Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
SOU'lrH-WESA TFRICACASES(PRELIMINARYOBJECTIONS)
Judgment of21December1962
The SouthWestAfricaciases(Ethiopia v. South Africa; tained that the Mandatefor SouthWest Africa had never
Liberiav.SouthAfrica),whichrelateto the ,continueexist- been,or atanyratewassincethedissolutionofthe Leagueof
enceoftheMandateforSouthWestAfrica andthedutiesand Nationsnolonger,a treatyorconventioninforcewithin the
performanceofSouthAfricaas Mandatorythereunder,were ingthis preliminaryobjectionin this form, the Respondent
andLiberiafiledin theRegistryon4 November1960.Theiopia statedthatit hadalwaysconsideredorassumedthattheMan-
GovernmentofSouthAfrica !raisepreliminiuyobjectionsto dateforSouthWestAfricahadbeena "treaty orconvention
thejurisdictionoftheCourttohearthecases. in itself, that is, an international agreementbetween the
Mandatoryon theone hand,and, on the other, the Council
Byeightvotesto seventhe:Court foundthiitithadjurisdic- representing the Leaguend/orits Members"but "that the
tiontoadjudicateuponthe meritsofthedispute. alternativeview might well be taken that in defining the
JudgesBustamantey River0andJessupandJudgead hoc terms of the Mandate, the Councilwas taking executive
SirLouis MbanefoappendedSeparateOpinions. actioninpursuanceof theCovenant(whichof coursewasa
President Winiarski andJudgeBasdevant appended Dis- convention)and was notenteringinto an agreement which
sentingOpinions;JudgesSirPercySpenderand Sir Gerald woulditselfbeatreatyorconvention".Atthesametimethe
Fitzmauriceappended a Joint Dissenting Opinion;Judge Respondent added"this view ... wouldregardthe Coun-
Morelli and Judge ad hoc van Wyk appended Dissenting cil's Declarationas setting fortha resoluti... which
Opinions. would,likeanyothervalid resolutionoftheCouncil,oweits
Judge SpiropoulosappendedaDeclarationofhisdissent. legalforce to thefact of havingbeen duly resolvedby the
Councilin the exerciseof powersconferredupon itby the
Covenant''.In theCourt's opinion, thisviewwasnot well-
founded.WhiletheMandateforSouthWestAfrica tookthe
formofaresolution,itwasobviouslyofadifferentcharacter.
It could not be regardedas embodying only anexecutive
Inits Judgment,theCourl:notedthattofoundthejurisdic- actioninpursuanceoftheCovenant.Infactandinlaw itwas
tion of the Court, the Applicants,havingegartito Article aninternationalagreement having tcharacterofatreatyor
80, paragraph1,of theCharteroftheUnitedNations, relied convention.
on Article7of theMandateof 17December1920for South It had beenarguedthat the Mandatein questionhad not
WestAfrica andArticle 37of the Statuteof.theCourt. beenregisteredin accordancewithArticle 18of the Cove-
Before undertakingan e:xaminationof the Preliminary nant, which provided: "No such treaty or international
ObjectionsraisedbySouthAfrica, theCOUIf-o tundit neces- engagementshallbebinding untilsoregistered". IftheMan-
sarytodecideapreliminaryquestionrelatingtotireexistence datehad beenab initionull and voidon the groundof non-
of the disputewhichis the subjectof the Applications.On registration,itwouldfollowthat theRespondenthadnotand
this pointit found thatitwasnotsufficientfor onepartyto a hadneverhada legaltitlefor its administrationof the terri-
contentiouscasetoassertthritadisputeexistedwiththeother toryof SouthWestAfrica;it wouldthereforebe impossible
party.Itmustbeshownthatitheclaimofonepartywasposi- forit to maintainthatithadhadsucha titleuptothe discov-
tively opposedby the other. Testedby this criterion,there ery of thisgroundof nullity.Article,designed tosecure
couldbe no doubt about thc:existenceof a disputebetween publicity and avoidsecret treaties, could not applyin the
thepartiesbeforetheCourt, sinceit wasclearly constituted Nationswasoneofecttheparties asin respectof treaties con-
bytheiropposingattitudesrelatingtotheperformanceofthe cluded amongindividualMemberStates.
obligationsoftheMandate bythe RespondentasMandatory.
