Written Statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS,ORALARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

LEGALCONSEQUENÇES FORSTATESOF THE

CONTlNUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN
NAMIBIA(SOUTHWEST AFRICA)

NOTWTTHSTANDINGSECWRlTY COUNClL
RESOLUTlON 276(1970)

VOLUME 1
Request for Advisory Opinion, Documents, Written Statements

COUR INTERNATIONALDEJUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS

CONSEQUENC JERIDIQUESPOUR LES ÉTATSDE
LA PR~SENCECONTlNUE DE L'AFRFQUEDU SUD

EN NAM1BIE(SUD-OUEST AFRICAIN)
NONOBSTANT LA RÉSOLUTION 276 (1970)
DU CONSEIL DE SECURITE

VOLUME 1

Requttpour avconsultadocumentsexposkcrits CONTENTS IX

Page
. . c) 1969(jusqu'ila vingt-quatritme sessionl'kssemblte
gknkraleinclusivement).............. 38
3. Autres résolutionspertinendes1'AssemblCegénérale . . 38

C. Documentation du Conseilkconomique et societ delaCom-
mission des droits de l'homm.............. 34
1. Documents de la Commission des droitdeI'hoinme ... 39
2 et3. Documents et résoIutionsdu Conseil économiqueet
social ....................... 40
CONTENT OSF THEDOSSIER ................... 42

Writtenstatements. Exposésécrits
WRITTEN STATEME NFTTHE SECRETARY.GEN LERFATHE UNITED
NATIONS .......................... 75

1. Introduction......................
The question before the Cou...............
The meaning and scope of the question..........
The issuestobe examined ................

II. International obligations concerning Nam........
Obligations derived frorn the mandates sy........
Obligations derived frorn the CharttheoUnited Nations. .
Other sources of legal obliga..............
The special respansibiliofethe United Nations towards the
people and Territory of Nanlibi............
The role of the General Assembl.............
The right of the people of Namibia to self-deterniination and
independence .....................
III. The continuepresenceof South Africa in Namibia.....
The basis Forthe South African presen..........

The role of the Securfty Coun..............
The illegal occupatio..................
The responsibility ofSouAfricn .............
IV.The legal consequences for Stat.............
The territoriauthority .................
Diplornatic. consular and other relat..........
International treaties and agreemen...........
"Dealings" and commercial. investment and tourist activ.ties
Correlative obligatio..................
V. Conclusion .......................

Annex A. Resolutions adopteby the General Assembly with spe-
cificreference to Namibia (South West Afric........
Anncx B. Acts of the South African Parliament purpotoapply
to Namibia. and enacted. or purportedly extendeto Namibia
after October 1966 ....................
REVIEW OFTHE PROCEEDIN OCSTHE ÇENERAL ASSEMBL YND OF THE
SECUK~TC YOUNCI RELATINC TO THETERMINATI OFNTHE MANDATE
FOR Nn~rsra AND SUBSEQUEA NTTION (SUBMITTE TO THE INTER-
NATIONAL COURT OFJUSTIC EN BEHAL FF THESECRETARY-GENERAL
OF THE UNITED NATIONS )..................X NAMlBlA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

Page
Tntroduction ....................... 123

1. Proceedingsof the General Assemblywhichled to the adop-
tion of resolution 2145 (XXI) ............. 124
Consideration of the question of South West Africa as a
mütter of priority ................. 124
Documents before the General Assemblyin connection with
the item...................... 124
(1) Report ofthespecialcorninittee andreport of thesub-
cornmittee on South West Africa ......... 124
(2) Dsaft resolutions and amendments ........ 125

(a) Draft resolution A/C.483 and Add. 1-3 and
arnendmenis which were adopted ....... 125
(b) A sub-amendment to the amendments containe...
document AIL.488. which was not adopted ... 129
. . (c) A draFt resolution which was not adopted 130
Adoption of General Assernblyresolution 2145 (XXI) and
. detailsof the voting ................ 130
. Summary of viewsexpressedin the debate ....... 131
(1) Statemento made in introducing draft resolution
AlL.483 and Add . 1-3 .............. 131
(2) Statement made in introducing amendments proposed
in document A1L.488 .............. 131
(3) Statemenrs made in the course of discussion .... 131

(a) Sponsors of draft resolution AIL.483and Add .
1.3 .................... 131
(b) tion AlL.483 and Addd .n1-3 but whichafvotedoin-
..~ favour of the draft resolution ........ 133

(i) Eastern European States ......... 133
(ii) Western European and other States .... 135
(1) Western.European States ....... 135
(2) Other States ............ 137
(iii) Asian and AfricanStates ........ 140
(iv) Latin AmericanStates ......... 141
(cl Delegations which abstained in the vote .... 143

(i) France ................ 143
(ii) United Kingdom ............ 144
(dj Dclegations which voted against the drafr reso-
lution AlL.483 and Add. 1-3 and the amend-
ments in document AIL.488 ......... 145
(i) Portugal ............... 145
(ii)South Africa.............. 145

General observations on resolution 2145 (XXI) ..... 146
II.Proceedingsof the Ad Hoc Cornmitteefor South West kffica
estabrished bj, resolutio2145 @XI) of the General Assern-
bly ......................... 147 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)
Page
Resolution 2324 (XXII) ............... 158
Resolution 2325(XXII) ............... 158

Resolution 2372 (XXIl) of 12June 1968 ........ 158
Resolution 2403 {XXILl)of 16 December 1968...... 159
Resolution 2498{XXIV) of 31 October 1969 ....... 159
ResoIution 2678[XXV)of 9 December 1970....... 150
V .Praceedings leading fo Security Council resolution 245
(1968) ....................... 160
Request for a meeting of the Security Counci...... 160
Meeting ofthe Security Council ............ 161
Documents before the Securjiy Council in çonnection with
the question considere............... 161
Adoption of Security Cowncil resolution 245 (1968.... 161
Sumrnaryof viewsexpressed inthe debate........ 161
General observations on Security Council resolution 245
(1968) ...................... 163
VI .Proceedings leading to Secürity Council resolution 246
(1968) ...................... 164
Request for a meeting of the Security Counci...... 164
Meetings of the SBcurityCouncil ............ 164
Documents befor e.the Security Council......... 164

(b) Draft resolutioSI8429pand amendments... ..... 164
184
Adoption of Seruriiy Council resolution 246 (196.... 166
Provision in resolution 246(1968) referrito General As-
sernblyresolution 2145 (XXT) ............ 166
Summary of vicwsexpressed in the debat........ 166
Statesrnot members of the Security Council....... 170
General observations on Security Council resolution 246
(1968) ...................... 171

VI1 .Proceedings leading to Security Council resolution 264
(1969) ...................... 171
Request for a meeting ofthe Security Council...... 171
Meetings of the Security Council............ 171
Documents before the Security Council ......... 172
Communications .................. 172
Draft iesolution.................. 172
Adoption of Security Council resolution 264(1969).... 173
Summary of views expressed in the deba........ 173
General observations on Security Corincil resolution 264
(1969) ...................... 177

VIII. Proceedings leading ro Security Council resolution 269
(1969) ...................... 177
Request for ameeting of the Security Council ...... E77
Meetings of the Security Counci............ 178
Documents before the Securiry Council......... 178 Page
. Les responsabilitéssptciales des ,Nations UniAs l'égarddu
peuple et du territoire de la Nami........... 217
Le rblede I'Assembliegknérale .............. 218
Le droit du peuple de Namibia I'autodetermination et il'indé-
pendance ....................... 220

III. La prksencecontinue de l'Afriquedu Sud en Namibie.... 225
A quel titrel'Afrique duSud est présen.......... 225
. Le r8le du Conseil de sécuri............... 237
L'occupation illéga................... 234
La responsabilitde l'Afriquedu Sud ........... 235
IV .Conséquencesjuridiques pour les Etats .......... 237

Autoritéterritariale................... 237
Relations diplomatiques, cansulaires et au........ 238
Traitks et accords internationau............. 239
CRelations))et activitésrelatives au commercaux investisse-
ments etau tourisme .................. 241
Obligations correspondantes ............... 242
V . Conclusion....................... 245
'
Annexe A: Résolutionsadoptées par l'Assembléegknéraleconcer-
nant expressernentla Namibie (Sud-Ouestafricai....... 247
Annexe B: Lois adoptéespar le Parlement sud-africain ecensées
s'appliquer Ala Namibiequi ont ktépromulguéesen Nainibie ou
dont l'application aurait étéétendaela Nainibie après octobre
.1966 ........................... 252

ETUDE DES DEBAT DE L'ASSEMBLÉ CE~NÉRALE ETDU CONSEI LE SECU-
RITRELATIFSÀ LA CESSATIONDU MANDAT SUR LA NAMIB ITMESURES
PRISESX LA SUITE DE CEDEBAT SDOCUMENT SOUMIS A LACOUR INTER-
NATIONALE DE JUSTIC EU NOM DU SECR~TAT AIRN~RA DE L'ORGA-
NISATION DESNATIONU SNIES) ................. 260
Intfoduction ........................ 260

. 1. Débats qui ont conduit i l'adoption de la résolution2145
(XXI) de l'AssembléegénCrale.............. 261
Examende la question du Sud-Ouest africaien prioritk . . 261
Documents dont l'Assembléegénéraleétait saisieAl'occasion
de l'examen delaquestion .............. 261
1) Rapport du Comitéspécialet rapport du Sous-Comitédu
Sud-Ouest africai.................. 261
2) Projets de resolutions et amendement......... 262

a) Projet de résolutionAIL.483 et Ad.1 à 3 et amende-
ments quiont étéadoptés ............. 262
h) Sous-amendement aux amendements contenus dans le
document AIL.448,qui n'a pas étéadopté ...... 267
c,JProjet de rtsolution qui n'a pastté ado...... 267
Adoption de la résolution2145 (XXI) de I'Assernbltegénérale
et analyse du vote.................. 267
Résumédes vuesexpriméeslors du débat ......... 268

1) Dkclarations faiteà l'occasionde la prksentation du
projetde résolutioAIL.483 et Add .1 A3 ...... 268 CONTENTS XV
Page

2) Déclarations faites lors de la présentation des amende-
ments proposésdans le doçunient AIL.488 ...... 268
3) Déclarationsfaites au coursde la discussion ..... 259
a) Par lesauteurs du projet de résolutionAjC.483et Ad.
1à 3 ..................... 269
b) Par des délégations quine figuraient pas au nombre
des auteurs du projet de résofutionAIL.483 et Add .
1 3 mais qui ont votéen sa faveur ....... 271
i)Eiats de l'Europe de l'Est .......... 271
fi) Etats de L'Europede l'Ouest et autres Etais. 273
1) Etats de l'Europede l'Oum ........ 273
...............
2) Autres Etats 275
iii} Eiats d'Asie ed'Afrique ........... 278
iv) Etats d'Amériquelatine ........... 279
rJ Par des dklégationsqui s'étaientabstenues lors du
vote ..................... 281
i) France................... 281
ii) Royaume-Uni ............... 282

d) Par des délégationsui avaient votécontre leprojet de
résolutionAjL.483 et Add .1 à 3et les amendements
figurant dans le documentAIL.488 ........ 284
i) Portugal.................. 284
ii) Afrique du Sud ............... 284
Observations généralesconcernant la résolution2145 (XXL) . 284

II.Débatsdu Comitéspècialpour le Sud-Ouest africain cré6 en
application de la sesalution 214(XXI) de l'Assemblée gèné-
rale ......................... 285
Propositions presentéesau Comitéspécial ......... 286
a) Proposition présentéepar I'Ethiopie.le Nigéria.la Rtpu-
blique arabe unie et le Sénegal........... 286
b) Proposition présenttepar le Chili et le Mexique.... 286
c) Proposition prksentée par le Canada. les Etats-Unis
d'Amérique etI'Italie ............... 287
Comm~inicationdes trois propositions à l'Assembléegénérale 287
Conclusions sur lesquellesreposaientlestrois proposition. . 287
Divergences de vues quant aux mesures pratiques ..... 287
Questions ayant fait l'unanimitéau sein du Comitéspécial. . 288

111. Débats de l'Assembléegénérale (cinquième sessioe nxtraordi-
naire) qui ont aboutia l'adoptionde liartsolution 2248 (S-V)
du 19mai 1967 .................... 288
Documents dont 1'Assernblee giniraleÇtaftsaisiea l'occasion
de l'examen dela question .............. 289
Rapport du Comitéspécialpour le Sud-Ouest africain . . 289
Projetsde rksolution ................. 289
Projet de résolutionAIL.51GIRev 1 .......... 289
Projet de rksolution AIL.517. ............ 289XVI NAMIBIA (SOUTPIWEST AFRICA)

Page
Adoption de la rtsolutiori22448(CS-V). . . . . . . . . . . 290
Déclarationsfaites au cours de la discussion gtnéraleerexpli-
cations de vote. . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . 240
Déclarationsfaites par des délégations iîgiiranau nombre
des auteurs du projet de résoIutionA/L.516/Rev. I . . . 290
Déclarationsfaites par des délégationqs uiont votéenfaveur
du projet de réso4utionAlL.5 1GIRev.1 mais qui ne figu-
raient pas au nombre de ses auteurs . . . . . . . . . 292
Déclarations faitespar les membres permanents du Conseil
de stcurite qui se sont abstenus lors duvore sur le projet
de résolutionAIL.516lRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Dkclarations faites par des Etats de l'Europe de l'Ouest et
par d'autres Etats(autres que les membres permanents du
Conseil de sécurité)qui se sont abstenus lors du vote sur
Ieprojet de rksolution A/L.S16/Rev. 1 . . . . . . . . 294
Déclarations faites par des membres du Croupe afro-asia-
résolutionAIL.5161Rev.enu1 .o. .du. . .. su. .e.pr. . . . 295
Déclarations faitespar les Etats de l'Europe de l'Est quise
sont abstenus lors du votc sur le projet de rksolution
A/L.Sl6jRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
Otclaratian Faitepar unedéltgationopposéeAl'adoption du
projet de rtsolution AlL.516IRev. 1 . . . . . . . . . 296
Dtclarations faites par des dtlégationsabsentes lors du vote
sur le projet de résolutioAIL.5161Re 1v... . . . . . 296
Observations générales concernant la résolution2248 (S-V) de
l'Assembléegénérale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
IV. Etude des rksolutions adoptées par l'Assembléegknérqale au
sujet dela Namibie postérieurement aux résolutions2145 (XXT)
et 2248 (S-V) de l'Assembléegénérale, . . . . . . . . . . 297
Résolutions2324(XXII)et2325(XX 16dI)cdembre1967 . 297

Résolution2325 (XXII)I) .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . 297

Rtsolution 2372(XX11)du 12juin 1968. . . . . . . . . . 298
Résolution2498 (XXIV) du 3 11octobre 196968. .. .. .. . . .. 299
Résolution2678 (XXV) du 9 décembre1970 . . . . . . . . 299

V. D6bats qui ont abouti à I'adoption de la résolution245(1968)
du Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Demande de réuniondu Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . 300
Réuniondu Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Documents dontleConseiIde stcurité étaitsaisipour l'examen
de la question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
Adoption de la résolution245 (1968) du Conseil de séciaité. 301
Observations généraleseconcernant la rksolution 245 (1958) du1
Conseil de sécuritt . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 303

VI. Débats quiont abouti l'adoption de la résolution246 (1968)
du Conseil de sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303XVIII NAMIBIA (SOUTH WESTAFRICA)

Page
X .Débatsqui ont abouta l'adoption de la résolution283 (1970)
du Conseildesécuritk ................. 332

Demande deréuniondu Conseil de skcuri........ 332
Réuniondu Conseil de sécurit............. 332
Documents dant le Conseil de sécurittesais...... 332
Rapport du Sous-Comitk ad ho............ 332
Projets de rCs~luti................. 332

i) Projet de résoluSI9891............ 332
ii) Projde résolutionSI989............ 333
Adoption dela résolution283 (1970) du Conseil de séc.r333
Resunnedes vues exprimaes acoursde ldiscussion.... 333
Observations généralsoncernantIarésolution283(1970)du
Conseilde sécurit.................. 337
XI .Debats qui ont abouti hl'adoptdenla résoIution284(1370)
du Conseil de sécurité 338
..................
Débats auseindu Sous-Coniitad lzo........... 338
Débats du Conseil de sécuratsa1550'séarice ...... 341
XII. Résuméde l'étudedes débats.............. 344

Annexe concernant les efdeti'abstention volontaire des membres
.permanents du Conseidesécurité.............. 346
WRI~ENSTATEMEN OF THE GOVERNME NT THE KINGDOM OF THE

NETHERLAND ......................... 350
WR~TTEN STATEMEN OFTTHE GOVERNMEN OFTHE POL~SH PEOPLE'RSE-
PUBLIC ............................ 354

WR~EN STATEMEN OF THEGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTA ........ 355

WRITTEN STATEMEW OF THE GOVERNMEN OTTHE'HUNGARIAP NEOPLE'S
REPUBLI .......................... 359

LETTE RROMTHE AMBASSAD OFRHE CZECHOSLO VACIAL~S.....LIC
TO THEPRESIDEN QF THEINTERNATION CALURT OFJUSTICE 361

F~R~TTE STATEMEN OF THEGOVERNME OFTFINEAND ........

1. lntroductory rernark..................
I. The legal consequences for SoAfrica..........
II1. The legconsequencefor orher Mernbersofthe United Nations
than South Afric....................
1V. The Iegalconsequences for States not rnernbers of the United
Nations ........................

Chapter 1. Introductio...................
Chapter T.The interpretatiand modification of treaties.
A .Introductor.......................
B. Interpretation of treat................ CONTENTS . XIX

Page
I. The aim or purposeof the interpretative process .....
II. The principlesto be applied in ascertaining the cornmon
inteni of the parties.................
(a) Actuality and ordinary meaning ..........
(b) Contemporaneiiy ................
(c) Implication of agreement .............
(CI) Effectiveness(utrcs magis valea:qaumpereat) ...
(c) The universal appIicability of the above principles. .
Ç . Subsequent conduct ..................
......................
II Subsequent conduct as an aid to interpretation.....
III . Subsequent conduct as a means of modifying treaties . .
IV. Practice within the United Nations ..........

