Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATESOF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF
SOUTHAFRICA IN NAMIBIA(SOUTH-WEST AFRICAN ) OTWITHSTANDING SE-
CURITY COUNCIL RESO1,UTION 276 (1970)
AtlvisoryOpinionof21June1971
Initsadvisory opinion onquestionputbytheSecurity CourseoftheProceedings
Councilof the UnitedNations, "What are the legalconse-paras. 1-18oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
quencesfor Statesofthe continuedpres!f SouthAfrica The Court firstrecalls that the request for the advisory
inNamibia notwithstandiSecurityCouncilresolution276 opinionemanatedfromtheUnited NationsSecurityCouncil,
(1970)?",the Courtwasofopinion, whichdecided tosubmit itbyresolution 284(1970)adopted
by 13votesto2, on29 July 1970.heCourtgoesontorecapitulatethediffer-
(1) that, the continued presenceofouth Africa in entstepsintheubsequentproceedings.
Namibia beingillegal, South Africa isunclerobligationtoIt refers in particularto theMeers of 26 January
withdrawits administration from Namibia immediately a1971wherebythe Courtdecidednot to accede the objec-
thusputanend toitsoccupationoftheemtory; tions raisedby the Governmentof South Africa against the
by 11votesto4, participationin the proceedingsofe Meembersof the
(2) that StatesMembersoftheUnitedNationareunder Court. Theseobjectiionswbased onstatementswhichthe
obligationto recognizethe illegalityof SouthAfrica's Judgesin questionramade ina former capacity as repre-
enceinNamibiaandtheinvalidityof itsactsonbehalfof or sentativesof their (3ovemmentsin United Nationsorgans
concerningNamibia,andtorefrainfPomanyactsandinpar- dealingwith mattersconcerningNamibia,orontheirpartici-
ticularany dealingswith the Governmentof SouthAfrica pationinthesamecapacityintheworkofthoseorgans.The
implyingrecognitioofthelegalityof,lendingsupportor Court cameto the conclusion thatnone of the threecases
assistanceto, suchpresence andadministration; calledfor the applicationof Article 17, paragraph2, of its
(3) that itis incumbentuponStateswhichnotMem- Statute.
bers of the United Nationsto give assistance,within the
scope of subparagraph(2) above, in theion whichhas ObjectionsagainsttheCourt's DealingwiththeQuestion
beentakenbytheUnitedNationswithregartitoNamibia. (paras. 19-41oftheAdvisoryOpinion)
TheGovernmentofSouthAfricacontendedthattheCourt
wasnot com tentto deliver the opinion,becauseSecurity
Councilresoution 284(1970)wasinvalidforthe following
reasons:(a) two :permanent membersof the Council
abstainedduring thevoting(Charterof the UnitedNations,
Fortheseproceedings theCourtwascomposedasfollows: Art.27, para. 3); (b) as the questionrelated to a dispute
President Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan; Vice-President between South Africa and other Members of the United
Ammoun;Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice,Padilla Nervo, Nations,SouthAfricashouldhavebeeninvitedtoparticipate
Forster,Gros, Bengzon,etdn, Lachs,Onyeama,Dillard, inthediscussion(Ch~arA,rt32)andtheprovisorequiring
Arkhaga.Pinto, de Castro. Morozov and Jim6nez de membersof the SecurityCouncil whichepartiesto a dis-
putetoabstainfromvoting shouldhabeenobserved (Char-
The President of the Court, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla ter,rt.27, para.3).TheCourtpointsoutthat(a)foralong
Khan, hasappendeda declarationtotheAdvisory Opinion. periodthe voluntaryabstentionofa permanentmemberhas
Vice-PresidentAmmounandJudgesPadillaNervo, Petdn, adoptionofresolutionsbytheSecurityCouncil;(b)theques-the
opinions.JudgeSirGerald FitzmaurandJudgeGros havee tionofNamibiawas placed otheagendaoftheCouncilasa
appendeddissentingopinions. situationandtheouthAfrican Governmentfailedto draw
Continued on next pagethe Council's attentitothe necessityinits eyesoftreating theobligationsof mandatories. The InternationalCourt of
itasadispute. Justice has consistentlyrecognizedthat the Mandate sur-
In the alternative the Governmentf SouthAfricamain- vivedthe demiseof the League,and South Africa alsoad-
tained thateveniftheCourtlhadcompetenceit shouldnever- mittedasmuchfora numberof years. Thusthesupervisory
theless, as a matterof judicial propriety, refuseto give theement, which is anessentialpart of the Mandate.was
opinionrequested,onaccountofpoliticalpnessuretowhich, boundto survive. TheUnitedNationssuggesteda systemof
it wascontended,theCourtitladbeenormightbe subjected. supervisionwhich would not exceed tha~which applied
On8February1971,at the openingofthe publicsittings,the underthemandatessystem,butthisproposalwasrejectedby
Residentofthe Courtdeclaredthatitwouldnot beproper for SouthAfrica.