Sincethe Mandatein auestionhad had the characterof a
treatyorconvention attsastart,thenextrelevantquestionto
as a wholeincludingArticle7,hor with respectto Artic7e
itself.TheRespondentcontendedthatit wasnotinforce,and
thiscontention-constitutetdheessenceofthefirstpreliminary
TheCourtthenbrieflyrecalledtheorigin.,natureandchar- objection. Itwasarguedthattherights andobligatiosnder
acteristicsofthe Mandates SystemestablishedbytheCove- the Mandateinrelation tothe administrationof theterritory
nantofthe LeagueofNations. Theessentialprinciplesofthis being of an objective characterstill existed, while those
systemconsistedchieflyintherecognitionofcertainrightsof rightsandobligationsrelatingto administrativesupervision
thepeo lesof the underdevelopedterritories;the establish- by the League and submission to the Permanent Court of
mento a regimeof tutelageforeachof such peoples tobe International Justice,beingof a contractual character,had
exercisedby anadvanced nation as a "Mandatory" "on necesriarilybecomeextinctonthe dissolutionof the League
behalfof the Leagueof Nal:ionsWa;ndthe~wognitionof "a ofNations.TheRespondentfurtherarguedthatthecasualties
sacredtrustofcivilisation"'laidupontheLeagueasanorgan- arisingfrom the demiseof the Leagueof Nations included
ized internationalcommunityand upon its Members.The Article7 of the Mandate by which the Respondenthad
rightsof the Mandatoryinrelationto them~andateterritory agreedtosubmittothejurisdictionofthePermanentCourtof
andthe inhabitantshadtheirfoundationintheol~ligationsf International Justicein any disputewhatever between itas
the Mandatoryand were, so to speak, meretools given to Mandatoryand anotherMemberof the Leagueof Nations
enableittofulfilitsobligations. relating to the interpretation or the application of the
Thefirstofthe Responde!nt'sreliminaryobjectionsmain- Mandate. On this pointthe Court, recalling theAd!visoryOpinion Underthe unanimlityrule (Articles4 and 5 of the Cove-
which ithadgivenin 1950concerningtheIn.ternutionu1 ta- nant), the Councilcould not imposeits own viewon the
tusofSouth WestAfrica,statedthatitsfindinontheobliga- Mandatory.If theMandatorycontinuedto turna deafear to
tion of the Union Government tosubmit itointernational theCouncil's admonitionst,he onlycourseleftto defendthe
supervisionwere crystal clear.To excludethe obligations interestsoftheinhabitantsinordertoprotectthe sacredtrust
connectedwith the Mandatewouldbe toexclude thevery wouldbetoobtainan1 adjudicationbytheCourtonthematter
essenceoftheMandate.TheCourtalsorecalledthatwhile it connectedwith the interpretationor the applicationof the
had beendividedin 1950onother points,ithadbeen unani- Mandate.But neitherthe Councilnorthe Leaguewasenti-
mouson the.findingthatArticle7oftheManidaterelatingto wouldbeforaMemter orMembersof theLeagueto invokerecourse
compulsory jurisdictionof the Courtwas sltill"in force". Article7 andbringthedispute as onebetween themand the
Nothinghad since occurredwhich wouldwarranttheCourt Mandatoryto thePe;rmanentCourtfor adjudication.It was
reconsideringits conclusions.Allimportantfactshad been for this all-importantpurposethat the provisionhad been
statedorreferredtointheproceedingsin 1950. couchedin broadterms. It was thus seen whatan essential
partArticle7hadbeenintendedtoplayas oneofthesecuri-
me court foundthatthoughtheLeagueof]sationsandthe tiesintheMandatesSlystemfortheobservanceoftheobliga-
exist,theobligationoftheRespondent tosubmitto compul- tionsbytheMandatolr~.
sory jurisdiction had been effectively wantsferredto the Inthesecondplace,besidestheessentialitofjudicial pro-
present Court before the dissolution of the League of tection for the sacmd trust and for the rights of Member
Nations. TheLeague hadceasedtoexistfromApril1946;the StatesundertheMantiate,andthelackofcapacityonthepart
CharteroftheUnited Nationshadentered intoforceinOcto- of the Leagueor thelCouncilto invokesuch protection, the
ber 1945;the three partiesto the presentp~uceedingshad right toimpleadthe MandatoryPowerbefore the Perma-
deposited their ratificationsin November 1945and had nent Court had beenspeciallyand expressly conferredon
become Membersof the United Nations from the dates of the Membersof the League,evidentlyalso because itwas
thoseratifications.Theyhadsincebeensubjec:tetotheobli- the most reliable prccedureof ensuringprotectionby the
gations,andentitledtotherights,underthe Charter.Bythe Court.