Chapier TT.1The forma1 validity of the relevant Security Council
resolutions ........................
A. Introductory ......................
B . The origin and arnbiof the powers oftheSecurityCouncil . .
C. The composition of the SecurityCouncil .........
D. The voting procedure of the Securfty Council .......
1. General ......................
II.The requirement OFthe concurring votes of the Permanent
Mtrnbers of the Council ...............
1II.The effect of the practice of the Council upon Article 27.
paragraph 3 .....................
1V. Compulsory abstention in terms of the proviso to Article
27. paragraph 3 ...................
E . The non-procedural nature of Security Council resolution 284
(1970)..........................
F . The failureof the Security Council to invite South Africa to
participatein itsdiscussions ...............
G . Conclusion ......................

Chapter 1V. The discretion of the Court .. ; : ......*.. 425
A. Introductory ...................... 425
B . The politicaI background to the question and the involvement
of the Couri ...................... 426
1. General ...................... 426
II.The reception of the Court's 1966 Judgment ...... 427
III.The involvetnent of the Court as constituted at present . 433
IV. The involvernent of individual Membersof the Court . . 437
V .The applicable Iegalpsinciples ............ 439
VI . Concluding remarks ................ 441
Ç. The dispute between South Africaand other States ..... 442
T. General ...................... 442
TT. The existence of a dispute.............. 443

D .The factual issues involved ............... 447
E. Conclusion ...................... 450 Page
II.Substitution of supervisory organs by virtue of some
objective principle of international law......
TIT. The express terms of the Mandate ..........
IV .Winstrumenti.................... read into the mandate
Y. Judicial pronouncements ..............
VI. Judgc Jessup's disseniing opinion in 196.......
VTT. Conclusion ....................
C .The possibility of revocation of the Mandate........

II.GRevocation bywirtueof..aprinciple of international la.
Il1.The express termsof the Mandate ..........
IV. Revocation by virtue of an implied term .......
V. Conclusion ....................
Annex A. Article 22 of theCovenant of the Leagueof Nations ...
Annex B .andate for GermanSouth West Africa .......
Chapter VITI .The transitional years 1945-1946and thereafter..

A . Tntroductory......................
C Dissolution of the Leagued ofNations ...........
D . The period 196-1949 ..................
E . The effect of the evenis during the transitional ye....
1. General .....................
TI. Thc United Nations Charter ............
III. United Nations resolutions of January-February 1946
pertaining to assumption of certain Lcague functions and
establishmentof the trusteeship systeni.......
TV. League of Nations resolutions during last session of its
Assembly, 8 to 18 April 1946 ............
V. Negotiations subsequeni todissolution of the Leagri. .
Y1. Practiceof States .................
F. Conclusion ......................
Annex A . Participationby Members of the United Nations in
debates in that Organization during the years 1947. 1948and 1949
concerningtheaQuestionofSouth West Africa" ........
First Par.........................
Second Part .......................
Chapter IX . The earlier Opinions and Judgrnentsconcerning super-
visionofSouth West Africa .................
A. Tntroductory ......................
B . Analysis of. and comment on. the 1950Advisory Opinion . .
C. Dissent from the 1950 Advisory Opinion concerning super-
vision.........................
1 Minority opinions .................
TI. Opinionsof writers ................
D. Advisory Opinions of 1955and 1956 ...........
E. The 1962Judgrnent and Opinions ............
1. General .................... Page
II. Separate opinion of Judge Eustamante ........ 695
TI1.Dissenting opinion of JudgesSir PercySpendecand Sir
Cerald Fitzniaurice ................ 696
IV. Dissenting opinion of Judgevan Wyk ........ 698
V. The Judgment of the Court ............. 698
VI. Separate opinion of Judge Sessup .......... 703
VI1 . Sepasate opinion of Sudge Sir Louis Mbanefo ..... 704
VIII. Dissenting opinionsof President Winiarski.JudgesBasde-
vant and Morelli and Declaralionof Judge SpiropouEos . 705
.F . The '1966Judgmentand separate opinions ......... 706
1. General ..................... 706
11. The Sudgrnen tf the Court ............. 705

(a) The Court's analysis of the mandates in the context
of the Leapue system ..............
. (b) The Court's view asto the events in the transitional
period 1945-1946 ...............
(c) of 'fillingin the gaps"'..............e ina process
(d) Conclusion tobe drawn from the Court's approach .

111. Separateopinion of Judge van Wyk .........
IV. Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Wellington Koo . .
VI. Dissenting opinion of JudgeJessupa............
VI1. Dissenting opinion of JudgePadilla-Nervo ......
VI11. Dissenting opinion of Judge Sir Louis Mbanefo ....

G . Conclusion ......................
Chapter X. The validity and legal effectoGeneral Assemblyreso-
lulion 2145 (XXI) .....................
A . Introductory ......................
B. The origin andmbit of the powersof the General Assernbly. .
C. The powers of the General Assernbly in relation to the present
.. .que$tion. .... , , , . , , . +! i ........
D. The nature and legal effect of &neral Assernbly resoluiion
2145 (XXI) ......................
E . Conclusion ......................
Chapter...I. The factualissu. a . .......4......
A . Intraductory ...... : ...............
B. The political background to the adoption of resolution 2145
wl) .........................
C . The attacks on South Africa'sadministration of theTerritory .
1. General .....................
II. Thc quality and sources of the çriticisragainst South
Africa'çpolicles ..................
II. Reactions to expbsitions of the tfue fact.......

(a) The visit of Mi.Caipio and Dr .Martinez de Alva to
South WestAfrifa ', .............. CONTENTS XXllI

Page
{b) Furiherreaction toevidenc proving the absence of
militarizarion................ 740
(c) The Sorirh WestAfricacases........... 742

E .Subsequent eventse...................ution2145 (XXI) . . 751
F .The latesi progress.................. 756

I'.General .................... 756
II. Population and history............ 756
1l.Government and administration .......... 761
IV. Summaryreview of general economic developrnent . 764
V:Banking.....................s.......... 768
YI1. Agriculture.................. 770
VI11. Veterinary services........ ' ..... 775
IX. Fishing .................... 775
X. Construction .................. 776
. XI Commerce ................... 778
XII. Manufacturing ................. 778
XII1. Railway, road transport, harbour and air serv. .s 779
XIY . Oficial transport............... 783
XV . Raads ..................... 783
XVI . Postal and telecommunications services..... 785
XVII . Economic advancement of the indigenous peoples of
South West Afric................ 788
XVlIi Waterresources ................. 792
XIX Power ..................... 797
XX . Educaiion ................... 799
XXI . Health services................ 806
XXTI. Scientifi....................esearch services . . 808
XXII1. Summary 809
G .Conclusion ...................... 809
lntroductionto pholographic presentation........... 811
Annex A..South Wesr Aji-icSurveyIYO ............ 812
Annex B. Communication dated 26 September 1967from the Minis-
terof Foreign Affairsof the Republic of South Africa (U.A[oc
6897, Annex II, Enclosure 2)................ 812
Annex C. South West Africa: SouthAfrica R'sply to the Secretary-
GeneraIof the United Nations (Securiiy ÇounciI resolution 269 of
1969)........................... 812
Table ofcasescited ..................... 813
List of tlie relevant documentation............ 815
.........
WRI~TEN STATEME NFTTHE GOVERNME OFTINDIA 830
Introductory ........................ 830
T. Scopeofthe question ................. 830
TT Issues bforc the Court................ 837
JT TLegal consequencesforStates.............. 838
1V .Conclusion ...................... 842WKITTENSTATEMENTS

EXPOSES ÉCRITS W KIT'IGN STASEMENT OF THE SECKETARY-GENEKAL

OF' THE UNITED NATIONS

'LP K uestionkfore fhe Court

I. By ils resdution nrimber284 cl970), adopcd on 29 July1970, the Se
curity Council decided to reqiiest an advisory opinion of the Intemalional
Couri of Justiceon thefrdlowingquestion:
"What are theIegalconsequences for Statesofthecontinuai prcscnccof
South Africa in Namibia, notwirhstanding Security CounciI resofution

276 (1970j?"
2. The prescntstalenlentwill examinesome of the principal issuesto which
thisqiicsliogiver sise.
?'hekleaiiing andScope of theQuestion

3. The propoual to recuesl ün advisoty opinion of ihe InternationaI Courr
ofJr~sticon "the legd i,onscqucnce for States of the continucd prcscncc of
South Africa in Namjhia notwithstanding Swurity Council resultition 276
(1970)" was aniong thc recumnicnùations 'madebyan ildf-loc Sub-Cornmittee

of thc S~urity CounciI which had bccn cstablishedon 30 January 1970 to
srudyways and rrieansb:rwhich the iesolutions of the SecurityCouncilcon-
cerning Narnibia cou1J bc effecliveIyimpleinentcdin accord an^^with the
Unitcd Kations Cliürter,iii the Iightof theflagrantrefusoaflSouth Africatci
withdrawfromNamibia. Thcproposedquestion rotheCourr was incorporated
by theSecuriry C:ounciirioperativeparagmph 1ofirs rcsolution284(1970) in
the sanic words as had bzn prnposed by thc Ad Ifoc Suk-Corninittee.
4. In order to dcternti~eihc meaniiigandscopeof the questionasconceived
by its authors, and theorgan from which itemanated, ir isthcrefom pertinent

to note at thc outset the principatintentions andinterpretationswhich were
expressedin thediscussionsof thc SubCon~mittee and of ~heScurity Coun-
cil' which led to the forniaadoption ofthe resolurionof 29 July1970.
5. 'I'hsponsor uTIhe [iroposal whichbecarnc thcfirsoprative paragraph
of Security Counçil rescblirtio284 (19701, made it clear from the outset
that the terniinatinnnf tliMandate and the assumption by the GeneralAç-
szrnblyof dircctrcspunsihilitfortheTerritory was nui beingcalled into que+
lionI.For this had beenan "irrevocabfesttp" and"conscquentlq~t,hc prrsence
of SouthAIrica jnNami biawas nowillegaiandniemherStateshadptedgcdihem-
seIvesio fulfiI Ihe respurrsibi1ity whithe Unitcd Nations had assurned ?".

The questionto bc prcsenredto the Courttherefore reIated tothe Iegatcon-

' S/9863, 731il1970.
IIQcSub-Cornmitteeccompi,iscdthe full rnelnbersoftheaScuriiypCounçil.is Ad
Ad Hoc Sub-Commiiteiestabt~shed inpursuance ofSrcurityCuunçil resolution
276 (t9101,SrimrnaryRecords ofFirsr toSeventecnth Meeting$, jnclus(heldbe-
twcen 4Eeb. 1370and 7 July 1970)S/AC.l7/SR.I to S/AC.l?/SR.14.
' kurity Council: 1550thMeeting,hetdcn 24 July 1910,SjPV.1550.
Finland.
S!AC.I?/SR.l7 arp. 3.aiid S)AC.I?jSR.17a! p. 8.
SjAC.17/SK.lZ atp. 3.sequenm for States of the prescnvcof South Africa in Narnibia after these
irrevocable changeshad beenbrought about.
6.T.he sponsorof thc rcsnlurion furchersuggcstedthat the advisoiyopinion
requestedof theCourtwouId"definein lcgalterms the implicationsfurStates
of South Akica's conlinued preseiicein Nami bia", and wouId heIp to detine

more precisltly"thc rights of Naniibians", buth those inNa~nibia alid ihosc
residiirgabroad! Ittas lur~hersuggcsted that the advisoryopinion requested
of the Courr couIdunùerlincthefact that SouthAfricahas forfeited irs:Man-
date ovcr South West Africa becauseuf irsvioIation of tlie termsof ihc Man-
date itself,hecause South Africa has acted contras' to its internationalobli-
gations, contrary lo the internationalstatus of thc Territory and contrary to
international law 9.

7. The view of the sponsar of the resolutionconcerning the natureand
scope of the question to be presentedto ihc Court were nat contesied within
the SuKornrnittee by anymcmber which support4 the inclusionof the re-
cornniendation in ihe Sub-Cnmmittee's report IO the Council. Moreover, the
questionto the Courtwhich had been rcwmmended by the Ad Ifor Sub-Corn-
mittee was irtcorporatedin the samewordsin tlieresolutionwhichwas adopted
by ihe SecurityCounciIon 29 Juty 1Y7O7by a vorc of12 in favour, O againsi

and 3 abstentions 'O.
8. The understandingexpressedby the sponsorof the rcsolution conoern-
ing the kirnitsc cdpc of the question to be addressed to the Court wris re-
affirmed in varyingtermsbyseverd othcr mernbersoftheLounciI ",particular
eniphasis being also placed on the effects of the non-cornplianccby South
Africa with the pertinent rcsolutions of the SecurityCouncil, and with the
responsi bilciesassumed by the Unitcd Nations tnwardNarnibiaandifspeopIe 12.

SIXC.17;SR.IZ at p.3; and SjPV.1550 ai p.18.
lbid.
IR favul~r:Burundi, China, Colombia, Finland, France. Nepal. Nicaragua,
Sierra Lconc,Spain, Syria,USA and Zambia. Agrrinst:Xone. Abstaining:Polond,
USSRand UK. Immediately priorto the voteon the resciluiioas a whole,a sepa-
rate vutewas takcn, atthe request »FIhe reprcscntativofFrance.on illinclusion
of Ilie word:"...notwithstandingSecurity Cuitncilrcsolution 276(1970)"occurring
as theIastpliras(ifriperativcparagtaplf<iftheresolution.By a voteofII iifavaur,
O agriinstand 4 abstentions(France, Poland, USSRand UK) the SocurityCouncil
dmidcd ta retain these wordsinthe resolutionsee S/PV.1550. at pp.76and 77-80.
" E-g.C ,olornbia (10scckanolhe rdvisory tipiniti.. ."would . .. in noway
chatltnge prcvious decisiclntakcn by the #uncil and the GeneraI Assembly or
detay theiriniplementation", SlAC.171SR.1 2,pp. 5-6); NepaI(*'.. it wilbe rlur
understanding thai the InternatitionCourt limit the scope of itadvisory opinion
arictly to ihr.questionprito il, andnritrevicw orcxamincthe Icgality or vaIidity
of thc resoIutionsadopted bybotiitheGeneraI Asscmblyandthc SocurityCouncil",
S/PV. 1550,al p.37); Syria {the InternalionaCourtof Justicc"is not askcd to ruIc
on thc statusof Namibia as sucli;rarheritisrequcstcd to ciicithc xopc of Icgal
means at thedisposalof States, which inay erec l wulI uftepiiopptisiticito the
occupation of Namibia hy the Governrncnt of SoutIiAfrica,"S/PV.1550, at p.47);
Burundi (".. .thc political dwisionof tbe Gcnerd Asxmbly witliregard to the
strrtuof Yarnibia isirrevacablebmux the political naturof lhe Namibian prob-
lem issuc11ttietit jdehnitelywithinthe sphere of politicalsotutions to bc imposed
by the Security Council atid the Gmçral Assernbly.thc rnost cornpctcnt organs.
Thus, it is in::ccognitionof the primaroleofthese two rirgans, the SçcuriCoun-
cil andthe Ceneral Assembly. that my dclegation witl vote in favourofthe draF1
resolutioniujmirted to us",S/PV.ISSU, atpp. 71-75).
l2 E.g., Spiin (therequrstitithe Internationa Court of Justice foran advisorr
opinion would makc the SeEurityCiiuncil awarc"of thc internationallcgalconse-
quences of a faiiurt to complrvifhresoluiionsof a UnitedNations bvdy, in partic- Y. The three mernbers "j of the Council who abstainw ehen the rcsolrition
was adopted on 29 JuIy 1970 likciviseappear to have acknowledged,either
tacitlyor exprcssly, the ;issuniptionupon which the decision io rcqucst an
advisory opinion of the LnIerniitiona iour[ of Justicewas predicatcd.More-
ovcr, in onc ofthçsr:case:;", tliernembercxplained his decision10 abstainon
the ground that the acknowIedged assiiniptionunderfyingthe question 10 the

Courtivould unduly restri tcetscope af thc qucstion 'j.
10. 'i'heonly statcd ccceptioii to the understandingshared by Council
inernkrs as to the scope and purpose ofthe question to bc prcscntcd tothe
Coiirt appears ta have ernanated from onc Council rnen~be l6 who, ivhile
voting in favour of the rcsuIution,nevertiielessimpliedapreference Tora widcr
intcrprctittionof the qüe;tion than that which had been, eiiher expressly or
tacitlyundcrstood by otlier Council memkrs ".
11. Ingeneral, thereforc, from the record of the discussionsof the Security

CounciI and its Sub-Comfi-ititeeirnmcdiatelyprt~edingtheadoption of Securi-
ty Council resoIution284 (197Ui) t would appear that the question prescnied
to theCourr concerns the IcgsIconscquences Tor States of the continiiedprc-
xncc of South Africa in,Varnibia,iiot asa professedorputative Mandatory
Power, but asa Statewhicli, according ta the provisions of SecurityCouncil
resalutian 776(1970) wa:. continuing to occupy Nami hia iIIcgall'" and in
defianceor ihe relevantIJnited Nations resuIiitionsand thc Unitcd Nations

Charter 19,notwithstandiiigrhat .the Mandate for South N'et Africa ha been
terminaid ", the United Nations has açsumed direct responsibiIityfor the
Territory untir ils indepecdence'l,and the SecuriryCoirncil had ciIlcd upon
the Governrnent of South Africa irnmediately io withdraw itsadministration
from the Territory

12. It has been show0 that in formulating the question now berorethe
Court, the SecurityCouncilusedthe phraqe "the continucd presene of South

ular resolutions 264(1969), 269 (1969) and 276 (1410) of the SeçurilyC~unçil";
the Finnisliproposal wase?:pected to coniribuie t". ..the defençeofthe inierests
and rights oftlie Namibians and rçspct Tiithe decisionsof ihe Organization in
discharging irsspecialrespc,nsibiliioeard rhe rerritorof Nsniibia", S/PV.1550,
nt pp. 65-M),
'"Poiand, LSSR and Wb;.
" United Kingdom.

l5S)AC. 17/SR, 17,at p.:i;and SjPV.155 0i,pp.89-91 ("our supp0ri"-for a
rcqucst foran advisory opitiicin frcthe InlernalionafCourt of Justice-". ..de-
~nded upon thc submissior:tu theItiteriiarionClourt of thissueof thc statusof
South West Arrica asa whole. The quesrion beforcus does not appcar todo this.
It isbased on certain assurnptionsabout the legalstatus ofSouih Wafl ACrica
which, in tliopinion of my Governrnent, ntightthcmselves tobeexarnine hy the
Corirî.These assuniptiom .ire not txpresrilstated in the questionitselrbutrhey
do clearly emerge from sorne speeches of the sponsorsmadc in ihe Ad Hoc Sub-
ColbmFrance.ndalso today ...", SjPV. 1550,atpp. 89.91).

