South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa) - The Government of Ethiopia files an Application instituting proceedings against the Union of South Africa

I.C.J.

The folloming information from the Registry of the International
Court of Justice is communicated to the Press:

On 4 November 1960 Applications were filed in the Registry of the
Court on behalf of the Government of Ethiopia and on behalf of the
Government of Liberia instituting separate proceedings before the Court
against the Union of South Africs.

In both Applications, the subject of the dispute is stated to be the
continued existence of the Mandate for South West Africa and the duties
and performance of the Union, as Madatory, thereunder. The Applications

refer to Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations,
and found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 7 of the Mandate for
German South West Africa made at Geneva on 17 Decenber 1920, and on
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court.

Both Applications, after reciting the circwnstances in which a Mandate
for the former German protectorate of South West Africa vias conferred upon
Ris Britannic RIajesty to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of
the Union of South Africa, set forth the duties which, it is contended,
thereupon devolved upon the I,!imdotory. The Applicants allege that the
Union, acting through officia1 bodies created by it to administer the
Territory, has violated, and continues to violate, Article 2 of the
Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, by

failing to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and
social progress of the inhabitants; by distinguishing as to race, colour,
national and tribal origin in establishing the rights and duties of the
peoples of the Territory by the practice of apartheid; by legislation
which is arbitrary, unreasonablc, unjust, ad detrimental to human
dignity; by the suppression of rights and liberties of the inhabitants
essential to their orderly evolution towards self-government.

The Applicants further allege that the Union has violated, and
continues to violate, Article 6 of the Mandate by its failure to render
to the General Assembly of the United Nations annual reports with regard
to the Territoryg and Article 2 of the 1:Iandate and Article 22 of the
Covenant, by the exercise of pomers of administration and legislation

inconsistent mith the international status of the Territory and in
violation of its duty to exercise an international function of
administration on behalf of the United Nations; that the Union has
violated, and continues to violate, the League of Nations rules by
refusing to trcmsmit petitions to the General Assembly of the United
Nations, md Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant
by preventing residents of the Territory from appearing before United
Nations bodies. It is contended that the Union has thereby substmtially
modified the terms of the Mandate mithout the consent of the United
Nations.

The Applications respectively state that a dispute exists and has
existed for more than ten years betaeen the Bpplicants and the Union
regarding the
interpretation =and application of the Mandate.

The Applications seek declarations by the Court in accordance with
their allegations .

The Hague, 5 November 1960