effectof theprovisionsof Article 92and 93 of the Charter The third reasonfoi:concludingthatArticle7, withpartic-
and Article37 of the Statuteof the Court, the Respondent ularreferencetothete:m "anotherMemberofthe Leagueof
had bounditself,byratifyingthe Charterata timewhenthe Nations", continuedto bapplicable, wasthat obviouslyan
League of Nations and the Permanent Court were stilin agreementhad beenreached among allthe Membersof the
existenceand whentherefore Article7 of thM:andatewas LeagueofNationsattlhesessioninApril 1946tocontinuethe
alsoinfullforce,toacceptthe compulsoryjuriisdictionofthe different Mandates as faras it waspractically feasiblewith
presentCourtinlieuofthatofthePermanentCourt. referenceto the obligationsof the Mandatory Powers and
Thistransferredobligationhadbeenvolunltarilyassumed therefore to maintairlthe rights of the Membersof the
by the Respondentwhenjoining the United Nations. The League,notwithstandiinthedissolutionoftheLeagueitself.
validity of Article 7, in the court*^view, had not been Thisagrt?emenwt asevidencednotonlybythecontentsofthe
affectedbythedissolutionoftheLeague,justa theMandate Leaguedissolutionre;~olutioof 18April 1946but also by
asa whole wasstillinforceforthereasonsstatedabove. the discussionselatir~gto the questionof Mandatesin the
The second preliminary cenmc' On the rowingommcircumstsnecs. Those States which had beenr-
"anotherMemberofthe LeagueofNations"inArticle7,the Memhrs of theLeague at the tim of ia dissolutiocon-
secondparagraph of which reads "the Mandatoryagrees tinuedto have the rightto invoke the compulsojurisdic-
that, ifany whatever arise theMan- tionoftheCourtas&fore thedissolution ofthebage, and
dsra~andmothrMe~erofthLeagueofN2ti0mre1ating that right continuedto exist for as long as the Respond-
totheinmtation ortheapplicationoftheprovisionsofthe entheld onto the right to administerthe territoryunderthe
Mandate,suchdispute .. .shallbesubmittedto thePerma- Mandate.
nent CourtofInternationalJustic.. ." During the prolongeddiscussionswhich had been held
It was contended that since Member States of the bothintheAssemblyand initsFirstCommitteethedelegates
Leaguelost theirmembershipand its accom~lan~inr gights of the MandatoryPowrerspresent solemnlyexpressedtheir
whentheLeagueitselfceasedtoexiston 19April1946,there intentiontocontinuetc,administertheterritoriesentrustedto
no longer be Memberof League of theminaccordancewiththegeneralprinciplesoftheexisting
Nations" today.Accordingto this contention,no Statehad ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ .ticulruthe delegatof south ~f~i~~ ,n 9
"locus stand?'orwas qualifiedto invokethejurisdictionof ~~ril1946,stated'6... theunion willcontinuetoadminis-
the inany withthe as ter the tenitory scrupulouslyin accordancewiththeobliga-
The Courtpointedout that interpretationaccordito the tions of the Mandate .... The disappearanceof those
nahd andordinarymeaningofthewordsemployedwasnot organsoftheLeagueconcernedwiththesupervisionofman-
an absoluterule, andthat no reliance couldplaced on it dates ... will necessarily preclude complete compliance
where it resultedin a meaningincompatiblewiththe spirit, withtheletterof the Mandate.TheUnionGovernmentwill
purpose andcontextoftheprovisiontobeinterpreted. neverthelessregardthe dissolutionof the Leagueas in no
Judicialprotectionofthesacredmst ineachMandatewas way diminishing itsoibligationsunder the Mandate...".
an essentialfeatureofthe MandatesSystem.Th~administra- There couldhavebeenno clearerrecognitiononthePartof
tivesupervisionbytheLeagueconstituteda normalsecurity the Governmentof SaluthAfrica of the continuanceof its
to ensurefullperformancebytheMandatoryaf the obligationsundertheMandateforSouthWestAfrica, includ-
trustwtowardtheinhabitantsofthe territory,bul;thespeciallyngArticle7, afterthedissolutionoftheLeagueofNations.
