Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
WESTERN SAHARA
AdvisoryOpinionof 16 October 1975
In its Advisory Opinion whicthe GeneralAssemblyof CourseoftheProceedings
theUnited Nationshadrequestedontwoquestionsconcern- (paras. 1-13 ofAdvisoryOpinion)
ingWesternSahara,theCourt,
Withregardto QuestionI*"Was de The Courtfirst :recallsthatthe General Assemblyof the
Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time afcolonizationby United Nations decided to submit two questions for the
Spainaterritorybelongingtonoone(terra nullius)?*, Court.s advisory opinion by resolution 3292 (XXIX)
-decided by 13votesto3tocomplywiththerequestfor adoptedon 13December1974andreceivedinthe Registry
anadvisoryopinion; on21December.Itretraces the subsequentstepsinthepro-
ceedings, including the transmissof a dossierof docu-
-was unanimouslyof opinionthatWeisternSahara(Rio mentsbythe Secretary-Generaol ftheUnited Nations(Stat-
Spainwasnotaterritorybelongingtonoone(terranullius). ute, Art. 65, para. 2) and the presentation of written
including Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco,Spain andZairees,
With regard to Question11,"What werethe legal ties (Statute,Art. 66).
betweenthistemtory and theKingdomof Morocco andthe
Mauritanianentity?", the Court Mauritania and Morocco each asked tobe authorizedto
-decided by 14votesto 2tocomplywiththe requestfor chooseajudge ad Iwcto sitintheproceedings.ByanOrder
anadvisoryopinion; of22May 1975 (1.12J.. Reports1975,p. 6), the Court found
-was of opinion,by 14votesto 2, thattherewerelegal StatuteandArticle89ofthe RulesofCourt tochoosea per-e
ties betweenthite,tory andthe ~ i ~ ~ dof~M~~~~~ of SO"toSitasjudgeadhot, butthat, inthecaseofMauritania,
thekindsindicatedinthepenultimateparagraphoftheAdvi- the conditionsfor the applicationof those Articleshad not
sor y pinion; beensatisfied.At the same timethe Court stated thatthose
-was of by to 9thattherewere lega1 conclusionsinnowayprejudgeditsviewswithregardtothe
tiesbetweenthis territoryand the entityof the questionsreferredtoitoranyotherquestionwhichmightfall
kinds indicatedinthepenultimate paragraoftheAdvisory to be decided, includingthoseof itscompetence togive
Opinion. an advisory opinion and thepropriety of exercising that
Thepenultimate paragraphof theAdvis~aryOpinionwas competence.
totheeffectthat:
The materials and informationpresented to theCourt Competenceofthe Court
showtheexistence,atthetimeofSpanishcolonization,of (paras. 14-22ofAdvisoryOpinion)
legaltiesofallegiancebetweentheSultanofMoroccoand
someofthe rribeslivingintheterritoryofWesternSahara. UnderArticle65, paragraph1, of the Statute,the Court
Theyequallyshowtheexistenceofrights,includingsome questivofany r'uthorizbody.Thelega1questionat the
rights relatingto the land, which cons1:itlegal ties GeneralAssemblyof theUnited Nationsis suitablyauthor-
between the ~~~ri~i~ entity, as unI~erstoodby the izedby Article969paragraph1 *of thecharter andthatthe
COW,andthe territoryof WesternSahara.On the other twoquestionssubmitted areframedintermsoflawandraise
hand, the conc~us~o s that h,e materials and problemsof internationallaw. Theyare in principleques-
information toitdonotestablisany tieofterri- tionsofalegalcharacter,eveniftheyalsoembodyquestions
torialsovereigntybetweentheterritoof wester snhara of fact, andeven if theydo not call uponthe Court topro-
and the ~ i ~ ~ of~M~~~~ orthe ~~,~~i~ie ~ntity. nounce on existing rightsand obligationsThe Court is
mightaffecttheapplicationof GeneralAssemblyresolu- accodingly cornpetanttentertaintherequest.
tion 1514(XV)in the decolonizationof WesternSahara
and, in particular, of the principleof self-determination~rieO'ofGivinganAdvisoryOpinion
through thefreeand genuineexpressionof thewill of the (paras.23-74ofAdvisoryOpinion)
peoplesoftheTemtory.