theCourttoentertainthose od~servationb,earingastheydid
onthevery natureoftheCourtasthe principaljudicial organ Resolutions by the General Assemblyand the Security
oftheUnitedNations,anorgan which,inthatcapacity,acts Council
onlyon the basisof law, independentlyof alloutsideinflu- (paras.87-116ofthe AdvisoryOpinion)
encesorinterventionswhatsoever. Eventually,in 1966,the General Assembly of the United
The Governmentof SouthAfricaalso advanced another Nations adopted resolution 214(5XXI),wherebyitdecided
reasonfornotgivingtheadvisoryopinion requested:thatthe thatthe:Mandatewasterminatedandthat SouthAfricahad
questionwasin realitycontc:ntious,because: itrelatedto an no other rightto administertheTemtory. Subsequentlythe
existingdisputebetweenSouthAfricaandother States.The SecurityCouncil adopted variousesolutionsincludingreso-
Court considers thatit wasskedto deal witha requestput lution 276(1970)declaringthe continued presencof South
forwardby a UnitedNations organwith a view toseeking AfiicainNamibiaillegal. Objectionschallengingthe valid-
legal adviceon theconsequencesof its owndecisions.The ityof theseresolutionshavingbeenraised,the Court points
fact that,inorderto giveitsanswer,theCourtmight haveto out that it does not possess powersof judicial review or
pronounceon legal question~uspon whichdivergentviews appealinrelationto the UnitedNationsorgansinquestion.
existbetweenSouthAfricaand theUnited Nationsdoesnot Nor doesthe validityof theirresolutionsform thesubjectof
convertthe case intoa disputebetweenStates. (Therewas the request foradvisoryopinion.The Court nevertheless,in
thereforeno necessityto applyArticle 83 'ofthe Rulesof the exerciseof itsjudicial function,andncetheseobjec-
Court, according to which, if an advis13ryopinion is tionshavebeenadvanced,considerstheminthecourseofits
requestedupona legalquestion"actuallypc:ndin~b getween reasoning beforedeterminingthelegalconsequencesarising
twoor moreStates", Article 31of theStatulk,dealingwith from thoseresolutions.
judgesadhoc,isapplicable;theGovernmentofSouthAfrica ItfirstrecallsthattheentryintoforceoftheUnitedNations
havingrequested leaveto chooseajudge ad 'oc, the Court Charter establisheda relationshipbetweenall Membersof
hearditsobservationsonthatpoint on27January1971but. the United Nationson the one side, and each mandatory
inthelightoftheaboveconsiclerations,decidedbytheOrder Poweronthe other,andthatoneof the fundamentalprinci-
of29January1971nottoaccedetothat request.) plesgoverning that relationshipis thatthe party whichdis-
In sum,the Court sawno :reasonto declineto answerthe ownsordoesnotfulfilitsobligationscannotberecognizedas
requestforanadvisoryopinion. retaining therightswhichit claimto derivefrom therela-
tionshi~;~esohtion 2145(XXI)determinedthat therehad
HistoryoftheMandate beena inaterialbreachof theMandate,whichSouthAfrica
(paras.42-86 oftheAdviso~jOpinion) hadinfactdisavowed.
