutions of Nations, Vol. l-Ill.
Jhabvala, Noshirvan H., Mohammedan Law (N. M. Tripathi Ltd.,
Bombay).
Khalil, l\I., The Arab States and the Arab League, Vol. I (Constable & Co.
Ltd.).
1 See Xl,pp. 643-yoS.6oz SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Freudenheim, Yehoshua, Die Staatsordnung Israels (C. H. Beck'sche
Verlagsbundhandlung).
Immutabilité du droit musulman et réformeslégislatives en Egypte (1955,
Agen, Imprimerie moderne}.
The Future of Law in Africa, Record of Proccedings-of the London
Conference 28 Dec. 1959-8 Jan. 1g6o (Butterworth & Co.}.
N. Nigeria Penal Code, Cap. 8g.
Anderson, J.N .D. I stamic Law inA/rica (H. M.StationeryOffice,London}.
La suppression des juridic#ons de statut personnel en Egypte (1956,
Agen, Imprimerie moderne).
Colomer, A., Le Code du statut personnel marocain (Imprimerie Charry,
Alger).
Schacht, J., An Introduction to Islamic Law (Clarendon Press, Oxford).
Brunsching, R. and Schacht, J.,Studia Islamica (Larose, Paris).
Anderson, J. N. D., Islamic Law in the Modern World (New York Uni-
versity Press) .
Tyan, E., Notes sommaires sur le nouveau régimesuccessoral au Liban,
Annales de la Faculté de droit et des sciences économiques (Paris,
rg6o}.
Fyzee, A. A. A., Outlines of Muhammadan Law (3rd ed., 1964, Geoffrey
CumberJege, Oxford).
Juynboll, Th. W., Handleiding tot de kennis van De Mohammedaansche
Wet (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1930).
Brugman J., De Betekenis van het Mohammedaanse Recht in het Heden
daagsche Egypte (N.V. De Ned. Boek- en Steendrukkerij vfh H. L.
Smits, 's-Gravenhage).
Konvitz, M. R., "Liberia", published in Judicial and Legal Systems in
A/rt"ca,edited by A. N. Allott.
Liberian Code of Laws of rgs6, Vols. I-III.
Sierra Leone (Law on Protectorate Land, Cap. 122) Code.
Nigeria, Land Tenure Law, 1962, of Northern Nigeria (N.N. No. 25 of
1962).
Rubin, L. and Murray, P., The Constitution and Government of Ghana
(Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.).
Lecture by William L. Twining, "The Place of Customary Law in the
National Legal Systems of East Africa", delivered at Univ. of Chicago
Law School in 1963.
Record of Proceedings of the London Conference, 28 Dec. 1959-8 Jan. 1960,
"The Future of Law in Africa".
Nigeria, Native Courts Law, 1956 (N.R.); Customary Courts Law, 1956
(E.R.).
Krzeczunowicz, G., "The Ethiopian Civil Code: Its Usefulness, Relation
to Custom and Applicability", appearing in the journal of African Law
(Official Organ of the InternationalAfrican Law Association) Autumn
1963, Vol. 7, No. 3-
Allott, A. N., "Towards the Unification of Laws in Africa" (Reprinted
from The International and Comparative Law Quarter/y-April 1965). CORRESPONDENCE 603
Manual of Election Law, Govt. of India (Delhi, 1951).
Kewenig, W., Die Koexistenz der Religionsgemeinschaften im Libanon
(Walter De Gruyter & Co., Berlin, rg65).
Elias, T. 0., Ghana and Sierra Leone: The Development of their Laws and
Constitutions (Stevens & Sons Ltd.).
Sierra Leone Interpretation Act, rg65 (No. 7 of rg65).
The Swedish Institute for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries,
Israel Ruong, The Lapps in Sweden, rg62.
Constitution ofthe United 1lfexican States I9I7 (Washington D.C., 1964).
Rackman, Emanuel, Israel's Emerging Constitution I948-I95I (Columbia
University Press).
N.Y. Herald Tribune, Paris ed., 29 Sep. rg65, and 13 Oct. 1965.
Scientific American, Aug. 1965.
Agriculture in Africa, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C., rg65.
Marriage laws of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West
Virginia.
Kenya Immigration and Deportation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act,
rg6+
Tanganyika Immigration Act, 1963 (No. 41 of 1963).
Sierra Leone Constitution Amendment (No. z) Act, 1962 (No. 12 of
1962). .
Sierra Leone, Land Development (Protection) Act, rg62 (No. 6r of rg6z).
Sierra Leone, The Non-Citizens (Restriction of Retail Trade) Act, rg65
(No. 9 of rg65).
Bauer, P. T., West African Trade (Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Dharam, P. Ghai and Yash P. Ghai, "Asians in East Africa: Problems
and Prospects", The Journal of Modern African Studies, 3, 1 (rg65).
U.N. Bulletin, Vol. XIII, No. 5, r Sep. 1952.
U.N. Yearbook on Human Rights, 1948, 1950, 1955 and rg6r.
U.N. Yearbook, 1948{49. 1950, rg6o, rg62, 1963.