" S/FV.1550, at pp. 86-3::cf.footnotc 10 above cunïerning the Council's deci-
sion toretainthe words"riotwithstandingSer-uriiyCc~uncilresoluticin276(1970)".
SccurityCouncil resolution276 (1930), para. 2. . . ..-
Ihid., para. 4.
'O Ibid.2ndand 3rd prcambuIarparngraphs.
" Ibid.2nd prcgrnbularjiaragrapli.
22 Ibid., 3rd prramhulnrparagraph.Africa inh'ümibiü, notwirhsrandSi ecgrityCouncil resolution276 (1970)" in
orderto denotethepresenceof South Africa after ihe Mandate had terminated
and South Africa had cçastd iohavc any right to beprwnt as Mandatvry
Power.

13.11 foIlowsthat rhe legalconsequences forStates of rhiscontinued pre-
sencearc not thosc which raultcd direcilyfrom ~heconduci or South Africa
in 11sformer capacity as Mandatoryi'ower, but only the consequeilcesof the
continuedSouthAfricanpresenceafter the cessationoftheMandatoryrelation-
ship.
14. In the statement which folIows, it willbe shown that tlie continued
prasence of SouthAfrica in Narnibia-

(a) has fruslrated,altered or otherrviseaffected the fulfilmeiitof pre-exist-
ing internationalrightsand obligationsowing by States,and by theinkr-
nationalcommunity, in respect ofNamibia{includingobligationsawumed
under ~hcCovcnant ofthe hguc ofNations andtht miindates systcm,
and also under the Charterof the UnitedNationsand thereicvant norn-rs
andprincipIes or internationallaw};
(b) has [cdto additional obligations fStatesiindectheCharter ofthe United
Natioi~s, and by virtue of decisionstaken by the SecurityCounciI with

specific referencto the continuedoccupation by South Africaof Nami-
bia;and
{cj bas created a situationin whichrclationships and transaçtiunsinvolving
Namibia and other Stares, which hirhertocauld he legally enteredintci
and cxwutcd, un no Iongr have any Icgaldkcr pending ihe re<uablish-
ment ofa Iawfuladministration and legalsystem rvithinthe Territuryof
Namibia.

15.Bcforc seiiing outthc factual andIegaIcircurnstancesof the continued
South Afri~inpresencein Karnibia a,ndtheadditionaiinternational obligations
which have corne into king as a resultof that prewnce, this statementwilI
first e~aminc bricflthc cvolution sincc thc inccption of thc mandatessyçleni
of the principal internationolbligationswhici~today engage the responsibility
ofthe UnitedNalions and its mernbcrSratesinconsequenceof the BiLure ofthe
former Mandatory I'ower todischargcthcse rcsponsibiIiticsor to withdraw rrvm
theTerritorywhenIlie Mandate teriiiinated.

ObIigationsDerived from th Mandates Sysfem

16. The assurnption of internationalresponsibilityfor Namibia (formcrly
Gcrman So~th WELAfriça) l3first round expression in Articl22 of the Co-
venant of the League of Nations, of which the firsttnio parügraphs rd as
follows:

"1. To thox coIonics and tcrritoricswhich au a consequence of the
lntewar Iiaveceased to beunder the sovereigntyof the Stiitcswhich for-
merly f;overnedthernand which are inhabitedby peoples not 'et ableto
stand kythcmlves undcr thestrenuousconditions of thernodern world,

23 For fhc:purposc of thisstatement the ierm "South Wcst Africa" rneaning
"Namibia" rnaybc uscdwhcn thecontcxtrcfcrstohistoricadevclopmenls çonçern-
ing the Trmtory, beforcthcnanic "Namibia" had bfcn intrduced. WKIYTEN S-IATE.MENTOF THE SliCRETARY-GENERAL 79

rhereshouId be applied the principlcthatthe weII-king and developnicnt
of such peoples forrr: a sacrecitrustof civilizütionanthal stxuiitiesfor
the performanceof tliis trustshouId L-iemhodiedin thisCovenant.
2. The hest rnethod of giving practicaeffectto thisprincipleisffiafthc
tutctagc:cfsuc11pcoplesshould beentrustecl to advanccd nationswho by

reason of their resources,their exmience or their geographical position
can best undcrlükc ihis responsibi lidt~,ho arewilling io accept it,
andthat this tuteIag,eshould bc exercised by them as Mandatorieç on
behalfof the Leagile."

17. Inconsequcnm of thcrcnunciation byGermany in 19192duf al1herrights
aver South Wcst Africa, and the establishmentby the League of Kiitirinsin
1920,rinderArticle27 of the Covenan t,oruninterrirttionaMl andateor "tiite-
lage" forSoulh West Africa lu beexetiised by South Africa as a Mandatory
I'nweron bchalfof the L2aguc 3, an ovcraI1,and stiII undischargd, responsi-
bility was thereby assuinc:dby the internaiionalcomtnunity foi tlie advance-
mcnt and protection of the pcupleand Territoryof Namibia.
18. As statcd hy tlie<:ouri in a previous advisary opinion, the niandates
sq'srenwiascreatrd by Article22 of theCovenan tof he LeagueofNations wilh

a vitw to giving prüclica elkct 10 two principtesof pararnountiniportancc,
nanicly"thc principle of aon-anncxationand the principlethat thc weII-tieing
and developnlent of such peoples forrna 'sucrecitrustof civilizatirt*. The
Court furthernbscrvcd tha t"this new internationalinstitutiondid not involvc
any cession of territoryor transferof sovereign ttythe Union of South
Africa. The Uiiion Gove:nrnent was tncxerciseari iniernationaIfiinctionof
administrationon bchalf ofthe bague with the object of promoting thc wcll-
being and dcvcloprneittol'the inhabitants'7."

19. In Article 2 or th<:Mandatt: for "Gcrman South West AfricaWZ he
graiit of comprehensive .idrninistrativcatid Iegislativeporveersover the Tcr-
ritory was foIlowedby th: requireineitttbat "the Mandainry shall pronioteto
the utrriostthe matcria1andmoral weII-beingand the sucial progres of the
iiihahit;mtsof theterritorysuhject tothe presentMandate".
?O. Dy assumingthc rcsponsibilitiesof the Mandatory Power, South AITica
ihcrcby acccptcd the prerniseson ~vhichthe Mandate was foundcd, and was
thusprecluded front ~Iairitingatanyfuture date, any territor oias1overeign

rightsin respect~TSoutIi 'WestAfricainconsistw enih the Mandate, or arising
from events ariteccdingiticreation.
21. The internationalrespansibilitiesconceriiing Namihia, assume&as a
"sacrd trusi nf civilizatic~nsincc 1920,wcrenot dependent on the continued
cxistcncç of thtLeague cUfNations, and rernainedin eflcct follor\,ingthe dis-
solutionof rhclatteron I'i Apri1946 29.Thus,it wasdetermincdby theCourt

" ArticleII9 of the Traty or Pcacc witl~Gerniany,signed at Vcrsaillc<in 28
June (919.
25 Mandate forGcrman South West Africa confirmedby the Declaration ofthc
Coiincilof'thc kaguç of Plationsor 17 Deccmbcr 1920.
2Vt~~~~natiolmSlfuriisqf .Tou~h&'LT /ifriru,Adviwry Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
J950, p. 128. ap. 131.
" Ibid.aatW.132.
Zj l>cclarat~oby the C'cuncilofihc League ofNations of 17 n-~rnbtr 1920.
29 Restiluii<in ofrhcCouiicof theLeaaueof Nations ado~trd on 18April 1946;
seealso IniernrrtiolSTOTU 0.1.Soiiilr IVAf~ica.Advi.rorhpiniuii, C.J. Reporls
1950, p.1?S. atpp. 131-13l( and143; SnvrR We.rrAjricucuses,Pr~lirninarObj~c-
liorrJudgtjzrnr, I.T.J. R~p,îrr.v1p.2319, at pp330335 and 347.80 SAMiBIA [SOU?H WEST AF-KICA)

in a previoiisadvisory opiniori that,rollowing the dissolutinn of theLeagile,
and norwitlistandingthe fact that no agreementwas concludcd pIacing the
Territory o: :outh West Africaunderthe United Nations trusteeshipsystcrn,
South Wcst Africii rcrnaincda territoryunderinternationa1Mandate, and the
MandatoryPower continued to have ihe internationalobligations stated in
Article 22 of the Covenanr of the League of Nations, and in thc Mandate,
a5welt as the nhligaiinn totransmit reports and petitions,and to subiiijito
thesupervi:.ion ofihe GeneralAsscrnblyof the United Nations 3n.

22. With regard to the necessity foi international suw~sion, the Court
stated, inte rIiu, tha"the iefrectiveperfurmance of tliesacred trustof civiIi-
zation by thc Mandatory Powcrsrequird that the adminislrationof mandated
territorieshouId be subjectto internatioiia1supervision"jl, and added, "the
necessityfor supervisionconlinues to euist despite tlie disappearanceof the
supcrvisoryorgan underthemandatessystem" j2The Court afso rcferrcdto the
provisions of ArticIe80( Iof the United NationsCharter, prewving therighrs
of Statesandpeoples under existing internationa lgreements, andobserved in
thisconnwtiun that "the purposemust have h~~nro provide a mal protection

for those rights; but no such rights of the peopIes could be effeciivelysafe-
guarded wirhout internationalsupervision and a duty torender reports to a
supcrvisory or~an" 33.
23. The cssential hasisfor thMandatefor South West Africa was therefore
ta be found in irs internationalstaius and ii~ternationalpurpose"', ivhich
resultedin theassumptionbythe United Nations of the responsibiIitieshilhcrto
vestd in the League of Natioiisandthe continuance, pending its fulfilmentof
a suigeneris internationa1trust.

Obligativnsderivedfrom the Charter of theUnitûdNatiom

24. Un 24 Uctober 1945, when the United Nations Charier en~red into

forcc, South Africa was administering the mandated Territory of South
West Africiion khdf of thc Leagueof Nations 3s,subject to the internalional
obligationsrcsultingfrom.4rtide 22 of theavenant of the Lcaguc: of Nations,
and from the Mandate confrmed by the Councilof the League of Nations on
17 Decernber 1920, and from the rules (relatingfo petitions from mandated
tcrritories)ridoptebythe CounciIof theLeagueof Nations nn 3lJanuary1923.
25. However, upon the adherence by South Africa to the Charier of the

inrernuîionri! Slatof SorirhWpsr Afiica, Advisury Opiniuii, i.C.1. Reports
1950, p.126,.at p. 143; rr-afirmed inthrsr respectsinSauili West Aj'riccases,
Pr~fi~iii~iOrbj~cfiansJudgnient, I.C.J. Repor1962. DD.31Y etsea.
ibid., h:rernaiionaf SrukSfi~ihWC$ Afiira, ~<f;i;aropinion,I.C.J. K~porrs
1950, p.J28, atp.136.
3Vbili.
" Internu.'iunulStaruof South Waf Africa, Arfvisory Opitiin~IC.J. Rrporfs
IP50, p. 128,at pp. 136 and 137.
3' .''I'hcobicof the Mandaie regulaied by intc~nationalrulcfarexcecdedthat
of c<intrsctuarelationregulatedhy nationallaw. The Mandate aas creatmlin ihe
inreres!(iftteinhabitantsof the territnry,and of hiimanigeneral,ar rn inierna-
tional instiliilion wanh internationaobject-a sacred trustofcivilkation.. ..
for theTcrritory recognirebyual1ttiMcmbcrs of the League of Nations,including
1he Unionof Soutli Africa." htcrt~ariaiStatriof South CVexrAfric#,Advisory
Opinioit, I.C.J. Rcg~rfs 1350, p. 128p.t132.
The I~ague OFNations wns fciirnaldissolvcd on1Y April 1946, neurly six
months afte:- tUnited NationsCharier enieredinto forcc. 29. An "intcrnatianül trustccshipsyst~m" was es~blishcd undcr Chapters
XU and XII1of the Charter "for the administration and supenidon of such
territorimas may be pIaccdthereunderby subsequentindividua1 agreements" .j4,
and itwas initiaIIy anticipated that those territories still held under Mandate

ivould bç arnong the firsito be placed underthe trustezsliip systern.Howcver,
this required the prior conclusio ofnindividiialagreements hy the Staws
çonmrned 4c'The Court haspreviousIy held that thesecharter provisionsdid not
impose upoit Mandatory States thc obIigation tu cntcr into such agreemenrs 41.
30. Tlius, altlwugh tlie Cenerai kssembly, at its FirstSession. invikd al1
States adrninistering territoriesheld under Mandate to undcrrake praciical
steps for thecarly conclusion oi trusteesliipagreerrients andalthriugh trus-
teeship agreements were duly coiictuded with a11 other rnernber Stateswhich

were Mandatory Powers, South AL'rica was unwilling to enter in10 such an
agreement. ItfoIlowed that a1tcrritoncs which had bccnhcld underthe Leagtie
or Nations inandates systein.with the sole exception of Kaii~ibia, were plawd
iindcr the United Nations irusteess hystem, or elsehave achievcd indcpen-
dence.
31.Thecase of Namibia thereforeremaincd uniquein that, alttiuughnui the
subjcct of a trustecship agreement, it remained a non-seIf-gouerning territory
under the niandates sysfcm, andsubj~t to thc continuing international res-
ponsi bilitiesassuitiedthereunder,and subjcct also totlieadditional obIigatÎuns
assumedbym~mberStaresiinder the United Nations Charter, and to the super-

vision of thtGeneraI AssernbIyof thc Unitcd Nations.
32. Ii ha$ken shown abovethat the internationa1 obligationsçrcaied by thc
United Nations Charter, and having application tu Nami bia. inclrideci,ituer
dia,rhe obligation to rmpect the right of thpcoplc of 'Jamihia tn equal riçhts
and seIf-Jeterrninaiiun,and topioniote inKainihia(as elseivhere)huriianrights
and fundarr.eirtaf1reedoms withoiit distinction as lo race,sex, Ianguag or
religion, anrl to lreaas paramoirnt the interem of the inhabitants of rhe Ter-
ritory, and to promotc to the utniost iheirwell-beiny,and dcvclop self-govern-

ment, and zrssistin the progressive deveIopmentof their free politiml insti-
tutions.
33.Thac obligations wcrc owing in the first instariby ihe mem ber Staiç
which had, 3r asurned responsibilitics for the administrationof the iioii-self-
governing, and [htm mandated Territory of Namjhia, naniely Sotith ATrica.
Sincc, howwer, th- ribligetionswcrc erribodiedin thc Chartcr, a multilstcrai
conventioii, they were also IegaIIyowing bctriiecn the States partiesto tltat
convention, and if any one of their niimber shauld deVault. itrvould be the
right of the other rnernberStatestomII thc ddauIting Mcrnbcr to account, and

if necessaryto seekconipfiancein acwrdance with the procedures provided for
in the Chari:er.Ir follows, rhcreforc,thntal1 Members of the Cnited Narions
have an interesu in,der the Charter: in the fullilmcnt of thcsc-obligations.
34. 'Tliisinterest is particutarly reiiiforccdincaseof Nainibia, whcrc the
beneftciary .3f the obIigations in qiiestion, hasnot possessedat al1 material
timcs thc nienns or capacity or juristicstatus required to asscrt orcnforce an
international claitn.In order thulthe riphtsattributed to ttie people and Ter-
ritory of Namibia iindcr Articles 1 (2).1 (31,55 and 73 of the CIiarier should

--
3Vrt. 35 of thc L'nitcdNations Chartcr.
'O Arts.75 and 81 of thc Unitcd Nations Charler.
'' itirernal !anSrorirof Sn~rrhWesr Afuira, Advisor-vOpinion, 1.CJ. Kep.purt.r.
1950, p. 128,atp. 140.
'' General Assernblyrrsolutio 1I (0.adciptçdcin 9 Feb.'1946. WRlTI'EN STATEMENT OF THE SF.CRETARY-GtNERAL 83

have practical meaning, they should bc capable of king asscttedagainst a
~iartywhich woufd violate thoserights.ln siicha case,therefore,there may bc
no other rneanç of çafegirardingsuchrights, periaini tnga territoryunderinter-

national responsibilityç:cceptthrough Ihe excrcisc ofthecoIIective responsi-
biIityof rhe{;ntedNatioiis.Ilisaurording slbyinittethüt therightto dernand
the perfo~rnanccuf the oliligations rcferrctois vestedin the Uniled Nations.
on bchalfof the peoplc andTerritory of h'amibia, tintisuch time as the latter
is ina position Ioassert t:fîcçtivelyits own internatioiialclaims.
35. The Court kasprevioiislyheIdthat "the authority oftheGcncriiI Assem-
bIyto exercise supervisionover theadminisrrationof South West Africa as a
mandatcdterriioryisbst:d on the provisionsof the Charter" 43.Thisaufhority

however, is exerçisedwith concurrent reference lo the differenrconstitutional
texts and sources of Iaw upon whichthe existing international obligations
concerningNamibia areliiündcd.
36. Whcn referring 10the exercise by theGcncraIAssembly of powrs Tor-
mcrly vested in the Couiicilofthe League of Nations, the Court has sialed
that "the degrccof siiperi-isiontobeoxercixd by theCienera Issenbi lyshould
not thereforecnceedthat whichappIied under the mandates sysrem, andshoiild

confclrrn as faras pcissikiIto the procedure follawed in this respectby the
CounciIof theLcaguç or Nations" +'It jssubniittcd,I~u~~evetr,atthis finding
relatedexclusivelyto the exerciseoP the powei-sof theCounciI of the Lague of
Nationsa ,iid has no rekrcnw tcithe concurrentexercisc of otlier powerç
derived fromthe United NationsCharrer, or pursuant thereto.
37. Since Charter obligations having r&vaiice to Namibia havc bwn the
subject ofc~nlinued application and intcrpretationby the Uiiited Nations
diiting the past25 ).cars,therc willbe exan~inedin ü scparatesection" sotne

of the niare significantof these developments which pertain to thc present
obligations of'Stütesrest!ltingfrom the continu4 presenceof South Africain
Narriibja.