Refutingthe contentions0f'theSouthAfricanGovernment
andcitingitsownPronounce~nentisnpreviousproceedings ofNationsdidnotconferonthe CounciloftheLeague power
concerning SouthWestAfrica(AdvisoryOpinionsof 1950,
1955and 1956;Judgmentof 1962),theCourtrecapitulates toterminatea mandateformisconductofthe mandatory and
thehistoryofthe Mandate. greaterpowersthantthelam itselfhad;(b)that, evenifthe
Themandatessystemestablishedby Article22oftheCov- Councilofthe Leaguehadpossessed thepower ofrevocation
enantof the Leagueof Nationswasbasedupontwoprinci- oftheMandate, it couldnothavebeenexercisedunilaterally
ples of paramount importance: the principleof non- butonlyinco-operationwiththe Mandatory; (c)thatresolu-
annexation and the principle that the vvell-beingand tion 2145(XXI)madepronouncementswhichthe General
developmentof thepeoplesconcernedformeda sacredtrust Assembly, notbeingajudicial organ,was notcompetentto
of civilisation.Takingthe dt:velopmentsof'the pasthalf- make; (4 thatadetailedfactualinvestigatiwascalledfor;
century into account, therecan be littledoulbtthatthe ulti(e)thatone partofresolution2145(XXI) decidedineffecta
mateobjectiveofthe sacredtliustwasself-determiinatinnd transferoftemtory.
independence.The mandatov wasto observea numberof me ~:~urtobserves(a)that,accordingtoageneralprinci-
obligations,and the Councilof the League-wasI:osee that pleofinternationallaw(incorporatedinthevienna conven-
theywerefulfilled.Theright!$ofthemandatory a!3such had tionontheLawofTreaties),therighttoterminateatreatyon
their foundationinthoseobligations. accountofbreachmustbepresumed toexistinrespectofall
When the League of Nationswas dissoljred,the raison treaties, even if unexpressed;(b) that the consentof the
d'etre and original objectofthese obligations.remained. wrongdoertosuchaformofterminationcannotberequired;
Since theirfulfilment didnotdepend onthe existenceof the (c)thattheUnitedNations,asasuccessortotheLeague,act-
League,theycouldnotbebrc,ughtto anend1nerel~because ingthroughits competentorgan, mustbe seenaboveall as
the supervisoryorganhadceiisedto exist. ~~~bersof the supervisory institutioncompetentto pronounce onthe
the Leaguehad not declared,or acceptedevenby im~lica- conductoftheMandatory;(d)thatthefailureofSouthAfrica
tion, thatthemandateswouldbecancelledor lapsewiththe tocompllywiththeobligationtosubmittosupervisioncannot
dissolutionoftheLeague. bedisputed;(e)that theGeneralAssemblywas not making a
The last resolutionof the :[&agueAssemMyand Article findingon facts, but formulatinga legalsituation;it would
80, paragraph1, of the UnitedNationsCharternlaintained notbecorrectto assumethat,because itisinprinciplevested
79withrecommendatory powers, iitsdebarred fromadopting, for the competenl:international organsto take specific
inspecialcaseswithintheframeworkofits competence,res- measuresinthisrespect.
olutions which make determinations or have operative (b) MemberStates are underobligationto abstainfrom
design. sending diplomaticor special missions to South Africa
The General Assembly,however, lacktd the necessary includingin their:jurisdictionthe territoryof Namibia, to
powers toensurethe withdrawalof SouthAfricafrom the abstain from sending consular agentsto Namibia, andto
Territory andtherefore,actinginaccordancewithArticle11, withdraw anysuchagentsalreadythere;andto makeitclear
paragraph2, of the Charter, enlisted thecam-operof the toSouthAfricathal:themaintenanceofdiplomaticorconsu-
Security Council. The Councilor its part, whenit adopted lar relations doesnot imply any recognitof its authority
theresolutionsconcerned,wasactingintheexerciseofwhat with regard to Namibia.
itdeemed tobeitsprimaryresponsibilityforthe maintenance (c) MemberStates areunderobligationto abstain from
of peace and security.Article of theChartervestsin the entering intoeconomic andother formsof relations with
SecurityCouncilthe necessary authoritIrsdecisionswere SouthAfricaonbehalfoforconcerningNamibiawhichmay
takeninconformitywiththe purposesandprinciplesof the entrenchitsauthorityovertheterritory.