Forthesep-dings theCourtwascom~osedasfollows: Spainputforwardlobjectionswhich initsview wouldren-
der thegivingof anopinion incompatiblewiththe Court's
ks,sidBen~n,hs; Vice-POnyeama,Dillad, Ignacio-Pinto, judicialcharacter.Itreferredinthefirstplacetothefactthatit
de Castro, Morozov~Jimdnezde Mchaga, Sir Humphrey hadnotgivenitsconsenttotheCourt's adjudicatinuponthe
Waldock,NagendraSinghand Ruda;Judge,adhocBoni. questionssubmitted.I.t maintain(a)that the subjectof the
cerningWesternSaharawhichMorocco,inSeptember1974,en-
declarations to the Advisory Opinion; Vice-President hadinvitedittosubnnitjointlytotheCourt,aproposal which
AmmounandJudgesForster,Petr6n,Dillard,de Castroand it hadrefused:the advisoryjurisdictionwastherefore being
Boniappendedseparateopinions,andJudgeRudaadissent- usedtocircumventtheprinciple that the Courthasnojuris-
ingopinion. dictionto settleadisputewithout theconsentof the parties;
~nthese declarationsand opinionsthejudges concerned (b)thatthecaseinvolvedadisputeconcerningtheattribution
makeclearandexplaintheir positions. of territorial sovereignty overWesternSaharaand that the
consentof Stateswas alwaysnecessaryfor the adjudication
of suchdisputes;c)thatinthe circumstancesofthecasethe
* Court couldnot fulfilltherequirementsof goodadministra-
* * tionofjusticewith regard to thedeterminationof thefacts.
100The Court considers(a) that the General.Asseimbly, hile basisd agreementsentered intowith the chiefs of local
noting thata legal controvt:rsyover the statusof Western tribes.
Saharahad arisenduring its discussions, didnot havethe TheCourtthereforegivesanegativeanswertoQuestionI.
objectofbringing beforetheCourtadisputeorlegalcontro- Inaccordancewiththetermsoftherequestforadvisoryopin-
versy witha viewto its sub.sequentpeacef~~sletdement,but ion, "if theanswerto the firstquestionis in the negative",
soughtan advisoryopinionwhichwould be of assistancein theCourtis to replytoQuestion11.
theexerciseofitsfunctionsconcerningthetiecolonizationof
thetemtory, hencethe legeilpositionof Spainc:ouldnot be QuestionZZ:"What Werethe Legallies of ThisTerritory
compromisedby the Court'sanswersto the questions sub- with the Kingdomof Morocco and the Mauritanian
mitted;(b)thatthosequestilrwdonotcalluponthe Courtto Entity?"
adjudicateon existing territorial rights;(c) that it hasbe(paras.84-161 ofAdvisoryOpinion)
placedinpossessionofsuffi~cienitformationandevidence.
Spainsuggestedinthe secondplacethatthequestionssub- Themeaningofthewords"legalties" hastobesoughtin
mittedtotheCourtwereacademic anddevoidof purposeor the objectand purposeof resolution 3292(XXIX)of the
practicaleffect,inthattheUnitedNationshadal~eadysettled United NationsGeneralAssembly.It appearsto the Court
themethodtobefollowedforthedecolonizatior~ of Western that theymustbeunderstoodasreferringto such legaltiesas
Sahara,namelya consultationof theindigenouspopulation mayaffect the policytobe followedinthe decolonizationof
by meansof a referendum 1:obe conductedby Spainunder WesternSahara. The Court cannot accept theviewthat the
UnitedNationsauspices.TheCourtexaminestht:resolutions ties in question couldbe limited totiesestablished directly
adoptedbythe GeneralAssemblyonthesubject,fromreso- with the territoryand withoutreferencetothe people who
lution 1514(XV)of 14December1960,theDeclarationon maybefoundinit. Atthetimeofitscolonizationtheterritory
theGrantingofIndependence toColonialCountriesandPeo- had a sparsepopulationthat for the mostart consistedof
ples,to resolution 3292XXJX)onWestemSahara,embod- nomadictribesthe membersof whichtraversedthedeserton
ying therequestfor advisoryopinion.It c~ancludetshatthe more or less regular routes,sometimesreaching asfar as
decolonizationprocessenvisagedbythe GeneralAssembly southt:rnMorocco or regions of present-dayMauritania,
is onewhichwillrespectthe:rightofthe populationofWest- Algeria orother States. These tribeswere of the Islamic
ern Saharato determinetheirfuturepo1itic:asltatusbytheir faith.