0th sou ni^^of I.cgalObligation

38. Inaddition to the :murcesof le@[ obli~ationconcerning Phrnibia whicIi
have heen mentioncd in rhe foregoing. or will bc claborated in succeeding

scciions,ithasaIsoken incumbcntonall States Ioensure thattheir conduci in
relation Io Naniibia coniplieswith other applicüblç interiiational-ahIigations,
whetherdcriving from rrxty or ciistomary law, or from recogni-xd principles
of geiieraIinternationali!ppliçation.
39. An example of a IegaInom not deriving from the specific sources
mentionedinthe forcgoing was citedhy theCourt inanearIier advistiry opinion
wherein itwas found, itircalin, thatthe principlesundcrlying the Gcnncide
Conventio 'nhre principlcswhich arc rccvgni7ed by civilized nations as

41 Yoliq Prowdz~re an esfim fi Ruluringru th~Report~onriPerifinir~coricerriiflg
the Terr~torjofSoszflWP' iAfricu, Advirciry Opinio].Cl. Reporis J535,p. fi?at
p. 76.
" InrrnaiionulSfutus irJSouth tVe.vr rIfrirAdvisory Opinion. IC.J. Rtporfs
1950, p.128,ai p. 138: andYorirtPrnced~reon Qiiasriorrelnringtrthe Reportsand
PePelifiosonrtrning thel erritor? of SorttWexr AJrico, AdvisnrjOpinion. I.C.J.
Rcports 195.5p. 57,%tp. '77.
" S~eparas. 40 tc67 h.:l<iw.
46 tlnilc,'rrtionTreriryScrirs,Vol. 78, p. 277.Approved byCenerat Asïenibly
reïolutionZ6OA(III), of9 DEC. 1948: Seiaiso GcnerirlAssembly resolutzun96 (1).bindingon Stairs, cx-cnwithout any conventional obligations" '?.Morenver,
in rcferring tothe legal intere oftall Slalesinthe piotection uf fhese fiinda-
mentai rigtrtsand obligatiuns: the Court stated,inr~arlia, in a inorc recent
judgmcn 1:

"... arimential distinctionshouIdbedrawn between theobligations or a
Çtatetowaids the international con~rnunity as a iuholc, and those arising
vis-à-visanother Sratein the fieldof diplornaticprotection. By thcir very
nalure thcformer are triconcern of al!States.in view of the irnporiancc
ofthe iightsinvolva al,Statescrin beheId to have a Icgalinterestin ihcir

protection; theyareobIipationserp2 oinries.
Such obligations derive, for exarnplc, in canteniporary international
law, front the outlawing of acts of agression, andofgenocide, as also
frorn the principles and ruIes concerning the basic rigl~tsufthe huntan
pcrson, including protection from slavcry and racial discrimination.Somc
of the correspvndiny right~of protection have tntcred into the budy of
general internarionalIau, (Reservdions todlieConventiotior;ritePrereti~ioit
nirdPtt~iisht>wnf J'lhCrirneof Cemcide, Adiiisury Opinioir,I.C.I. Rcporrs

1951, p. 23); othcrs are conferred by intemariunal instninientsof a uni-
versalor quasi-universac lharacier#."

The SpecialRespoirsibilifin of theLirited Nations 'Towardtshe PeopIe and
Territoryof Namihia

40. A futidamental prcmise of the actions and respclnsibititierindertakcn
by ttieUnitid Nations and its Mernbcs iirespwtof Yarnihia has bcen thatthe
Cnited Nations hitshad, and continuesto have specia rlsponsibiIitiestowards
the people and Territory of Namibia-"'.That thcse special responsibilities
differ in a nurnber of hasic respects lrum other responsibiliiiesassunled by
the United Nations, Inay bc iIIustratcdilircr (diaby the foIIowinyhctors
peculiar to the Narnibian situation:

{a) Naniibia has been an international responsjbilityfor inore thtin half a
ccniury, having heen administcredon bchaIf of the Leaguc of Nations
until 11146a,nd thcrcafteron beiialfof the Unitcd Nations. Irremains an
internationa!territory, having an international status,and rcgularedhy

intcrna:ionalrules 5D.

': Resrrvu:ions turhe Convcniton on Gcnucide, Adi.isoyOpinion. I.C.J. Repuris
1951, p.15, ilp. 23.
'$ Grsc conceriringthe Hnvceiona Turidion, Liglif unYoiver Compuny .Litnitpli
(Ne'trAppliccirion: 1962), Judgtn0r15 February1970, I.C.J.Keporrs1970, at p.32.
'* These s?ecia rcspoi~sibilities<the United Sations rowards the pcoplc and
territory iif iqan-iibia hbeen expressly and repeatediy re-amrmrd both by the
SecuriryCou ncil(seercsotutions 245<1968),7th preambular parapraph, 216 (1968),
8th preamhularparagraph.764(19691,firh preambutarparagraph, 783 (i970), final
prcambularparagraph), andby the EjensralAssembly (sw,inter aliresolulions 1899
(XVIB) ,4th prcambularpar agraph. 2074 {XX). 5th prearnbiitarparapraph, 2145
(XXT),9th prcambular paragraph, 274 (XXTT),4th preambular paragraph, 2372
(XXlT), 7th iind 8th prcambularparagraphs, 2403 (XXIïi), 2nd preambular para-
graph, 2498 (XXIV), 2nd and 3rd prlninbuItir paragraphs,and 2518(XXIV), 1st
preanibularparagraph).
Infe~niriiunufStufuof SouIh West Afrira, RJvisory Opinion. I.C.J. Rtpurrs
IPSO.p.128, ai p.132. The conrinucd internationastntusuf Narnibiabasbeen re-
aiTrmed bot Liby the Security Council(set:rcsolutions 246 (1968)7th preambular
pa~pdph, 276 (t970),4th prwmbular paragraph aiid283 (1970). 5th prcambulai
paragraph), and by the GençraI AssemhIy (seercsoIutir>n2145 (XXI). para. 2, (b) To rheextcnr thatS~uth Africa failedor rcfuscdIohonour the internation-
at obligations whichwere owing to the peopleand Territos. of Namibia5',
the Unimi Nations was thçreby prevented fron?dischargingits responsi-
bilities through the agency and CO-operationof the adrninistering State,
and was ubliged fo seek additional or alterirative ways of securingthe
petforinancc of the international-and saçred-trusl. for which it had
the supervisoryand ultiniate responsibility.
{c) In the cxcrciseof thesc msponsibitiies fur Naniibia, theUnited Nations
liasbeen discharging a spocial duty,which is owing by and berrveçnal1
member Statcsof itieUnited Nations to a wople and tcrritory which is
nutsidc the national jurisdiction of al1 exjsting States, and depends ex-

cIusivelyon the Ilrlited Nations fur the internationalprotection of ils
rightsand intcrcsts.

'I'heRole ofthe Gend Assrmbly

41. Dccisionstakcnby the Generalhssenibly coitcerning the irnplemeniation
of the collectiverespanribilitics of the United Nations towards the peopIe
and Territoryor Narnibiii niust therefarcbc distinguished frumoth~rGcmraI
Assemhly rcsoiutions,an? from recommendations calIingfor action wirhin the
sovereign autlrorityof States. For in thcabsence of any intervening sovercign
jurisdicrion berwccn the GeneraI Assernbly and the pcoplc and Territcryof

Namibia (and pendiiig i.heatablishment of an independent and sovereign
Statc of Namibia), no governrnental authority existsothcr than the GcneraI
Assembly and the Security Council having the cornpetence ta intcrprct and
apply to Namibia theinterirationalobligations which arowing to the latteun-
der the Charter of the U.nitedNations and the former mandates çystem.
42. Ttfolloirrhat Gencral Assembly resaIiit adonptedin fuIfilrncntof the
spacialresponsibiIitieof the United Nations towards the people and Territory
of Namibia have constituted,for theauthoriiy administering the Terrriro~, the
cont rolting decisions of thc intcrniitionat comrnunity on whose hehalf the
Territory has hecn adniinistered. The force of ihescGcneraI Assembly re-
solutionsisparticuIarly eq1idenwhen they havedeclared, on repeatedoccasions,

what theoverwhelming majority uf Statesconsidcr their collective obligations
in resprxtof Narnibia to be. -.
43. Thcsc rwolutions Iiave also conaituted, intrr dia,an expression by the
internationalcommunity of its uwn responsibilitiin respect of Namibia, and
they accordingiy govern IIIimptementingaction taken by or on behalf ofthe
United Nations in thefulfiImentof theseresponsibilities.Suchresolutionsmay,
in addition, he declaratory of gcncrd obligations ol States under cxisting
constittitional instrurnen:~,or undergencral principlrror perernptory norms
of intcrnational Iaw.
44.Since under Article 56 of ihe United Nations Charter, rncrnber States:
are obligated toacl incc-operation with the Organization for the achievement

of thc purposcs set fort11in Article 55 of the Charter (conccrning sconoinic
and social CO-operatjonand human rights),this provisionrequires of rnember
States that they shvuld ta-operate in action initiatcd by çompetent organsof
thc Unitcd Nations for the achievementofthesepurposesin Namibia.
--.-
whichTC-afirmcd "that South Wesi Afrjca ia territorhaving internationastatu5
and that ishall niaintain ::bissiauntilitxhiews independence"; wizalsureso-
Iutiun 2325(XXII). para. 4).
'qee paras. 58to63, and 79 below. 45. By acopting solutions interpr egt or üpplyiiig tIiespccial respansi-
bilities of the United Nations towardsthe people andTerritory of Narnibia
undcr thç IJnitcd Nations Ckiarier, member Statrrs afthe United Nations
thereb):give expression not only trthe principalobligationswhich have been

assunied,but aisu to thebasicstandardsand criteria by which these obligations
shciuldbe interpreted.
46. Itivilbe notçd in thÏs connection thatsonie of the icrms used underthe
mandates system and in the Chiirtcr of the Cnited Nations (as,l'orcxaniple,
"weI1-king'' -'2"social progrcss" 53,"eqtiaI rights and self-determinarion" s',
"advancernent" '5,'just treairneni" j6,"i;eIf-g~r.ernment"~~ i)nply an under-

Iying consens us conteniporarynuriii aî to the standards or cri~riaof inter-
pretarian IO beappficd. Thc continued and ilIegaIpresenceof South Africa in
9nrriibia hüs inno way lessened the ftiriclioof thc Cieneral Asîernbly in
articulating~hisinternational consensus, or the dtity of theinterriationiiconi-
munits to erisiirelhai the people aiid Territory of Kaniibia arc treated in ac-
cordancewiih cstsblished internationalstündards.
47. Siilce we are here wnccrncd with international,atid not with intcrnal

municipal oliligations. itwould clearly noi sufficefor any une Ststc(including
ari adiiiiriisterinState) to itiipose on Naiiiibia a unilatcral siandard of its
own which is at variancewith a standardaùoptcd by the internationd cornmu-
nit! on whoie behaIf Ihc Territory isking adn~inistered 5a.It WOUI~ ~ISO nat
sulIiceio rcIy onIy on a standardallcged to hüvc bcen acceptabIe in a previous
era whcn the obligation firstoriginalecl, but rui~iclhassince bcconic incnn-
sistentwith iheminimum internalivnal norms recognized at the time when the

interpretiilionis made.
48. For even if Ihrrt:hud heen euidence of an ititentiun\ofix ü conipre-
hensivestandard as \,alidfor al1timc (which was not here the case). such a
slandard would, inany evcnt, have ben subseqüently invalidatedro the cxtcnt
tbat it bwatiie inconsistent wilh overriding IegalobIiyations dcrived from the
United Nations Charter or from pcrernptory norIns of international law (jus
cugens) j9.Ilkt, nioreuver, the obligations here referredio werc never cil--

cumsciibed tiya dcfinedor irnmutable standard of50 ycars ago, or 25years ago,
6111,on the contrary, werc intended to serve "a sacred inisl-or civilizü~ion''

5' Atticlcs 55and71ulthc Uniied Xations Cliarrer:Plrtiçle22 ofthe Covcnant
of thc Leaguc of Nalions ("wcll-king and ciç~ek~nieti;"),Article2 UTthe bl-landatc
containai in the Dec'lriratiofthe Councilof tlieLeaeueor Naii<in:tif17 Drcrnibcr
1920 I-'matcrial aiid~ntirawcll-bcing"). For the Grgoses of Article 55 oi' the
Uniied Natiiins Charter, thetern"ivcll-king" tmbraccs nor mcrely physical weli-
being,burint-tides ccononiic. sucial, cultural,civil andpolitconditions of wcll-

king or advancernmt: see,infr r ia,GeneraIAssernbIyrestiltiticin22WA (XXI).
5JArticle 2of the Mandate. 17Deç. 1920.
""4rticles 1(3, 55 and 73 or the Lnitcd Naiions Charter.
" Articlc 73of the United Nations Charter.
="bid.
5'Jl~id.
'*AS, for c:xamgic, thcSouth African pohY (ti"aprirtheiu"applicd in dcfiancc
nT the detern-.inaiioby the Security Council and the General Assembly thar this
prdicy violates ihtnitcd Nations Charter (oiidis nhhurrrni hi the cc>nsçiencof
mankind): sce.inter dia,Sccurity Corincilresolutions 181 (1963).182 (1963).190
(1964), 191 (1964) and 281 (1970). and General Assernbly resolutions 1761{XVIn,
2054 (XW, 2144 (XXI), 2202 (XXI), 2307 (XXm. 2396 (XXIIil aiid 2506 (XXIV).
59Vienna Conventionon theLarvoSTreaties. Articles53 and 64; doc. AiCONF.
39/27',23 May 1969, and çiirrigcndum 1. WR1TTF.NS 1A'IMhN7- OF 7HE SkCitEIARY-LikNEIIAL 87

which,bynecessaryimplication, isgoverned, inte ria, bycontemporary norms
aiid recognized principIesof intcrnational law.
49. Sin~u:thç ucts of the territorial administrationof Yamibia have been
baseduponan inteniatiorial relarionshp, and have not beenpcrformed within

the domestic jurisdiction ufany cxisting Statc6" ithas follou7ed thattheinter-
na1aflairs ofihe intcrnational Territory of Nainiliia are of direct international
concern. Moreover, ifthe consen of the directly interesteciStatetvereto bere-
qiiired for the applicationof an intcrnational obligationto Naitiibia, suchcon-
sent would nccd iobe giv:n or withheIdbythe peoplo ef Narnibia, and nut by
nn alieradrninistcringpo,~r (~iowillegt~llypresentin[fieTcrritriry],chiming,
by its own irnilateradeckiion.io bar the appiiçation $0 the peopleof Namibia
ofan othcrinsc acccptcd internationalruIe or norm.

50. Jiisfurther suhrnittrdthal a decisionof rhe GeneraI Assernhlyinterpret-
ing an internationaloblig:itionwith rcfcrcncc to Namibia is notrnade any Iess
effective by thc abscncc of the conseiit of an adiiiinisterinSratewhich has
been repeatedly condenined by the GeneraI Assembly. and hy the kuriry
Council for jtsdefiance of rheaut horityandthe decisions of the Cnitcd Ka-
ion '. For whatever has!s rnighl beinvokedforctiniestirigthe IegaI forceof a
GcncraI Assembly rcxiliii ion,no suc11 contestütion could jusify any Statc in

refusing to apply to thc iirlernationaTerritory of Narnibiaa contcmporary in-
rerpretationof the IlniteifNations Charterformally adopted and upheld by
an ovcrwhcIminy majoril:' of ineinberStates.
51. Tlie CreneralAsscrnbly has accordingk ly entitlcd to cxpcct of the
territorialadministraiion ofNarnibia that it should üpply, and of menikr
Statcs ofthc IjniicdNaii~ins iliat thesliould uphold the responsitrilititsivhich
are owing hy tlieinteinatitmalconimunity to [fipeople and Tcrriiory of Nami-

bia, and whichinclude,inier afin.the application ofthc principfessetoirt inthe
United Nations Chartcrr.oricerriing seIf-detertninaion, self-guvernnlent,poli-
iical,ecoiioiiiicsociaf and ediicaiional üdvancemenr,and hunian rights and
fundamental fredoms without distinction as to ram} ssc, laiiguage or reli-
gion 62.

The Riglrtuf fhe PeopIeofNnmihia ta SeIf-Defermination and Indc~>~ndcncc

52.One af the bsic obIiga:ations contained in the United Nations Charter
which ihe General Assern~sIy kas sought to apply to thc internationalTerritory
of Karnibiahüs bccn thc duty ofStates torespect the principleof equaIrights
and self-determiiiation of peoptes ". It is in appIicationof thisprinciplc.that
both the Security Cot~nciland thc Gencriil Assembly have expressly and re-
pcatcdlaysscrtcd "1hcindienable right of tliepeojile of Narnibiato self-deier-
mination and inde1iendenl:e" M.