Charter,underArticle25of whichit isfor memberStates (d) H ~ ~ ~ ~ n~o~n-,recognition should not result in
to comply with those decisions, eventh'osemembers of deprivingthepeople of ~~ibi~ of anyadvantagesderived
the SecurityCouncilwhich voted againstthem and those frominternational co-operation.In particular, the illegality
Members theUnited arenotmembers ofthe or invalidityof actsperformedbytheGovernmentof South
Council. Afiicaonbehalf of'orconcerningNamibiaafterthetermina-
tion of theMandate cannotbe extendedto suchacts as the
LegalConsequencefsor Statesofthe ContinuedPresenceof registrationofbirthis,deathsandmarriages.
SouthAfricainNamibia As to Statesnot membersoftheUnitedNations, although
(paras. 117-127and 133oftheAdvisoryOpinion) theyare not boundbyArticles24 and25oftheCharter,they
TheCourtstressesthatabindingdeterminationmadebya havebeencalledufmnby resolution276 (1970)to give as-
competentorganoftheUnitedNationstothleeffectthatasit- sistancein the actionwhich hasbeen taken by the United
uationisillegalcannotremain withoutons~equence. Nationswithregard to Namibia.IntheviewoftheCourt,the
South Africa*being terminationoftheMandateandthedeclarationofthe illegal-
maintainedthatsituation,hastheobligationtoputanendtoit ityofSouthAfrkaVspresenceinNmibia = opposabk all
andwithdrawitsadministration fromtheTerritory.Byoccu- Statesin the senseof barringergaomnesthelegalityof the
pyingtheTerritory withouttitle. SouthAfricaincursinterna-situationwhich is in violatioof international
tional responsibilitiesarifroma continuingviolationof law. In particulsr, State whichentersinto Elations with
an international obligation. It remainsaccountablefor South Africaconcc:rningNamibia may expect the United
of therightsofthe pple ofNamibia, Orof NationsoritsMemberstorecognizethevalidityoreffectsof
its obligationsunderinternationallaw towi~dsother States anysuchrelationship,TheMe havingbeenterminsred
in respect of the exerciseof its powers in relation to they a decisionof internationalorganizatim in whichthe
Territory. supervisoryauthorilywasvested,itisfornon-memberStates
ThememberStates oftheUnitedNations;are underobliga- to act accordingly. AllStatesshouldbear in mindthat the
tion to recognize the illegality and invrllidityof South Namibiais a people which must look to the internationalin
Africa'scontinued presencein Namibiaant1to refrainfrom forassistancein its towardsthe goals
lendinganySupportOranyformofaSSiStanc loSouthAfrica forwhichthesacredlmt wasinstituted.
with referenceto its occupationof Namibia.The precise
determinationof theact9permitted-what measures should Accordingly,the Courthas giventhe replies
be selected,whatscope they should begivenandby whom above on pagel.