ownfreelyexpressed will.'I'hisrightto self-determination, Morocco(paragraphs90-129 of the AdvisoryOpinion)
whichisnotaffectedbytherequestforadvisoryopinion and presentedits claim to legal ties with WesternSaharaas a
constitutesa basic assumptionof the questionsput to the claim to ties of sovereignty on the groundof an alleged
Court,leavestheGeneral Assemblya measure ofdiscretion immemorialpossession of theterritoryandan uninterrupted
withrespecttotheforms andproceduresbywhichitisto be exerciseof authority.In the view of the Court, however,
realized.TheAdvisory Opir~ionwillthusfu~rnisthheAssem- what mustbe of decisive importancein determining its
blywithelementsofalegal characterrelevant tcthatfurther answerto QuestionI1mustbe evidence directly relatingto
discussionoftheproblem t.r)hichresolution3292 (XXIX) effectivedisplayofauthorityinWesternSaharaatthe timeof
alludes. itscolonizationbySpain andintheperiod immediately .pre-
Consequentlythe Court findsno compellingreason for ceding.Moroccorequeststhatthe Court shouldtakeaccount
refusingtogiveareplytothetwoquestionssubmitted toitin ofthespecialstructureoftheMoroccanState.ThatStatewas
therequestforadvisoryophion. foundedon thecommonreligiousbond ofIslam andonthe
allegianceofvarioustribesto theSultan,throughtheircaids
QuestionI: "WasWestern!iahara(Rfo de Oroand SakietEl orsheikhs, ratherthanonthenotionoftemtory.It consisted
Hamra)at thelime of C?olonizatiobny Spaina Territory partlyof what wascalled theBledMakhzen,areas actually
BelongingtoNoOne(teimnullius)?" subjecttotheSultan,andpartlyof what wascalledtheBled
(paras.75-83 ofAdvisoryOpinion) Siba,areasin whichthetribeswere notsubmissivetohim;at
the relevantriod, the areasimmediatelv*to thenorth of
For the purposesof theAdvisoryOpinion,the "time of WeswrnSahk lay withintheBledSiba.
colonizationby Spainwml;aybe as the period AS evidence of its display of sovereignty in Western
beginningin 1884,whenSpainproclaimeditsprotectorate Sahara,Moroccoinvokedallegedactsof internaldisplayof
overtheRfode Oro .tisthereforebyreferencetothelawin M~m~anauthority,consistingprincipallyof evidence said
forceatthatperiodthatthelagalconceptof,terranulliusmust toshowtheallegianceofSaharancaidstothesultan, includ-
beinterpreted.Inlaw, uoc,cupation"was amems ofpeace- ingdahirsandotherdocumentsconcerningtheappointment
ablyacquiringsovereigntyoverterritory<)thewisethanby ofaids, the allegedimpositionofKoranicandother taxes,
cessionor succession;it wasa cardinal condition ofa valid and acts of militaryresistanceto foreignpenetrationof the
"occupationwthat the te,fitory should ~k terra nullius. territory.Moroccoalso relied on certain internationalacts
Accordingto the State prllcticeof that IEri~j, territorieseignt~overthe wholeor part of WesternSahara,includinger-
inhabitedby tribesor peopleshavinga sc~ialand political (a)certain treaties concludedwithSpain, theUnitedStates
mganizationwerenot asterraenullius:intheircase ad
sovereigntywasnotgenerally consideredaseffectedthrough sionsofwhichdealtinteraliawiththesafetyofpersonsship
occupation,but through a,mments conc:ludd with local wreckedon thecoastofWadNounoritsviicinity;(6)certain
mlers.Theinformationfurr~ished thecourt shows(a)that bilateraltreatiesof the late nineteenthand early twentieth
atthetimeofcolonizationwestern Saharawasinhabitedby centurieswherebyGreat Britain, Spain, France and Ger-
peoples which, if nomadic, were sociallyand politically
organizedin tribesandunderchiefscompetentto represent eifl~extended asfarsouthasCapeBojadQrortheboundaryr-
them;(b)thatSpaindidnot proceeduponthebas;isthatitwas the de
establishingits sovereigntyover terraenullius:thus in his
Order of 26 December1884the Kingof Spain proclaimed Having consideredthis evidenceand the observationsof
thathe wastakingtheRfodeOro underhisprotection onthe theotherStateswhich tookpartintheproceedings,theCourt
101findsthat neithertheinternalnortheinternationalactsrelied to one another;theyhad no commoninstitutionsor organs.