" "SouthAfriça's Cormer authorityto arton behalf of the internationacommii-
nit?as hlandütory Power sino tirneconfcrrcdsovcrcignty orvrninnenr rightsovcr
the Territory(seepara. 18above), which legally, thereforrrmains cntircloutsidc.
and independcnt of South iifrican jurisdiction astiwrrigniy.
6' General Asçemblg restrlution1899 (XVITT),para. 3. 2074 (XX), para.4, 2145
(XXI), 6th prearnbiilarparagraph,2324 (XXTI).para. 1,2325 (XXIII). para.3, 2372
(XXTI), paras.6and 7.2498 !XXIVj, para. 2,2517 (XXIV), para.3,and 2547(XXIV),
Part A, para.4;SIX alsoÇ~urity CounciI resolutions245 (1968), para1. 746(1968).
para. 1,2h4{1969), para. 6, 269(19691,para. 2. and 276 (19701.paraI.
"' Ariiçles 1(71,1 (3). 55 an73ofthc Unircd Xatioos Charter.
Arficlcs1 (2) and 55of the IlnitrdSntirinsCharter.
6' S~urity CounçiI~csolu~ions 246 ( l958)3rdpreambular psragraph, 264(19691,assembIics iind cotincils andother municipal bodies in Narnibia,exerçising a

restrictedaiid Irical authoritysubject to the ovewII cxccutivc and Iegislative
control ofSuuth Afrjca77,alsocannot satisfytheright ofthepeople orNamibia
to self-determination,or cvento afullmerisiireof self-government For such
IocaI instituiioncould only corne within the principle of self-determinarionjf
the pmplc af Naniibia had first frdy choscn Iointcgraw tith Suuih Africa
Yacting with fullknowIedge ofthe change inthcirstatus" and through thefree

expression of theirw ishes"irnpariiallyconducted and hased on universa1adirIt
suffrage")". Sinw no suchchoiw has hcn rnadc, and univcrsaladuItsulrragcis
prixlucledhy law fioit follows thataIIpowers and authority derivedfrom the
sovereignSlate of South Africa atal1levelsofgobrernmen n Kamibia(wherher
rerrirorial,l3rovinciü1, localnational,tribiii or howcvcr dcfincd), constitute
directextensions of the South Africanpi-esencein Nainibia,and do not reIate to

the exerciseby the peuple of Narnibia or thetr rightto self-deterrii anndation
inde~ndencc.
61. The breachof iiiternationalobligationwhich would be involved iiany
attempr to annexa par1or thewholeor the Terrirory of Narnibia has ben qpe-
cially emphasizcd on ünurnbcr tifuccüsionsby thc Gmcral Asscmbly ", subsc-
quent[y io itsdecision of 14 Deceniber1946 s'that itwas unable to accede to

the incorporationof the Territory inthe Union of South Africü. as had been
proposed b:i the latter". 1t has accordinçly been a matter of specialconcern
that, nurwithstanding tIiepertinenlresoluiions uf theGcneralhssernbly.Souih

A:3100iRev. 1.1966: A:7338 and Corr. I. 136. .!7627!Add. 7. 1969-.i76741.ev.
1,'1969; anrl~i8024, 1b70.
E.E..TerritoriaLegisIativehssembly (se South Wesl Africa Constirution Act.
No. 39 of 1968. as amcidcd, sccs.11, 21~29,3IA); hgislarivcCouncils and ~xccu:
tivcCouncils for scparatc "nativcnations"(scc i)cvcloprncnt or Sclf-Govcrnmcnt
for NativeKat ionsof SouthWcst Ahça Act, So. 54 of 1968st~s.3-6.9-13; tribal,
wmmunity snd rrgivnal "authurities"for-'lessdvanced nativenations" (%etid.,
secs.7,8, 12);"Elrçted Cr>louredCouncil" (see -'Establishmentofsri ElectedCol-
ouredCouncil furSouth West AFrica"Ordinance, Nri.29 oI 1966,and SuutliWest
Africa ConstitiitionAct, No. 39 of 1968.sec. 22 (1) (r), suppIernentzdbv South
West Aîricn Anairs Act,Xo. 25 of 1969,sec. 14 {dj); Kaptein, Kaptcinsraad, and
Volksraadof the Kehoboth Gcbiet ("Rchoboth Gcbiet Affairs" Ordinançe. No.20
of 1961. anclSouth West Africa Constitution Act. No. 39 of 1968,sec.21 (1) (r),
~uppltrncntrd by South West Africa AffairAct, No. 25 of 1969sec.14cd); and set
also S.V. Buck, 1968 (2) S. A.658 (A.D.)), and IJN dtiçsA!7200/Rzv. 1; Ai7338

and Corr. 1 :Aj7623IAdd. 2; A17624,IRev.1; and A/8024.
'fSclF-dctermÏnatjonp'ursuantto Arricles I (2) and 55oftheUnitcd Nations
Chartcr; "Full mcasure ofself-government" pursuantto Articlc 73 or the L'nited
Yations Chiirtcr.
'Wencra l Asscrnblyrcsolution 1541 (XY), Anncx, Rinciplc X.
" South 'Mest AfriçaConstitution Act,No. 39 of1968 ,cç.11:llni<inProclania-
tioiiNo. 10.3or 1939; Elect<iralCrinwlidationAct, No. 46 nT 1946, sec. 3:Soutb
West Africa Affairs ArriendmentAct, No. 23 of 1949, sec.34: Soulh West Africa
Constitutior.Act,No. 39,sec.12 (1).
kg.. Gcneral Assernbtv resulutions 570.A.(VI).para.3: t897 tXVIIU, 1 lth
preambular paragraph aiid para. 4; 2074 {XX), paras. 5 and 6: and 2145 (XXI),
para. 7.
n' Gçneral Assçmbty resolritio65 (J), of 1Ilec.1946.
''Meniorandumsuhrnitird on 17 Oct. 19& hy the South AFricanLcpticin in
Washingron to rhe Secretary-Gçnerdl rithe United Nations.and sratcmcntby Ihr
PrimcMinj!.tcrof the Cnion ofSourh Afriça made iothe FoiirthComniittcc ofthe
Gcncral Aerembly on 4 Nnv. 1946; cited in InrernrrriunrilSraiof Sofrfl?Wc.st
Afiica. AdvisaryOpitiim,I.C,.i. R~rpor1950, p.128,ai p.135. WRITTEN ST'ATFMENTOF THESECRLTARY-GEh-FAAL 91

Africa has in factbroughr about a IargcancistiII increasirig trlwsure integra-
tion of its administration or Naiiiibia ivith tliatof the RcpubIic of South

Africa.
62. Also incompatibIe wirh the right of sclf-dctcrmination ishe division of
the Territory or population of Xamibia into sepürütc regions, "narive na-
tions" a4,or "honielands"8"hiciçh disriiplthe national unity and icrritorial
iritegritof Namibia. For iris#ne of the principlçsof inlernatiI oawalndcr-
lying theprinciple of self-determinaiion that :

"EveryState shall refrain from any action ainicd at thc psrtial or total
djsruptionof rhe national uniry and ierritorialintegrityof any otherState
or countr y6." Such actio? king "incompatible ivith the purposcs and
principlesof the Charter" ".

Morwvcr,the SecurityG,uncil kaser;presslydeclared"thatthe actions ofthe
Government of South Afr-icadesignedto dwtroy the national unity andtcrri-
turia1 iniegrtyof Narnibia throngh the estahlishmcnt of Bantustans are colt-
trary to theprovisiorisof the United Nations Charter" ".

53. AIsn incompatible -xirhthe right of sclf-determination of the ptvplcof
Namibia is the applicatior~by Souch Africa,both in law and practice. of racial
discriiiiinatio89.contrac!-to the Unit4 NalionsCharter "O,inestablishing the
rights and duties of pcrsc+nsof direren races and national and tribalorigins
aniong thc h'arnibian population.
64. A further basicconstituent of the right to selfdeterininatioi~ isthe prin-
cipk of permanenr sovcxiyit): of poples and narions over their naiural

ivralthand rcsources ". This principle ha$particularrelevancc in the present
context inso far asthecoiirinued South Africanpresertce in Naiiiibia has resitl-
[zd infhe wealth or naiur:ilrcsourcesof the international Territory of Narnibia
bcing cxploited or approl>riaied in disreprd of the lawful rightsor claiins of
the people of rhcteri-itrrtowhom th= rcsourws &long, and towards wiiom
the United Natioris has aisumed its speciaI responsibilitics.
65.Since the eltrncntswhich constitute the right of self-determination are
~rlanifestlypresent intheunique situation of Namibia,undttiere isno basi[sor

any contestation of this rij;htbany State,itfollows that todeny iis application
to Naniibia wouId be wniaiiiount to denying efïectro the principlc.It isthere-
fore submitted that iftheic rights andobligations arc tohaveeven a minirnal
effcct,then theiapplicaticin tu thinternarioiial TerritorofNamibia cannnt be
in doubt.

Developmcnt ol Sclf-(Jrivernrncnior Native Naiiiins inSouth Wesi Africa
Act.No. 54 of1968.
n5Sec, inrera/i~, Report ofrhe ~owt»ii.r.sioiiEiiqitiriiriSaurh West AJri~n
'Afiuirs1962.1963. aublisht:dby the Governrnent of the Re~üblic ofSouth tirrica
IR.? N.o.12!1964).'
BGCimerni Assemblv resiilutio2425 (XXV). Anncx, 5th Princinle. 8tData.
GcneraI ~ssetn bl; resc-lution161(xxv);'A~~c 15thprambuiar pa;ügraph.
*" Srcurily Councilresolzltion264(1969).para. 4.
se, inferuliu. Report:. citinfootnotc 116 belorvand Siudy of "Apartheid"
and racial discrimination in Southcrn Africa, Uniied Nations Comn>ission on
Ilurnan Rights, doc. 1,)CN.4/94YjAdd. 1, Yciv. 1967.
'O Articles 1(3)and 55 {c) of the United Nations Charter; seealsti,itiiwolia,
General Assemhly resoluions 217.A.(rII), 1% (Xi7111).71M.A.(XX). and res<ilu-
fionsiifthe Srr'urityCouncjand the GencralAsscmbly citzdinfoornote 58 above.
9'Gmçral Assernbly rciolutions 1314 (XIIn, 1515 (XV), 1803(XVII), 2I58
(XXI), 2200.Ah(XX1) and 2386 (XXITI). 66.Sine, moreover, in theprcscnt case, the righto self-dctcrminationwas
vested ina people considcred,at the niaicrialtirntobeternporarilylacking in

organized governnien ot juristipersonality suc11as could cflectivelelyasserl
interiiatioiii'ightsitfcli to the Mandatory Power, and, upon thelatter'sde-
TauIt,tothe international conimunity,on whosc hehaIf the Territorywas bcing
~drninistered,to takesuch rneasurcs as were necessarytu safcguard therights
in question. Thiis, in su far as the miltualobligatiobesween n~ernber States
contained in the United Nations CharicrfaII tohe exercised onbehalf of the
pcoplc and 'Ièrritaryof Nainibia, iis submitted ihat ihe right tdernand the
perforinanceof thescobligations likewisebelongs to the llnited Nations, on
&haIf of the people and Territory ofNaniibia, until such timc as the latter
achieve isdependence,or isendowed wi th thecapiicityand themeans to asîert

itsowii internationalclaims.
67. Itis ihereforesubrnitte!liai~hedutywhich isowingunderArticIes 1(21,
55 and 56 of the I;nited NationsCharter torespecttlieprinciplcof cqual rights
and self-delerminationof peoples (asinterprctedanddefinedby theconipeicnt
organsof the UnitedNations), shouId cffcctiidesafeguardtheeqiial rightsand
the right tself-determinationof tliepeopleof Naniibia,a pcopie not underthe
sovereign ofany State, hurwho remain ~htsubjcctof a stilunfutfiled iniçr-
nationat ti~isIrsliould thereicircf:ollow tStates Members or the United Na-
tions have been and remainobligatedunderthe Charicr ta rcspect this prin-

ciplein rcgsrd toNarnibia and to regulate theiractionsinsucha manrier as to
promote itffulfilmet~t.

III. THE COK'I'IIVLIED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICAIN
Y*IAMIBIA

I'he Hasisfor the SouthAfrimn Prcscncc

58. The only right or ti1which South Africa has possascd to bepresent in
Nainibia,or iocxcrciseautharityin any partof rhatTerritory,was derivedfrom

the Mandateconfiiniedby ihe Council of the Leaçue ofNations on 17Dewni-
ber 1920.and wüs conditional upon the performancehySouth Africû of the
obligations of theMandatory Powcr thereunder. Tliisbasis forSouth Africa's
prcsencecontinued only fcirso longas the Mandate remainedin force, and
Snuth Africa rremaincdthe authoriwd Mandatury.
69. Tho inter-dependenceberween therightsand tlreobIigations created by
the Mandatehiisbeen spocialiemphasi7.edbytheCourtinthefollowingterms:

"The autharjty which the Union Governinent esercises over iheTerri-
toryis baed on theMandate. Ifthe Mandate lapsed,as rheUnion Govem-
mentcontends, the latter'authoritywould cqually have lapsed.-1-retain
the rights derivedfront the Mandate and to deny the obIigationsthere-
undercould no; bç jusrific92."

On anothei mcasjon the Court addad:

"The rightsof the Mandatory inrelationto themandated territoryand
the inhabitantshavettheirfoundativn in thc obligationsd the Mandatory

7zInfernlicmai Sfuiliof Sourh Wpsr Rfricn, Advisory Opinion, 1.C.JRcp~rls
IPSO,p. 128, ap. 133; this passawds çitedwith approval in the Judgmcnt01thc
Courtof 2t Deceniber 1962, Sou~hWesr Ajrira I:CISTr,elinlitiObj~ctiansJu9-
melitI.C-.J. Repnvrs 1962, p. 319p.333. and they aro,su to slieak, merc tools givcnto enable itto fulfiirsobliga-
tions

70. AfterSouth Arricahadrcfusedto place theTerritory of Namibia under
theUnited Nations tmstmhip system %, or to submit furtherreports oiicondi-
tions inthe Territory95,or to acknowledgethc continuedexistence of the ohIi-
gations owing underthe PAandtite(clainiing thatthe Mündate had lapsed upon
the dissoiution ofthc Lcague of Nations, and that the Lnited Nations liadno

responsibilityor nuthority in the matter), the GencrülAssernbly rcquested 96
an advisory opinion or tlieIntcrnationliI Court of Justicein orderto obtain
jiidiciacfarificûtirin ofth=legalstatusof Namibiaand of thecontinuingobli-
gations owing under the ikiandate.
71. In its AdvisoryOpinion givcn on 11 July 1950 9ïthe Court concluded,
interafin, that"South West Afriw" remained a tcrritoryunder international

rnandatc,that lhr:obligaiions of the Mandatoryunderthc Mandatecontinucd
unimpaired, and thatthe jii~wisory funciions in respectofthe Mandatewere
exercisablebythe United Nations (the Gencral Assembly replacing in this re-
spectthe CuuociI of iheI.eague).
72. The srrhsequcnt refusalof Sauth Africa toaccept or compIy wi th thcsc
findingsof rhe Coun resuited, Niterrdiu,infrustratingthe repeatedcfrortsmade

hy the GcncrrilAssernbI> -0 negutiate with South Africa the implcmentation
ofthe intemational ob1ig;itionsowing in respectof Namibia 98,as well as se-
vereIyIimiting theeffectofthe General AssembIy's supervisionof the Mandate.
Inthemeantirnc, aftcr requesting q9andreceivingtwofurthcr advisou opinions
of thelnternationaICourtof Justi Ooeon produral aspects of thesupervi-

Y"South West Africa Cases,Prc~iminaryObjection Jus,grnenrI.C.J.Reports 1962,
p.319,at p.329; seealsocil-atiofrom thissamejudgment, at p.334, infootnott: 15
bclow, Le.,"tu excludçth#:obliga~ions connected with thc Mandale would be to
exclude rhcvery essence OCtlicMandate".
" Cuntrary tciihe repated rxiimmendations and invitations of the CeneraI
A~wnbIy, see,inier rilia.GA resnluiions II (11(0, 141 {In,227 (110.pi seq.
''Document A!929 (11 3uly 1949),Gencral AssrrnblyFourth Session contrary
to Article 6 of tlMandate,of 17Dec. 1920, and Article73,para.{c) or thc Uniteci
Nations Charter.Sce ais0 CieneralAsscniblyresriluiions 227 (LI337 449 A
(V)and 1142 A fX1D. paras. 2 and 3.
OGGeneralAssemblv rmolution 338 {IV) (T6TPec. 1949.
'1internaliaffa~rn&s qf Soud WC& ;ifricu,-~drkor~Opinion, 1.C.J. Reports
1950, p. 128.
'' -Genera~Asscmblyrc!.oIutions 449 (Y)and 570 (VT) establishingan Ad Hoc
Committae "to confcr witlithe Uoioii ofSouth Africa" conccrnin igcasures for
implcmcnting thcAdvisory Opinion of theJntçrnaiionat Court of Justice; GeneraI
Asscrnbty rcsolutions743(VIIT) and IMI [Xi) tstabiishing a Cornmitteeon South
Wcst Arrica of which one ;ifthe tasks was to confinuc ncgutiations with South
ATriça (the Corriiniitwas diwlved by General Asscrnbly rçsulution1704 (XVI));
GeneraI Assembly resoluticrn 1143(XII) establishiagGood Oflices Cornmittee on
South West Africa todiçcws with thc Govcrnment ofSouth Africa abasisforagree-
ment;andGeneral Asscmtly rcsolution1702(XVI) establishing a SpecialCarninit-
tccfor South West Africa to achievc,"inconsuliaticiniirithc Mnn<iatoryPower"
specified objectivesoe alstCiencralAsscmbly resolution 1565 (XL3 noting failure
of ncyotiations hyseveral (omrnittees.
'Venera1 Absçrtibly rerrilutiuns9(lx) of 73 Nov. 19.5 4nd942(XI of 3 Ik.
1955.