they should beapplied-is a matter which lies within the
competenceoftheappropriate politicalorgzmsoftheUnited Propositio~ bySo~thAfrica concerning theSM~~o Zf~ur-
Nationsactingwithintheirauthorityundert]heCharter.mus the' Factual1nfi)nnationand the hssible Holding ofa
it is for the Security Councilto determine any further
measuresconsequentuponthe decisions alreadytakenbyit. @-. 128-132 IheAdvisoryOpinion)
TheCourtinconsequenceconfines itselfto;givingadviceon me Government ofsouth Africahadexpressedthedesire
thosedealingswiththeGovernmentof Sou~th Africawhich, tosupplythecourt withfurtherfactualinfomationconcern-
underthe CharteroftheUnitedNationsandgeneralinterna- ing the purposes and of its policy of sepmte
tionallaw,shouldbeconsideredasinconsistentwithreS0lu- development,contelndingthattoestablishabreachofitssub-
tion276(1970)becausetheymight implyrecognizingSouth stantiveinternationlbligationsunder the Mandateit ould
Africa'spresenceinNamibiaaslegal: benecessarytoprovethat SouthAfricahadfailedtoexercise
(a) MemberStates are underobligatioin(subjectto (d) its powers with a 'viewto promotingthe well-being and
below) to abstain fromentering into treaty relationswith progressof the inhabitants.TheCourtfoundthatno factual
SouthAfricainallcasesin whichtheGovernmentof South evidencewas neededforthepurposeofdeterminingwhether
Africa purportsto act on behalfof ornccmingNamibia. the policyof apartheidin Namibiawas in conformitywith
Withrespectto existingbilateraltreatmernberStatesmust the internationaloblligationsassumedby South Africa. Itis
abstainfrom invokingor applying those treatiesor provi- undisputedthat the officialgovernmentalolicy pursuedby
sionsof treatiesconcludedby SouthAfrica.on behalfof or South Africain Namibia is toachievea complete physical
concerningNamibiawhichinvolveactive in~tergovernmental separation of racesand ethnic groups. This means the
co-operation.Withrespectto multilateraltreaties, thesame enforcementof distimction,xclusions, restrictionsandlim-
rulecannotbe appliedtocertaingeneralconventionssuchas itations exclusively. based ongrounds of race, colour,
those with humanitariancharacter, thenon-performanceof descentornationalorethnicoriginwhichconstitutea denial
whichmayadverselyaffectthepeopleofNrunibia:it willbe of fundamentalhumanrights.Thisthe Courtviewsas afla-
80grant violationofthepurporis andprinciplesof the Charter JudgeSirGeraldFitzmaurice(dissentingopinion)consid-
oftheUnited Nations. ersthatthe Mandatewas notvalidlyrevoked,thattheMan-
datoryisstillsubjecttotheobligationsoftheMandatewhat-
The Governmentof Sou~th Africa had alsosubmitteda ever these may be, and that StatesMembersof the United
request thata plebisciteshouldbe held in the TerritoryofNationsareboundtorespecttheposition unlessanduntilitis
Namibia under the joint supervisionof the Court and the changedbylawful means.
Governmentof South Africa. The Court havingconcluded
that nofurtherevidencewasrequired,thattheMandatehad JudgeGros(dissentingopinion)disagreews iththeCourt's
been validly terminated ar~dthat in con!requf:nceSouth conclusions asto the legal validity andeffectsof General
Africa's presence in Namibia was illegal and its acts onAssembly resolution2145 (XXI) but considers that South
behalfof or concerningamibiaillegal andinvalid,it was Africa oughtto agreeto negotiateon the conversionof the
notabletoentertainthisproposal. MandateintoaUnitedNationstrusteeship.
Byaletterof 14May1971the Presidentir~forniedtherep- Judges Pe&n andOnyeama(separateopinions)votedfor
resentativesof the Statesand organizationswhichhad par- subparagraph1of the operative clausebut against subpara-
ticipatedin the oralproceedingsthatthe Courthaddecided graphs2and 3, whichintheirviewascribetoobroadascope
nottoaccedetothetwoabove-mentionedrequests. to theeffectsofnon-recognition.
JudgeDillard(separateopinion),oncurringintheopera-
tive clause, adds certain mainlycautionary commentson
subpariigraph2.
JudgesSir GeraldFitzmaurice,Gros, Petdn, Onyeama
and Dillardalsocriticizecertaindecisiens bytheCourt
DECLARATION .ANDSEPARATE OR withre;ferencetoits composition.
DISSENTIN OGPINIONS The President(declaration)andJudgesPadillaewo and
Subparagraph1of the operative clauseof the Advisory de Caslro(separate opinions)accepttheoperative clausein
Opinion (illegality of the ]presenceof South Africa in full.
Namibia-see page1of thisCommuniqd) wasadoptedby The Vice-President(separateopinion),whilesharing the
13 votesto 2. Subparagraphs2 and 3 were adoptedby 11 views expressedintheAdvisoryOpinion,considersthatthe
votes to4. operativeclauseisnotsufficientlyexpli01decisive.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971