Yearbook on Human Relations, rg6r.
Ecosoc, EjCN-4{873, E{CN.4{Sub.2/241 of II Feb. 1964 and Annex
thereto.
Inter-Parliamentary Union, Constitutional and Parliamentary infor
mation, 3rd Series, No. ro, r April 1952.
Resumémensuel des travaux de la Société des Nations, Vol. ro, No. 7, July
1930.
Ecosoc, EjCN.4{Sub.2/6, 7 Nov. 1947·
League of Nations, OfficialJournal, August 1922.
Tunisian Law of 28 Feb. 1963.
Park, A. E. W., The Sources of Nigerian Law (Law in Africa-No. 6)
(African University Press-Sweet and Maxwell).
Schacht, J., Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Clarendon Press,
Oxford). SOUTH WEST AFRICA
Reprint of the Statutes of New Zealand, rgoS-1957·
Pagener, H., Das Staatsangehoerigheitsrecht des Staates Israel (Alfred
Metzner Verlag, Frankfurt, 1954).
Foreign Affairs, April rg6s.
Anderson, J. N. D. ,1nternational and Comparative Law Quarter/y, Vol. 12,
July rg63.
Anderson, J. N. D., Bulletin of the School of Oriental and A/rican Studies,
University of London, Vol. 17, rgss.
II8. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO
THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR
21 October rg6s.
Sir,
1 have the honour to refer to your letter of 2 July rg65, under cover
of which you forwarded to me a copy of a letter dated 30 June rg65,
from the Agent for the Applicants together with a memorandum and
supporting documents. Inasmuch as Respondent wishes to deal with the
matters raised by Applicants in the said memorandum, I enclose here
with 30 copies of a memorandum by Respondent in reply 1• 1t is intended
that counsel for Respondent, in the course of argument, will explain
the relevance of the said memorandum.
1 also 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.N. documents which will be dealt with by counsel in the
2
course of further argument •
1 have, etc.,
(Signed) R. McGREGOR.
ng. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
ETHIOPIA 3
Sir,
1 have the honour to inform you that the Court will hold a public
sitting in the South West A/rica cases at 3 p.m. on Monday, 29 November
in order to give its decision on the request for an inspection in loco 4•
I have, etc.,
1 See Part III, p. 491.
2 Not reproduced. See also X, pp. 77 and 84 and Xl, p. 456.
3 The same communication was sent ta the Agents for the Governments of
Liberia and South Africa.
• l.C.J. Reports !965. p3· CORRESPONDE~CE 6os
120. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTH AFRICA TO THE DEPUTY
lŒGISTRAR
28 March 1966.
Sir,
It is my sad duty to infonn you that Professor J. P. verLoren van
Themaat, one of the Agents of the Government of the Republic of South
Africain the South West Africa cases, died at Pretoria on 27 March Ig66.
I have, etc.,
(Signed) R. F. BOTHA.
121. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ETHIOPIA 1
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 Peace Palace, The Hague, on r8 July rg66, at 3 p.m., for
the delivery of the Judgment in the South West A/rica cases (Ethiopia v.
South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa)2.
I have, etc.,
122. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
D'AFGHANISTAN 3
1er septembre rg66.
Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de trans·
mettre, sous ce pli, un exemplaire de l'arrêtrendu par la Cour le r8 juillet
rg66 dans les affaires du Sud-Ouest africain (Ethiopie c. Afrique du Sud;
Libéria c. Afrique du Sud) (deuxième phase).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiés ultérieurement par la voie
ordinaire.
1The same communication was sent to the Agents for the Governments of
Liberia and South Africa.
2 I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.
3 La même communication a étéadressée à tous les autres Etats Membres des
Nations Unies et uux Etats non membres des Nations Unies qui sont parties au
Statut de la Cour ou auxquels la Cour est ouverte aux termes de l'art. 35, par2,
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 Doezastraat, Leyden (Netherlands). For information regarding the sale of the
Court's publications please write to the Distribution and Sales Section, Office of
the United Nations, 1211 Geneva JO (Switzerland), or the Sales Section, United
Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017 (U.S.A.).
The publications of the PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL
JUSTICE (1920-1946) are obtainable from Kraus Reprint Ltd., 9491 Nendeln,
Liechtenstein, to which ali requests should be addressed.
On peut se procurer les publications de la COUR INTERNATIONALE DE
JUSTICE auprès des librairies spécialiséesdu monde entier et auprès de la société
d'éditions A.W. Sijthoff, 1 Doezastraat, Leyde (Pays-Bas). Pour tous renseigne-
ments, prière de s'adresseà la Section de la distribution et des ventes, Office des
Nations Unies, 12ll GenèveJO (Suisse) ou à ]a Section des ventes, NatioTISUnies,
New York, N.Y. 10017 (Etats-Unis).
On peut se procurer les publications de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONALE (1920-1946) auprès de Kraus Reprint Ltd., 9491 Nendeln,
Liechtenstein.our tous renseignements, prière de s'adresser à cette société.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
Correspondence