IdJUVaiiriPracedtirr oni2uesrivnsi.ekttimg Rfp~f'ls utrdPeritioconcrrnin ]re
Teriirory ofSonthW-e,~tAfiiccArfvisoryOpinionof 7June 1955.I.C.J. Reports 1955,
p. 66:AdtatissibiioJHearittgs~JPerdiancrx hjrfr~rommirrer an Sourk West Aftictl,
Advisary Upiniorof 1 June 1956.1.C.J. R~mt.r 1956, p. 12.soryfuncticin to bc exei-cisedunder the Mandate(withoui Ihecouperation of
the MandaroryPower), the Geiieral AsscmbIy cüIIcdfor an asscssrnent of the
fiirtherlegal action which rcmaincd opmi toorgans and to Members of the
Unitcd and to former memkrs OCthe Leagueof Nations, '+toensure
that the Uniutiol South Africa fulfilthcobligationsas~umed hy itunder ihe

Mandate pcndingthe placing of theTerritory or South WestAfricaundcr thc
trustccshipsysteni" Io'.
73.On the basisof the resulting asscssmcntl", thcGcncral Assembl y drew
to rheattentionof niernberStates th possibitityof suchIegaIactiot~by States.
in accordance wirhArticle7 of the Mandate, read in conjiinctionwith Article
37 of the Siatuteof thc InicmationaI Court of Justice10bndd,upon suchIegaI
acriunking initiatcdby the Cioverniiientsof Ethiopiaand Likriü, theGeneraI
Assernbly, on 1RI3ecernber 1950,exprtiïsIycomrnended these Statesfor their

actior~'"(Thut: fullowed ü Judgmcnt rcjecting preliminasyohjectjons raisedby
theRespoiidentinthesecases,which wasdeliveredby ihcCourton 71 Dtwrnbcr
1962 '".
74. Sincc howcvcr thc final Judgment of the (:ciuririthesetwo contentiolis
cases, deIivcredon 18 JuIy [Y66""', was lirrii totthçlyucstion of ihc kgaI
right nr intere stthe applicant Statm in thc subjcct-matter ofthcir clüims,
these proeedings failcd to produce any Furtherjudicialconclusionconcerning
rhc non-perfoimancebySouth Africrt or h~robliligatinsundcrthe mündatcs

system.
75.In support of its crinclusion ithislatestjudgrntni. thal the applicant
Statcs had no focii.$tariin iI~e~iroceedingsthe Courtstatcd,interah, ~hatit
was the League of Nations itwIf(ihrough its competent organsa )nd-not any in-
dividualrnembcrStatc which had the right to cal1forthepert'ormance by rhe
Mandatoryof the teriiis of ille Mandatc in diwhargc of the sacrcd trust, and
that ilwasto the Leayue ofNations (thi-oughitscoiiipetentorgaiis),and not to
üny individual rncrnbcrState,that the Mandatory was answerabieirrrespect of

its administrationof the Mandate107. The Courtalso obxrvcd that.undcr thc
League of Nations rnlindatessystem,divergeirces of vie=, canceriiing tlicon-
duct ofthc bIrttidate had heen regarded as being rnattersthat had their place
inthe political fieland the settlemcntofwhichlay between the Mandatoryand
the conipetcnt organsof rhc League lm. In addition, the Court held that it
couldnot rcmcdya deficienc!: if,inorder to do so,ilhad ro txceed the bounds
of nornialjudiciaIaction 'OYand ifin theabscnccof judicial reniedy, thcrcrvcrc
foiind tobe a ner~ssityILofor an ultirnatesafegi~ardor securityforthe peifor-

niancc of thesacred trustiinder the Mandate,this liesin the politicafieIdand
does not coiistitt~ten~usity in thccycs of the law'IL.

"" General A~qernblyresolrit i060 (XI).
"" Docuntent A!3625 (Gencral Asscrnbty, TwclfthSession).
'O' CicneralAssemhly wsoIutions II42 A (XII)and 1361(XfV)
'" Gcneral Asserrihlyresolution 156(XV)of 18 Dec. 1960.
IDs Soiirh WestAfricu Cuses, Preliminary Ohjeriion.Ji~dpent. I.C..!. Reports
1M2. p.319.
' Solilh WestAfvira Cases, Second Phase, Judgitienrof-18 Juh 1966. 1.1'.J.
Rcporzrsf9&',p.6.
'Oy SOUI~ we.sAfricrr <ias~Second Plinse,Jttrigntcofr'8Jirfy1966, 1.C.J.Ks-
porrs 1966,p.6 atp. 26(para.25) and p. 29(para.33).
Ibid.at p. 45(para. 84).
jC9 Ibid.:.tp.48 (para. 91).
"" For definition of "ncccssity" argument, sreihiif46 {para. 85).
"' Ihiil.al p.47 (para. 89). WXCïI EN SIKl~tMtN~1OF THE SFCRETARYGENERAL 97

Security Council 12'aswell as in subsequcnt G~eneraA I ssembIyrcsolutions "*.
Thus, after i~oting123and taking in10account 12'the GeneralAssenibly'sdeci-
sion terminating the Mandate, and "reafimiog .. . the internationaIstatiis of

the Territory (ofNami hia) now undcr diroctUnitodNations responsibility" lZ5,
the SccurityCouncilexpressly recugnized "that the United Natioiis General
Assernblyterminatcdtheroandateof South Africa over Namibia and assurned
directresponsibility forthr: terriiory uniiitsindependcncc "" and, in cach of
its two laterresolutionslZ7,againreriffirn~e thisdecisioii.
83. AçwrdingIy, in the absenceof any right to adminisrer or be present in
Namibia, itwas incumbent on South Africa to transfcrthc adniinistrationand

wiihdraw irom theTerriiory: incorn pliancewith the resolütionsof the General
Assen~blyprovidingfor the assumptionof directresponsibiIityby rhe United
Nations for itsadministrarion lW.
84. Having rcsolvcdon 27 October 1966 "Y that the United Nations must
dischargethe respoiisibilitiesforitierIyexercised by the Wandatory Poirierin
respeclof Namibia 130anrl havingcstablishedan Ad Hoc Cornmittee tn recom- '
mend practicalmeansby which NamibiashouId beadminisied 13'theGeneral

Assembly, on 19May 196;' 132establisheda United Nat ions CounciI for South
WestAfrica(subscquenrIy rcnamed the UtiitedNationsCouncil for Namibial?
fo administerthe Territory untiiindepcndence Iw, and rcquestcdthc Council
to assume ts responsibilitibss,nd cülIedupon thetiovernment of South Africa
to facilitatcthe transf efrthe administrationof the Terrilory to the Coun- '
cil13j.
.
85. South Arrica howe1,errefus4 froni the outset to co4perate with the
UnitedNations Couitcil c?r South West AMca (Namibia). or to permit any
steps to be taken for the tidansFeorlthe administration of ihe Territory to thc
Council,cIiiirningi,nteralilthatthe pertinentresoIutionsoftheGeiierrtI Assem-
bly had beenwithout effect 136.
86.Mareaver,inspite ofrepeateddcmands, both by theSccurity Council IJ7

:?: Security Coiincil rcsoliitions2(1969), para.1; 276f1970),second and third
oreambularnaraaranhs. and 283 11970).second vreambularoaraprawh.
. -. .
"> General Assenibly rrsi)lutions 224(s-v):third prcambulG baragraph;2324
(XXII). first~reambularoaracranh: 2325(XXII),.third ~rcarnbuiar.arwu- - ûnJ
2547 B'(xxI'~ thirdpreanibul parragraph.
:'3 Sccurity Councit resol~tion245 (1968)firstprcambular pnragrrpii.
SccurityCouncit rcstil~l~ios46 (1968). second prrambulnr püragrapb ; and
264 (1969).swomd prciarnbular priragrapli.
:'5 SecurityCouncilrçsul*~tivn246 (1968).seventh preanibular paragraph.
SecurityCouncil resolstion 2fA (19691,para.1.
12: Security Couticil resolurions 276 (IY70sccond and thirdpreamhular para-
graphs: and 283 (19701,swcind prrnrnbular paramripli.
.IZaCiencralAsseinbly resoluiirin2145 (XXI) and 2248 (S-V).
""enerat Assembly resiilution 2145 (XXI).
lJ3 Ihid.ga.ra.5.
I:'lMd., para. 6.
"' General Asscmbly resolution 7248 (S-Y].
13' Genzral Assernblyrcsiilution 2372 (XXTT),para.3.
"' Generat Assçrnhly restilution7243 (S-V). Part11,para. 1.
II5 ticncralAçsemhly restilutirin 2248 (S-V), PaIV, paras. 2 and4.
13? Document A/682?, Gcneral Asscm bly,Twcnty-secrynd Scqsion.
13' SrcuriryCuuncilrcsotiirions264 {1969),para. 3('-Cui15uponthe Governmçnt
of South Africato jmmcdirtely withdruwits administratioi~ frointhe territoryu);
269 f1969). para. 5 ("Cufls:cpanthe Gcivernrnent alSouth Africrto withdraw its
administration frtim the territory imntediateIyand in any case bcfore 4 Octoberand hy the GencraI Assernbly lx, that Sou th Africa withdraw its adininistra-
lion withoiitdelay,and repeatedcondemnationsof thc Govcrnrncnt ofSouth
Africa for ils refusaru comply with these dernands lJ9"in defianceof theau-
thority of the United Naiions-' "" '"in... violation of (the) terriroria1inte-
grity andinternalionaIstatus" 14'ofNarnibia,and '-otf hc principlesand ohli-

gations of rhc Charter ofthe United Nations" Iq2,South Africa has neverthe-
Iessmaintainedherillegal presenceandadministraiionin Namibja, subjccting
thepeuple :tnJtheTerritory io ausurptrtion ofpiver and control, and fnrcihly
preventingthe UnitedKatioiisfrorn discharging its responsibiIiiieç.
87.(Xinfronted with South Africa's illegaloccupalion of rhe Terrilos. of
Narnibia over which shehasno rightor lawfu1authority, theSccurity Council
kas addressed i[selfonsuccessiveoccasions to a number of basicle@[conse-
quences of this usurpation.

88. Thus. rifler reaiiirming, ijtfer alia. thc internatiostatu5 of Namibia
"now iindcr direct United Nations responsibility""', tlie SecurityCouncii
declarerirhecontinued presenceof South Africa in lt'amibiato bc i1lcgale,
"contrac);to thc principIa of thc Charter" '15"an aggressiveencroachment on
the authorityof the UnitedNations" '*,and "a viulaiion of theterritoridinte-
grity and a denial ol lhe po1iticaIsovcreignty of tlie people of Narnibia u7",
89. Thc SccurityCouncil furrher decIared in its resoIirtio276 (1970) that,
by reasoncf theconiinuedillegalpmcnce of SouthAfrica in Nümibis,

"... al1actstakenby dieGovernment OF South Africaon IxhaIfof or con-
ccrninigNarnibiaaftcr the termination of the mandate are iIlegaland in-
valid'=".

Inthe sanic rcsolution, the SecurityCounciI reaflirmed,inrer du, that-

"... tiicextension and enforcement of South Afriwti laws in the territory
together with the continued detentions, trials and subxquent sentencing
ofNüini bians by the Government of South Africa cnnstitute illegaIacts
and flagrantviolations of therigIitof ihe Narnibians wricerned,the Uni-

1963") s:c:ilsSecrirityCouncilraolritioii276(19701,ttiirdprearnbularparagraph
and 283 (1970). fourthpreambuIarparagraph.
''# General Asscmbly rcsolutions 2325 (XXlI) of 16 Decernber 1967, para. 5,
readsas CriIIours":CallsuporithCiovcrninen tfSouth Africa towithdraw from tlie
Territory ofSouih West Africa, unconditionally and without dclay, al1its military
and policcforces and iis administration.tcirelezs al1 politicapristiners and tn
allow al1poiitical refugeeswho are naiivcs OFthe Territto return to if."
Gcncral ~Zsscmblyresoluri 2i37n(XXII) of1I June 1968, para. 12,readsas fol-
lows: "Heircuar~ its demand that the Govrrnrnçntof Snuih Africa withdraw from
Niimibia, inimcdiatclyand uncotidjtionallyal1itsniilitaryand policc forcandits
administration."
13YSecurityCouncil rt.stiluti;is64(1969),para. 6;263(L769), para. 2; arid 276
(19701, para. 1.GerieralAssernblyrrsolutions 2325 (XXII), para. 3; 2372 (XXll),
para.5; 2495fXXlV), piira2.; 2517{XXTV).para. 3;and 2547(XXlV), pnra. 4.
''O SccurityCouncil reçolution:, 269(19691para 2, GenerirlAssernblyrrsulutions
2403 (XXILI), para. 2;aiid2498 (XXTV).para. 2.
'O1 General Açscrnblyresolution 2325 (XXTI).para. 4.
'42GçnerriIAsscmblyresolution 2517 (XXTV), pnra. 3.
SecurityCriuncilresolution246 (I96F), sei~cnth prearnbular paragraph.
SecurilyCouncilrcsolutions 754 (1969), para. 2; and 276(1970),para.2.
"' Securiiy Council resolution 26(1969),para. 2.
"' Security Council resoluticin269 (1969). par3.
1+7ibid.
346SccurityCouncil rcsolution276 (19701,adopted on 30 Jan. 1970, para. 2. WKiITT.N STAl'kMtX'I OP THE SECRE-1-AKY-GEYERAL 39
versa1Dedaration of IIuman Rights and of the international starusof the

lerritory,now undcrdirect United Kationsresponsibility 149''.
90. Itisthereforc jn thiicontcxt that thclegai consequencesfor Sraresof the
continued presence of Soiith Africa in Namibiü have Io he examincd.

'I'he Halal the Security Council.

91. 1t has bccn iiitlre<!xerciseor itspriniüry rcsponsibiIityfor the iiiainte-
nancc of intertiationitlpealand securiiy, undcrArticle24 of theUnited Nations
Charter,thai the Security CounciI has,on successive occasions, considercd the
quesiion of Naniibia. follr>wingthcrcftiu;alrSouth Africa tu acknowIedge tthc

assumption by the Genenil Asseniblyof direci responsibility for the Territory.
Sincx firstbeingscized of T~C qucsti~n inknunry 1948 'j" ,lie SecuriryCourtcil
has adopled seven resolutions concerning Namibia 15',in cach ofwhiçh the
C'riuncilhas drawnattention to the direct responsjbility othe Unitcd Nations
foc Namihia, and has coridcmncd Soulh Africa for ils refusal to camply with
the pertinentresoluliutiçof tlieSecurityCounciIand thcGcncralAssembly IF'.
In four of thcse resoliitian153,the SeciirjtyCounciI has also caIIedupon or

rcquesred Statesto carryriutor rcfrain fromspccificdactions.
97. The fiindamenta1p~mise underlying the obligations of States reçulting
from thcprwnce of SoiirhAfrica inKaniibiais the illqalityof tliat presence
since thetermination ofthe Mandatc.Thç decisioi~staken by theSecurityCoun-
cil to recognizeand rcaflirrnttiis Iegal preinis'% havetnade it incurnknt on
memher Statcs io ticcept1:hidetumination, and tu regulate their actionsin a

mannes.consistentwi thit.
93. Since theswciTrc rrit:nsurconcerniiig Namibiawhich rhcSecurily Loun-
cil hascallcd uponStütcs ~o tlikel5resiilt verylaqgelyfrom Thisinitialpremise,
it rollowsthat the obljgatory nature of thc rcI~vantindividiial clauses in the
relevant reso1iitions is in part derivedfrom. as weil as supporicd by the
illegai charactcr ofthe ScbuthAfricacr presence in Narnibia siiicethe tcrmina-
lion of the Mandate. as df:terminedby thc SocurityCouncil.
94.ThesbSecurityCounciI resol~rtionswre concernedwithandwereiiitend-

ed to redress a situation involving a flagrantviolation '57of basic principles
undcr thcUnitedNations Charterandgeneral internationallaw, and whichhad

"' lhliidruurth prcambclar paragraph.
15Wuçument S18355,of 24 Jan. 11168R:equest by 53nieiiibcrStates for anur-
gent meeting of the Scctrrity Counçil fr>lloiiringthe dacisofntheS<iultiAfrican
Governrnent to resumr thr illegasÿtirial of 35 Namibiaundcr arbiirarylaws ille-
gally extended to Nutnibia in defiance of Gcncral Asscmbly restilutionssce also
SecuritvCouncil rcsolution 245 (19681.
"' ~Ecurit~Coirncil resofutioiis 24119683, 246 (IQBR) 2,64.(1969).269 (1969),
276(1970). 283 (19701and284 (1970).
ISZ~h&de~aiIçd provisims of thc Security Council rewliitions concerning
Narnihia are exatniriedelsewhtrr in thistaternent,see paras.86-89 W, 117-119,
127 and 128-133.
ls3 SecurityCouncil resoiurions246 (1968),269 (196S)),215(970) and283 (970).
15' Sec~irityCoiinciraolutions 264(1969). para.2; 276 (19701,para.2: and 28.1
(lqf(l), secondpreambuiar paragraph.
155 Scurity Cnuncil rçsclutic>ns246 (19681,para.3; 269 (1969),paras. 7and 8;
276 (1970), para. 5; and 283 {197C1,aras. 1-8,11 and 13.
lhid.
'j' S~curityCounçil resc.lutions 746 (1968). se~,ertth preanibparagraph; 264
(1769),para. 2; 269 (L969)p,ara. 3; and 276 (1970)fourth preambular paragraph.been considered bythe General Assembly, on repeatedoccasions, a thrcat to

intemationa1 peace and security Is,and in respectof which, the SccurityCoun-
cil doclared.interaiin, tht "the defiantattitudc of the Cioverii~nen tf South
Africa towards~hç CounciI'sdecisions undcrmines theauihorie of the United
Nalions IïP:'.
95. That the SecuriIy CounciI was acting inthe exerciseof its powers as de-
fined inArilck 24 of the UniredNations Charter iseviden t'ronithe nature of
the vidatioii cornrnittedby South Africa of her intcrnütiontilobIigations.and

of the meastires which the Council found Ît necessary to take. hloreovcr, the
intentiun to create an obligation for States io wmply ivith these mmsures iç
cvidcnced b,ythe factthat, withouisiich a duty, their effecniay belargclynu-
gatory.
96. Thc powcrs and responsibiliiicsconferreduponthe Swurity CounciI arc
çomplernented by a s~cific ctlrresgondinyobligation on the part of rnernbcr
States, under Article 25 of the United Nations Charter, "IO acccpt and carry

out thc deciiians of the SecurityCounciI in accordancewith the presentChar-
ta l6#".Frotn this,inter alin, derived the obligatorycfiarcicterofthe Security
Councii'sdxisions caIIingupon thcGovernment ofSouth Africa to withdraw
ils administ~atiriRom Nainibia 16',aswell asthe CuunciI'sdecisions calIinyTor
supporting action by States16'.Moreover, the CounciI expresslyokrved in its
resolution or 12 August 1969that it was:

"Mirdfu If its responsibilityto take newsary action to swure strict
cornpliance wiih the obIigations entered into by States Mcmbcrs of the
United Nations under the provisions ofArticle 25 of the Charter or lihe

United Nations la3."
97. There is. in addition, a spccific and supporling obli~ation ofmemher
. --

158Gcncral Assemhly resotutions 1899 (XYriIj, para. 6:2372 {XXIT), para. 11:
and 2511(XXIV), third prrambular paragraph.
1" SrcurityCouncil resolution 276 (19701para. 3.
1" The recordsof the San Francisco Conference show tfiat Article 25 of tlie
Charter of the United Nations applies10 aldecisio ifthe SecurityCourtcil."Tlie
obligation ofthe hfcmbcrs to carryriutthe dccisions of the SeçurityCnuncil applics
cqually to decisions madcunder Arriçle24 andro dccisioos niadunder [liegrant01
spacific powcrs";seestatcnicnt by tlie Swrctary-Gcncral. SecuritCouncil. Second
Year,No. 3.91st meeting, pp.44-45 (with referencetotheobligations resullinçfrom
the acceptaose by iheSccuriry Council of the rcsponsibilitTorcnsuring the inte-
grityandindependence ofthcFrce TerritoryrifTriestesecSecurityLouncil, Second
Year,91 stmeeting. p.60).
'"'The Sccurity Couticildeclarcdthat"the defiantattitudeof theCrtivernnicntor
South Aitica towards the CounciI's dccisions undermines the aulhority of thc
L'nitcdNations", see SecuritCriunçilrcsolution276 (I970) para. 3,andalso nuted
"withgrcatconcern the continuedflagrantrefusa1of the Governmentof SouthAFriça
io cornply ~virfithe<Iccisiomof the Seçurity Council demanding the irnrnedjate
withdrawao lfSoüih Africafrom the terrilory"sec SccurityC~uncitrcsotution 253
(I970) ,urtli prearnbularparagraph; see itlso letto theYrcsidcnt of theSccurity
Council rri.cthe rcpresentÿtiva of 49States (SI9372 and Adds. I and 2), referring.
inter ali10 thefailureofSouth Africa to coniply witiSwurity Council resoluli<ioi
245 (1958). 246(1968)and 2M f1959) in violation of its obligations iinder Article $5
of the United Nations Charter:see alsri refercnccsniaby membcrsof the Security
CounciI to theviolation by South Africa <iits obligatioi~sunder Arriclc 25 Othe
Charter (S:PV.1497, p. 7;SiPV.1528, p.46; SjPY.1528, pp.43-65 ;tPV.1528. pp. -
8-10,12;S!PV.152 pp,.11,38).
Sm fofiinote 155 above.
Ib3Sccurify CounciI resolution 269 (1969),thirdpreambularparagrapl~. Siatcs sct forth in Articl2 (5)of the United Nations Charterwhich provides
that:

"AI1 Memkrs shall give [lieUniied Nations every assistan iceany
action ittakes in accordance with the p~cscnt Charter, and shailrefrain
[rom giving assistanu: lo any State against which the Cnited Nations is
taking preventivc or eiiforceinent action."

TheIllegai Occupation

98. Iiwitlbe apparentfrom lhe factssetout in the prcccdiiigsectionthat the

ilegalandforeig occupation of Narnibian ierritory by Soiith Africa possesses
a ntimber of distincrive cliiracteristics.
99. Thus, althougtithepeople and territoryunderillcgat occupation had not
previously excrcised their rovereign independence inthe form of a recognized
and separate statehntid,thcir righttoself-determination andindependencc haù
ncvcrthclcs~long been jntcrnat ionally recognizd, and guaranteed asa sacred
trust of civilization under the respomibility oitUnited Nations &ring on lx-
hallof theorganized inrem:itionalconimunity).It was this assumption of intcrna-
tional responsibilityfora ierritory not under the sovcrciçnty of any existing
State whichconferred iiponNarnibia thesutusof an "internatioiial territIN".
100. Accordingly, whefi, in the pst, South Africa was authorizd tu be

Iawfully prcsentin Nami bit1for the liniired purpose of administering the man-
dated Territory on behalf cf the internationalcotniiiutiity,this presedid not
dei'ivefromanyinherent right or lawfulacqiiisition on lhe partof South Africa
but was derived solelyfroni, and çrriclIlimitedto a '-mandate", orconditional
licenceor authotity, givenby the internationircommunity, subjecttristipulated
condirions and fQr the purliosc ofsafeguardi angadvancing thefundamental
rightsof the pcoplc andTerritory of Namibia.
101. The continued and illeml occunation of Narnibia bv Soitth Africa
iherefore çonsisrs es&rt~ia1lof-a =fusai to vacate the ~errirob Followingthc
cessation of the intcrnliticinalrant or authoritv which cunslitutedthe sole

legal basis forout hAfricz.to be present in ~arnibia.
101. A refusa1 tu withdrawfrom territory, after all Icgaf justification for
being there isextinguished. constitutes an unlawful seizure ofterritory to the
sanie degree aswould be the caseif ttieoccupying State had unlawFullyentered
and scizedthc territory wiehout prc~iouslyhaving heen lawfully present.
103. Morwver, theillegilassumption hy South Africaof tht prerogativesof
governmtnt overthe peopl: and Territoryof Namibis has includedthe furcible
imposition of cxcireçutive1,ei:isIativcand judiciaI autliby means, it~rerdia,
of the full coercive porversofpolice andmilitary forcesIb5.ïhis presence has
thus ben broughtabout md stistained hy the illcguluse of fore against a
people and territory ovcr vhom South Africa has no IawfuIjurisdiction.

W. Since theparty dir.:ctty itiured hy this violation of international legal
obIigationsis noi, aithis lime, an independent sovcreign State, but rathm an
internalional territory uniier thc responsibilityof the United Nations, the-
rcrncdicswhich arc nurmally availabIe toStates in ~espoctof such violations
barrehad to be sought in rhiscase directl by or ihrough rhe United Nations.
.- . .
'"'fniernurionaiStlrlus oSnurli Wesr Africa, Adi.i.r#ry Opininn, i.CRepons
W50, pp.128 rr spq. Scealso,inrearria, CicncralAssemblyresolution2145 (XXI),
para.2; SrcurilyCouilcitres3lution246{1968),seventhprearnbutarparagraph,276
(1970),fourth preambular paragraph, and 283 (1970),fifthpreambular pgragraph.
IbTSee, inteariiareportscircdin footn<ite116above. 104 NAMIRIA {SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

terniinated,theTerritory ofKamibia thereupon çamc undcrthe direct respon-
sibilitof th Uninjd Nations. This was expressly re-afirmed li5by theSecurity
Council, which also rwogni~ed "' and repeatedly TG-üffirrned'" that the

'-Genaral P,sserrrbIyassuma! direct rcsponsibiIityfor the içrritory until its
independence".
114. Foi thepurpose ofdischarginyihis~sponsibility thcGeneral Assembly
entrustedthe nmssary puwers andfunctions tothe United Yations Council
for Narnibia lï"~vhich remains reponsible 10 the General Asseinhly and
which, ijrtcaiin,was to prmcd to the Tcrritary to takeover the administra-
tion 18? However,by rcfusing to prmit the CounciI to entcr Namibia or to

mogni7z the Qouncil's aüthorily,and by forcibl rytainingn'amibiarvithin jts
own çxcIusivc occupation, South Africa haq thereby prevented the Council
(and the GeneraI Assembly), froii~exercisingeffecti cvnetrolar administrarive
reçponsibilitywithin Narnibia, with the rcsult that the Couneil has thus far
bccnobtigctl to bascitsclftcmporarily outsideNanlihia and Io Iimitifsacrivities
accosdingl ly. The U tiited Nations Council for Namibia \vas, haivever,
requwted by the tieneral Assembly on scvcraI subsequenf occasions to dis-

chargc "by cvcry üvailnblemeans" the respons i jlir anedsfunetionscntrusted
to itM2.
115. Slattsare lherefore conkonted with the sirnultaneou.existence of an
illcgalrkginicwithin thc Territory,and at the same tirne a lawft~lauthority
which.al thciugh tc~nporrtrilyoutside the Territory, ithe vnly authority sincc
the termination of the Mandale legally ernpowcredto rcprcscnt and adiiiinister
Nürnibia pcnding the aitainment of irsindependence.
I16. An immediate conseyuenccfor Statcs iuthütany legal relation, ofany

kind, with orinvolving Namibia canonly beenteredinto ormaintainedthrough
the suIç aiiihurity lcgailyresponsihle for the administration or Namibia,
narnely the United Nations Council fur Namibia, acting on bchaif of thc
General Assenibly.ConverscIy, any relationpurporting tobe with or to involve
'laniibia, rvhichhas heenenreredinto or inaintained through the Govemment
of South Africa or the illegaSouth Africün administration in Namibia since
the termination of the Mandate, isvoid and ivithout legzleflect.

Diplumatic,ConsuIar and Other Relations

117. One of the consequences orthc illegalityof the SoiithAfricanprcsence

lisSccurity Council resolution245 (1968),1stpreamhukarparagraph.
li"wurii y Couocil rcst?lutjo264 (969). para. .
Swurii CounciIrcsolurions246 (1968).2nd preambularparagraph.264 (1969},
2nd preanibiliarparagraph, 276(1970)2.nd preambularparagraph.and 183 (1970).
2nd prertnibiilparagaph.
Gener:iIAsser:rblresolution2248 (S-Y) (rhcCounciwas re-namcd by Gtnçral
Asstmhly reiolution2372 (XXIT),para. 3).
"' Gmçr:tl Asscmbly rcsolution 2248 (5-V),PartTI,para. 2.
"' Ihid., l'aIV, para.3.
InexpiLessinitsconcern reeardintglie contiiiuedrcfusal of 11ietiovernrnentor
South Africcrto crimplywirhitrobligationsto thc Cnitcd Nations. thGeneral As-
sembIy obscrvcd, inrrr diri,that lhiswa=,"n-iaking il impossiblc for the Uniled
Natiuns C<iitncilforSoilth West Africa iciperftirreffeciivelythe functions that
were enrrust0:io itbyfhc Generat Asremhly", and constiluteda -'flagrandcfiancc
of tlie iiuthririofthe United Natittns",see General Asse~nbly rewIution 2372
(XXII), 5th preambutar paragraph.
IR:CieiieoiAaembty rcsolutioos 2325 (XXII), para. 7, 2403 (XXIII), paru. 6,
and 2517 (XXIV). para.6. WRiTïEN ?,TATEMENT OP THE SECRETARY-GENEML IO7

At the same time, the YkcurityCouncil rcqucstcd thc krctary-GcncraI to
undertakea similar stud!rand review of inuItilateraltreatilq2.

"Deallngs" and~3mmercia1, Invtytmea andTouristActivities

128. The SecurityCoitnciIalso mlled upon al1 States"to refrain from dl
deaIingswith the Goverriment of SouthAfrica purportiny to act on behalfof
the territoryof Namibia 19~"and furthercalled upon "al1 States,pmicularly

those which haveeconoinic and other interestsin Namibia, to refrain from
any dealings wittthe tiovernmentof SouthAfricawhiçharc inconsist weiht"
the iIlegalityof thc con~inued presence of the South African authorities in
Namibia. or rviththe resdting iIlegaIityand invalidiOCa11acts taken by the
Governmentof South Arrica on beltaIaf or concerning Namibia aftcr the
terminationof the Mandaie lg4.
129. The exclusionby 1heSecurityCounciIof "any reIarions" 19j(diplornatic,
consuiarorotherwisc) as weIl as "anydeaIing" '% with the Govcrnnicnt of
South Africa piirporting to -acton bchalïof Namibia, represents so widc a

prohihirionthat for sri longiisSouth Africa maintains her illem[presence
and administrationin tht:'Territory,it wouIdappear not to lx open to States
to enter.orlise.orcarry OB anyactivityinthcTcrritory, or totradcor associate
with it.
130. I'ursuant to the:e general providons, the Security Council further
calleciiiponali SIates-

"... to ensuie thar companies ;uid other commercial and industriai
enterpriseowned by, orundcr dirwt cuntrulof thcState, ceaseal1deaIings
with rcspcct to cunimercia1or indusrria[ enterprisesor concessions in
Namibia 1"':'

and
"... to ensure that companies and other commercialenterpris# owned

bythe Stateor underdirect mntrol of thc.StattccaseciIfurtherinvestment
activiticsincluding cmcessions inNamibia '95".
131.These requiremen ts,which were aiready implicit in the generaI provi-
sion salIinon Statesto refrainfroni anydmiings,rncikeexplicithe particular

neccssityfor thccessirtiorufthe activitiementioned.
132. With regardto ths actsof private individualsandmrpnrate bodics no1
underdirectgoverntnentcontrol, the SccurityCouncilcaIIedupon al1States-
"... to withhold from theirnational3or companies of theirnationaIily

not underdirectgon:rnment contrciIgovernment loans, cdit guarantees
and ritherforms offinancia1supportlhatwould be used tofaciIi~9tctrade
or coiiimerce with Namibia lgq";
and

192Ihid. para.9.
IyJSecurity Council resr~iüti269(1969) p ara.7.
l* SecurityCourtcilrescnIutio276 {1970),para. 5.
'qsSccurifyCourtcilrcscilution283 (1971para. 1.
'% Sec footnotcs193 ani 1W above.
19'Sccu~ityCvuncilrescnlurion283(19701 para. 4.
3g*Ibiri., pura.6.
'99 SecuritCouncilrexilution283 (19701,para. 5.108 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WESY- AFRICA)

. -.":.. to discouragc thcir-nationaIs or companiesof heir naiionality. not
underdirect govcrnmentrtIcontrol from invcsting or obtaining concessions
in Karnibia,andto thisend wilhhold protection of suchinvestitient against
claimi of a future lawfui governmenrof Namibia ?"O"..