uponbyMoroccoindicatetheexistenceat*herelevantperiod The Mauritanianentitytherefore didnot havethe character
of either the existenceor the internatio~ialrecognitionof of a personalityor corporateentity distinctfromtheseveral
legaltiesof territorial sovereigntybetweenWesternSahara emiratesor tribeswhichcomprisedit. The Court concludes
andtheMoroccanState.Eventaking accountof the specific that at the timeof'colonizationby Spainthere didnotexist
structureof that State, theydo not showthatMoroccodis- betweentheterritoryofWesternSaharaandthe Mauritanian
playedanyeffectiveandexclusive State activity inWestern entityanytieof sovereignty,orofallegianceof tribe orof
Sahara.They do, however, provideindicdons that a legal simple inclusionin the same legalentity.Nevertheless, the
tie of allegiance existedat the relevaperiodbetweenthe GeneralAssemblydoesnotappearto havesoframed Ques-
Sultanandsome,butonlysome,of thenomadicpeoplesof tion I1as to confiriethe question exclusivelyto those legal
the territory,throughTeknacaids of the Nounregion, and ties which implyterritorial sovereignty,whichwouldbe to
theyshowthat the Sultan displayed,andvvasrecognizedby disregard thepossiblerelevanceof other legal ties to the
other States to possess, some authoritylorinfluencewith decolonizationprocess. TheCourtconsidersthaitn, therele-
respecttothosetribes. vantperiod, the nomadicpeoplesof the Shinguitti country
The term "Mauritanianentity" (paragraphs130-152 of possessedrights, includingsomerights relatingto the lands
theAdvisoryOpinion)wasfirst employedduringthe session throughwhich theymigrated. These rights constituted legal
of the GeneralAssemblyin 1974at whichresolution 3292 ties between Western Sahara and the Mauritanian entity.
(XXIX), requestingan advisory opinionof the Court, was Theyweretieswhich knewnofrontierbetweentheterritories
adopted. It denotes the cultural, geographicaland social andwerevitaltothe very maintenance oflifeintheregion.
entitywithinwhichthe IslamicRepublicalfMauritaniawas Morocco and Mauritania both laidsmss on theoverlap
tobecreated.AccordingtoMauritania,thatentity,attherel- pingcharacteroftherespectivelegaltieswhichtheyclaimed
evant period,wastheBiladShinguittiorS'hinguitticountry, WesternSaharato.havehadwith themat the timeofcoloni-
adistincthumanunit, characterizedbyaccbmmon language, zation (paragraphs 153-160 of the Advisory Opinion).
wayoflife,religionandsystemoflaws, featuringtwotypes Althoughtheirviews appearedtohave evolvedconsiderably
ofpoliticalauthority:emiratesandtribalgrloups. inthatrespect,'-2twoStatesbothstatedattheendofthe pro-
Expresslyrecognizing that these emiratesand tribesdid ceedingsthattherewasanorth appertaining toMoroccoand
notconstituteaState,Mauritaniasuggestedthat theconcepts a southappertainingtoMauritania without anygeographical
of "nation" andof "people" wouldbethemostappropriate void inbetween,butwith someoverlappingasaresultofthe
toexplainthe positionoftheShinguittipeopleatthe timeof intersectionof nomadicroutes. The Court confinesitselfto
colonization.At that period, accordingto Mauritania,the notingthat this geographicaloverlappingindicatethediffi-
Mauritanian entity extended fromthe Senegal riverto the culty of disentangling the various relationships exisinng
WadSakietEl Hamra.Theterritoryatprese:ntunder Spanish theWesternSahararegionatthetimeofcolonization.
administrationandthepresentterritoryofthe IslamicRepub-
licofMauritaniathustogetherconstitutedindissociableparts
ofasingleentityandhadlegaltieswithoneanother.
The informationbefore the Court discloses that,while
there existedamongthem manyties of a racial, linguistic, For thesereasons;,the Court (paragraphs162 and 163of
religious, culturaland economic nature,the emirates and theAdvisoryOpinion)gives therepliesindicated on pages1
many ofthe tribesinthe entitywereindependentinrelation and2above.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975