assignedroleof theCourtwaseven moreessential,sinceit' Itwasclearfromtheforegoingthat therehadbeena unan-
wastoserveasthe finalbulwarkofprotectiontbyrecourseto imousagreement amongaltlheMemberStatespresentatthe
theCourtagainstpossibleabuseorbreachesof thehlandate. Assembly meetingthat theMandates shouldbecontinuedto
64be exercised in accordance:with the obligations therein WhileArticle6 of the Mandate providedfor administrative
defined. Manifestly,this continuanceof obligationsunder supervisionbytheLeague, Article7ineffectprovided,with
the Mandatecouldnot havebegunto operateuntil the day theexpressagreementof theMandatory,forjudicialprotec-
afterthe dissolutionof theeagueof Nations; hence thelit- estsof theMemberswasof course includedwithinitscom-ter-
the LeagueofNations"were.notmeaningful,sincethe reso-f _ pass, bat thewell-beinganddevelopmentof theinhabitants
lutionof 18 April 1946had beenadopted preciselywitha werenotless important.
viewtoavertingthem andcolrtinuingthe Mandateasatreaty
between the Mandatory and theMembersof the Leagueof The (Courctoncludedthatthepresentdisputewasadispute
Nations. as envisagedin Article7 of the Mandate andthat thethird
preliminaryobjectionmustbedismissed.
Memberof theLeagueofNations" must take into consider-er The Courtnextconsidered the fourthand last objection,
ationall of the relevantfacts andrcumstmcesrelatingto which inessenceconsistedofthepropositionthatifadispute
the act of dissolutionoftheLeague,inordertoascertainthe existedwithinthemeaningofArticle7, itwas notonewhich
trueintentand purposesoftheMembersoftheAssemblyin couldnot be settledbynegotiationwiththe Applicantsand
adoptingthefinal resolutionof 18April1945. thattherehadbeenno suchnegotiationswithaviewtoitsset-
tlement.
that Article was not anessttntialprovisionof the Mandate In the Court's view,the fact that a deadlockhad been
instrument for therotectiollof the sacred.Crutf civilisa- reachedinthecollectivenegotiationsinthepast,and thefact
tion. NocomparableclausehadbeeninsertedintheTNstee- thatboththewrittenpleadingsandoralargumentsofthe Par-
ship Agreementsfor the territoriesprevio~uslheld under tieshadclearlyconfirmed thecontinuanceof this deadlock,
threeofthefour"C" Mandates. compelled a conclusion that no reasonable probability
existed that further negotiatiwould leadto a settlement.
Forthereasons stated above, the Courtismissed the first TheRespondenthaving contendedtha ntodirectnegotiations
and secondobjections. between itandthe Applicantshadeverbeeniundertaken, the
Thethirdobjectionconsistedessentialloyftheproposition Courtfoundthatwhatmatteredwasnotsomuchthe formof
thatthedisputebrought befoietheCourtwasnotadisputeas negotiationastheattitudeandviewsofthePartiesonthesub-
envisagedin Article7 of theMandate.The Court recalled stantiveissuesofthequestioninvolved.
that Article7 referred to ".anydispute whatever" arising Moreover,wherethedisputedquestionswereofcommon
between the Mandatory and anotherMember oftheLeague interestto a groupof Stateson one side or the othern an
andreferredto anydisputewhateverrelatingto alloranyof organi!iedbody,parliamentary orconferencediplomacyhad
the provisionsof theMandale,whethertheyrelatedto sub- oftenbeenfoundtobethemostpracticalformofnegotiation.
stantiveobligationsoftheM:andatorytowardthe inhabitants Forthe reasonsstated,thefourth objectionwasnotwell-
of theterritoryortoward theother Membersof the League, founded and shouldalsobedismissed.
ortoitsobligationstosubmilto supervision!bytheLeagueor TheCourtconcluded thatArticle 7 of the Mandate wasa
to protection undeArticle. Thescopeandpurportofthese treatyorconventionstillinforcewithinthemeaningofArti-
provisionsindicatedthat the Membersof the Leaguewere cle37oftheStatuteoftheCourt and thatthe:disputewasone
understoodtohavea legalrightor interestintheobservance which wasenvisagedinArticle7andcouldnotbesettledby
bytheMandatoryof itsobligationsbothtobvardthe inhabit- negotiation.Consequentlythe Courtwas competentto hear
ants and towardthe Leagu~:o!f Nations and its Members. thedisputeon themerits.
Summary of the Judgment of 21 December 1962