133. The Secusity Councit also called upun al1Statcs "to discourage the
ptcirnotionmof.tourism and emigratio? Io Namibia '@i'',

134. If has beennoted thai thc rncasuresprescribed by rhe Securitj ~ounci1
consist fortlie rnostpartofconsequence s hichflownaiurally orautomaiicaIly
from-thc iIIegality of thpresence OC South Africa in Namibia, and the under-
lyingobligaiions ofStatesunderthc United Nations Charter,and @furtherance
of the still iindischargcdinternationa1,trusi on ,bchalfofthc pcoplc pnd terri:

tory iifbI~,mibia,forwhich mernber-States reniain wllectively resp8nsibIe. ,
. 135. For il rvyuld clcarlq-k ineohsiitentwirh this triisfor any State fo
lend support, either direct lyindircctly, to any ilIegaIusuryierOF authority
in Namibia,, rvhwk,usurpation was denying or detaying ihe ecercise by the
people of,K-arnibia'oftheir rights ençhri~edin the United Xations Charter:
MoreOver: since,itithe ~prescnt case,the usurpation of aiithority by Sourh
Africa is in directopposition to ihacliondccidcd upon by the Unitcd Nations
in thc cxcrcise of tsresponsibiiityfor Naniibia, and isforcibly preventing the
execution of'decisions takcn both by the Security Coiincil and by the GeneraI
Assembly 'O".it is therefore-iiatopen trrnyrnemhr Statc to rccugnize or dwl
with this ,usurper in any"matferconccrning the internationai Territory of

Namibia. .,.
136. ILisütthe same tiinea specific duty ofnicnibcrStatcs undcrArticlc (5)
of thc Unitrd Nations C:tiarler "to givc the United Nations everyassistance
in any action it takesin accordance with the... Charter" *-'.
137.It folIowsthat no member State should pcmit any action to be taken
engaging ifs international respansibility whichwould iniplyrecognition of the
authorityillegaIfynssertcd bySouth Afrjca over Narnibia. or would otherivise
irnvde the effortsof the United 'lalions tu fulfil its rcsponsibilitinsregard
to the Terniory.
138. The exclusio~ of tradt: as wcll as other relations and deaIings with fhc
iIIega1régimein Narnibia has heeii noted above. To this shciuldbe adrledthat

al1trade and transactions and communications with Nami bia, or conmrning
goods or materials originaiingin Naniihia, should likewise kexcluded by thc
same princijitein so pdr as these activiiicu:invoIvc any liccnm, rcgutationor
taxalion, vr titlc or interest, deriving fror owing to tlie illegaIrégimsince
the termination of the Mandate.
139. AIso exdudcd shouldbeal1econornic.scicntific,military, adminisirative,
profcssional or ather activities involvin tge w-operation or participation,
with otherStates, of thc Governmenr of'South Africa and iinplying recognition
of the ilIegalaiithority asserted by ihe lattcr ovcr Yaniibia.
I40. 11iiIsofollows thaSIares are prcctuded from recogniring anypiirported
--
-.
zoo ibid., para. 7.
ZU' Ibid.p,ara. 11.
'"' Securiy Council resolutions 245 (19681,246(19681, 21i4(19b3), 269 (1969).
276 (1970) aiid 283 (1970);tieneralAssembly rcsolutions 2145(XXl), 2248 (S-h').
etseq.
203 Scc al50para. 97abvvc.tion cannat viiIidIcreateor abotishor change any rights,pnwcrs, intcrcstsor
obligationsproperly belongingwithinh'amibianjurisdiction. orhave any IegaI
effect.
146. Itwillkx the pr~rogativeof thefutureLegisiativeAssernblyof Namibia
(eIectedby the inhabitanw:of [heTerrilory on the basis of universal adult
suffrage)"'; to decide whether, and to what extcnt,to rccogni7e or validate

any act undertakenundervoid laws duringthe illegafSouth AfrÎun prcsenm,
or togrant retroactivevalidation toanysuchIawhaving an otherwiseacceptabIe
content However, pendingrhe estabIishmcnt of thc future territorial Iaw
and constitution of Namibia, no pubIic or private acts may bc aIIowod to
prejudiceor prejudge inany way the exerciseby the futureNamibianauthority
OF its wvereign righrs, andna right ritobligation can be created againsi the
present or fulure lawful administration ol Nainibia, by virtuc of any act or
claiin or relationship or thing brought into existence under presently void

laws.
147. KeFerenccsto valid Namibian Iüws ai ihis tirnmay comprise fhox
which were IiiwfuIly enacted while the Mandate was in force and are not
repugnant tothe [errtiorthe Mandate and theUnitedNations Charter,subject
10, and suliplernented hysuch laws, decrea or adrninistratiw regulations as
niay bc promulgated by the United Nations Council for Niitnibia under
specific powers conferrcd upon the latterby theGeneraI Asseinbly ?O? How-
cver. pendintg he institutinfi nfa IawfuIjudiciary and law enforcementagency

in Namibiii ,thenieans of securing the validandeffectiveapplicülion of current
law remains unavoidably limite&
148. At the same time, the judicial anlaw enforccmcn torgans maintained
by South Xfriu in or for Narnibiaor purporting to exerciw juridiction in
Nnniibia, ;ifter the terminationof rhc Mandate, have no legal authority ur
jurisdictionover any matter which properly belongs within Nanii bianjurisdic-
tion. It follows thaia11actsof suchjudicialbodies relating to Nainibiit, orto
persons or propcrtyor Iand in Namibia, iindertaken afrerrhc termination of
the Mandatearevoid and wi thout legdeffoct249,unless subscquenrtyvaIidated

by lawful proccss. Meanwhilc,ii is incurnbentupon States and iheirjudicial
organs not to enforce. acknowlcdge or otherwisc take coynizancc of any such
voidjudicialacts.

149. For thc purposc of cxsrninin thye legal consequencesforStates of the

cont inued presence of South Africa in Namibia, this siaiement has sottght
taidentify only thow aspect5of the South African pi-cscnccfram which the
principal 1r:giclonscquences for Statesensue.
150. It11as accordingIyken showii, ititer alithat Namibiakas ken and
rcmains ar:infernationalterritorywith an internationalstatus, beinga respon-
-
Sub-Icgislfon, ProcIarnations,Ordinanres ofthe TerritorialLegislative Assernbly,
Iocalsub-lt:g~slaiiand prvçlamaticinsand nmendments to suc11enactments. A
Iisgiving i:xnrnpleof Açls orthe St~ultAlrican Parliament purporting to apply
to Namibis., andenacted, or purpcirtedextended to Namibia afteiOciober 1966,
isattachedto thisstaternetitas Atinex "B".
'ObGeneraI Asrembly rcsolution2248 (S-Y) ,art rI, para1 (hj.
2N 7. F.eport of the United Natiom Council for Naniibia, Generul Asscmbly
Oficinl XECOTC2 L5t.Session.Supplement No. 24, A/8024. para.97,pp. 26-27.
zm GeneratAssernblyrewlution 2248 (S-V),Part i1para. 1 (b).
Swulity Corincil resoIution 276 (1970), operativepara. 2.RESOLUTIOA F-sOIT~UflY TI1GEMRAI .SSFMRLY WITIISPLCIFIR CEFERESCE
TO Nahirnra(Som WESTA~-KICA)
65 (1)Futurc Statirsof SoutWest Africa.
141 (II)Cc.nsidentionofproposedncwtrustccshipagreements,if my: Ques-
tionof South West Afriça.

227 {III ). estioof South West Ai'rica.
337(IV). QiiestioofSouthWest Africa:rcitcrationof previoiisresoiufionsand
subniissinnof reports.
338 (TV)Q iiaiion oSouth WestAfrica:requestforan advisoryopinionofthe
Internaticinl ourtof Justice.
449(V). Questionof SouthWest Africa(item35).
Ke.soluiicnof 13Decernber 1950.
570 (VI) .uestionof South Wcst Africa (item 38).
Resoluticns(A andB) of 19Jaiiuary 1952.
651 WïI). <]uestioofSourh WestAfrica (item 38).
Resoluticnof 20DeEemtier 1952.
749 WIII).Question of SouthWesi Airicd(item31).
Resaluticns(A and B) of 28 November 1953.
844 (1x 1i.cedurcfor~rsrninationofreportsand petitionsrelatintoTerri-
foryof South WestAfrica(item 34).
Resoluticnof 11 October1954.
851 {lx).Report of thc Comrnitreeon~oÙrhWest Afrira(itcn~34).
ResoIuticnof 23 November 1954.
852 (lx)Statu oftheTerritoryof SouthWestAfricaIitern34).

ResoIutionof23Nuvcrnkr 1954.
904 (1x1 Votingprocedure on questionsrelaiintoreportsand petitioncon-
ccrning 'IèrritoofSouth Wcst Africa--requestfor advisoropinioii from
the InternationaCourtof Justice[item 34).
Resdution of 23 November 1954.
934 0. Vating prncedureon questionsreIatingtoreportsand petitioncon-
cerning theTerritory ofSouth West Africa-advisory opinion of Interna-
riona1Cc.urtofJustice{iiern30).
Resoluticlnof 3Dccember 1955.
935 fX).Petitionsand comn~unicationsreIatinto the Rehoboth Community
of South West Africa(item 30).
RcsoIution of Dxernber 1955.
936 (X). Pctitionsand rclated communications from Mr. Hosea Kiiiako,
Mr. David Roos and Mr. Erastus Amgabeb conccrningSouth West Africa
(item30).
Resoluiivnof 3 Dmmber 1955.
Y31(X). Pctitianandre1ateconirnunicatiofrom thcRcveren 1'.H. Hanitum-
bangela concerningSouthWest Africa (item 30).

ResoIution of3 Dmember 1955.
938 (X). Peiitionfrotn MissMargcry F. PcrhaconccrningSouth West Africa
(itcm 30).
ResoIution of3 Dcccmber 1955.
939 (X). Pctition from Mr. JarireturiduKozonguizi conccrning SouthWest
Aïrica(item 30). WHI?"TE.ISTATEMkNTOF THE SEC1tETAKY-GENkHAL 113

. Resolution of 3 December 1955.
94D (X). Slaltiof Ihe Territory oSouth West Africa(item 30). ,
Resolutian of3 Deceniber 1955.
941 (X). Report of tlieC'ornmittcon SoutliWest Africa(iteiil 30).
Resolution of 3 Deceniber 1955.
942 (X). Qucstion of th(adniissibilityufvralhrarings by the Corninitteeoti

Sorith West Africa:requestfor an advisory opinion from the InternafionüI
Court of Justice(item 30).
Ke>;cilutiaa[ 3 Deceriibcr1955.
943 a) H.earingof the Keverend Michael Scott(item 30).
Kesolutionof 3 Deceniber 1955. ,
IO47 {XI) . dmissibilitOF harings of petitioners by Conimittccon South
Wcst Af~ica :advisory .>pinionof theIntcmationül CoiirtoJustic(item38).
Resolution of 23 Janu:iry1957.
1054 (XI).Report of theC..ommitteeon South West Arrica(itcrn 37).
Resolution of 26 February 1357. . ,. .
1055 (XI).Status of the 'Territoof South WestAfrica(item37). .. '-
Resoltition of 26 Febritar1957.
1056(XI). Hcsrings of w~itionersor1condiiionç in thcTerritorofSouth.West

Africa(iteiii 37).
Resoliitionor 25 Febriiary1957.
1057 (XI) P.ctÏtion and coinmunicationsfroiri Mr. Jacobus Beukcsconcerning
the TcrritoryofSouth Wesl AFrica(item 37).
Resoiiitionof 26 Febrlrary1957.
1058 (XI). Fctition fromIheUkuanyatriaTribalCongressconcerningtheTerri-
tory ofSouth West Africa (itcni 37):
ResoIution of 25 Rbrtiary 1957.
1059 (XI).Solution of ihcquestioiiofSouth West Africa (item 37).
Resolution of 26 Febrrlary1957.
10M3(XI). Study of legat actionro ensure the fuifilmentnf the obligations
asvumcdby thc Mandatory Puwer under the Mandate Tor South West Africri

(item 37).
Resoliitionof 26 Febriiary1957. I
1061 (XI) C.omposition (iftheCornmittee on SouthWestAîrica (item 37).
Kesolution of 26 Febrriary1957.
1138 (XII) .ctitionsanricommunicationsfrom Mr. Jacobus Ikukcs of the
liehohoth C'ommunityconccrningthc Tcrritoryof South West Africri(item
38).
Resoliition of 25 Octolier1957.
1139{XII). Petitions and~:ornniunicsitionsfrMr. JohanrsDausab andothers,
ChiefIIoseaKutako, Etfr.WilhelmHeyn and Dr. Joachim Seegerr,and Mr.
Jacobus Beukesconcerningthe Territory or South West Africa (item38).
Rcsoluticinof 25 Ociof>cr1957.

1140(XII). Conditions irthe 'Territory of SoutWest Africa(item 38), .
Resolutionof 25 OçtoInr 1957. '
1141 (XIT).Status aftheTerritoryof Sou thWcst Africri(iten38).
Resolutionor 25 Octotier 1957.
1142 (XII). Legalaction iensurethefultilrnenror theobligationsassumd by
thc Unioii ofSouth Al'ricainrapcct ofthe Terrirory of South West Africri
(iteni 38).
Resolurions (A and B) of 25 Octokr 1957.
1143 (XII) Eftablishmen!of a Good OfficcsCornmittero :nSouth West Africa
(item 38).
Resolution or25 Octotier 1957.II4 NA~~BIA (SOUTH WEST APRICA)

1243 FUI). Repurt of the GoodOffices Corninitteeon South West Africa
(item 39).
Rwlutiori of 30Octokirr 1958.
1244 @HI). Petilions andcommunications in regard tothe 'I'erritoofSouth
Wesf Afric:a(item 39).

Resolutiorrof30 Octokr 1958.
1245 PU). Conditions inthe 'ïerritoryof SouthWestAfrica (iteni39).
I<esalutiorof 30October 1958.
1246 (XLII).Statusof ihe Tcrrtory of South Wcst Africa (item 39).
Resolutiotrof 30 October 1958.
1247 (X1U). &al action taensure lhefultilmenof theobIigütionsassurned by
thc Lnion of South Africa inrespectof the Territory of SouthWest Africa
(item 39).
Resolutioriof 30 October 1958.
1333(XIII}. Verhatim recordof debate of thereportofrhe Good OfficesCom-
tniiteon South WestAfrica(itcrn 39).
Resolution of 13Deceniher1958.

1356 (XIY). I'etitionsandconiniunicarionsrelarintoSouth West Arrica(item
38) (A14272).
Resoliitioiof 17 November 1959.
1357 (XIVf. The Hoachanas Native Reservefirem 38) (Aj4272).
Resolutioiiof 17Novembcr 1959.
1358(XIV). WithdrawaI of a passportfrom Mr.Hans Johannes Beukes(item
38) (Aj4272).
Resolutioo of 17 Novernber 1959.
1359 (XIV). Statirs of the Territoof South West Africa (item38) (Ai4272).
Rcsolutioriof 17Nnvemher 1959.
1360(XIV). Question orSouth Wcst Africa (item 38).
Resolutiotrof 17Novcmher 1959.
1361(XIV). LcgaI actiontoensure the fuifilmenof theobligations assumcd by

the Union ofSouth Africa in respecofthe Tcrritury ofSouth West Africa
(item 38)(AJ4272).
Resrilutionaf 17Nnvemher 1959.
1352(XIV). Report of theGood OfficcsCornrnittccon SouthWest AIjica (item
38) (A14272).
Resalutiaiiof 17Nnvember 1959.
I563GY). PetitionsreIaing to thc Tcrntory of South Wcst Africa(iteii43)
<A/4643).
Resolutioiiof I8 December 1950.
1564 (XV). Pulitiml frccdornin SouthWest Africa (item43) (A34643).
Rcsolutioiiof 18 Deceinber 1950.
1565 (XV). IxgaI actiontoensiirethe fulfilmenr of the obligations assumedby

the Union of South Africa inrespectofthe Territoryof South West Africa
fitem 43j(lAi4643).
KesoIutioiiof 18Decerntier 1960.
1566 (XV) . ssistancc of thc specializagencies and of rhcUnited Nations
ChiIdren's Fund in tlie econornicsocialand educational developmenr of
South West Africa (item 43(Ai4M3).
ResoIulionof 18Dmcrnbcr 1964.
1567 (XV). 'me Windhoek1-ocation (item 43) (Aj4M3).
ResoIutioiiof 18 Decembcr 1950.
1568(XV). Question ofSoitth West AFrica(item 43)(Aj4643).
ResoIiitioiof 18Deceniber 1960. WRITTEN SPATEYEN'I' OF TIStCHEI-ARY-GENERAL

1595 (XV). QutsiicinofS-3uth Wcst Africa(item 43) (Ai4721).
Resolution of 7ApriI 1961.
1702(XVI). Queslion of South Wcst Africa(item 47) (AiSW).
Resolution of 19Dcwniber 1961.
1703 (XVD. Petitioiis relattogthcTcrritaryof South West Africa (ifem 47)
(A!5044).
Resolutionof 19Dcwniber 1461.

1704 (XVI). Corniiiittof South WestAfrica(itcm 47) (Aij044).
Resolutionof 19 Daceniber 1961.
1705 (XVI). Special cdui:tional and training programnia fur South West
Africa (iiern47(Aj5044).
Resolutioiiof 19Doceaiber 1961.
1804(XVII). Petitions and comrriunicationsrdatingto theTcrritoryofSouth
West Africii (item 57(415256).
Kesolutionof 14December 1962.
1805 (XVII). Question of South West Africa(item57) (A/5310).
Kesolutionof 14 Decetriber1962.
1806(XVII). Special Conmittee for Souih WestAfrica(item 57)(Aj53 10).

Rcsoliitionof 14 Deceniber1962.
1899 (XVIII). QucsriunofSouth West At'ric(item 55) (Af5605).
Resolutionof 13Noveinber 1963.
1900 {XVIII).I'etitions ~~~ncçrnintghe TerriioryofSouth West Africa(item
55) (Ai5605).
Resolutionof 13Noveinber 1963.
1901 IXVIII).Special edtiational and trainingprogrammes fur South Wcsl
Africa {itcrn5(6)) (Ai5&05).
Resolutionof 13 Novernber 1963.
1979 (XVIII). Question of'SoutWest Africa{item 55) (A]S6051Add.I).
Ra-oIutionof 17 Deceniber 1463.
2074(XX). Question of South WestAfricd(iteni 69) (AjCiI61).

Resolurion of17 neceniber 1965.
2075 (XX). Petitions concerningSouth West Africa (irer69)(Ai6161).
Resolutioiiof17Decenibcr1965.
2076 {XX). SpeciaIducarional and training progranimes forSouthWest Afriça
(item 701(Al6161).
Resolution or 17kcernber 1965.
2145 (XXI). QtiestionofSouth N'estAfrica(item 65) (AIL.483and Adds.1-3,
AIL.488).
Resolution of27 0ctotx.r1966.
2146 (XXT), Pctiiionscowxrning South WestAfrica (item55)(AjL.489).
Itesolution of27Octobcr 1966.

2235(XXT).Question of theconsolidation andintegraiionofthespecial educa-
tionaIand trainingpro1;rammesfor hth West Africa, thc specjai training
progranirncfor tcrritoriesunder Portuguese administratioand theeduca-
tionaland trainingprogrammefor South Africans(items66and68)(A(6625).
ResoIiitionor20 Deceniber 1966.
7236(XXI). Spccial cdw:ütiunal and traininp grogrammes for South Wcst
Africa (item66) (AjG625).
Resolulion of 20Rcernher 1966.
2288 (XXII). Activitics oi-foreign ~conorand othçrititerestswhich arc im-
peding the implementationof the Declarationon tIreGraniing of Indepen-
dence 10CoIoniaICouniriesand PeopI~sin SouthernRhodcsia, South West
Africaandtcrritoricsur&r Portuguesedomination and inall otherterritaries undercolonialdurninationand efforts10eliminaiecolonialistn,apartheidand
racial discrjminatioiiin Southeni Africü (i24) (Aj6439).
Kesolutictnof7 December 1867.
2324(XXII). Questionof South WestAfrica(itcrn64) (AiL.536 andAdds. 1-4).
Resolution of 16Uecernkr 1967.
2325 (XXII) Q.uestionof SouthWest Africa(iiern64)(AjL.54) andAdds. 1,2).
Rcsulutirmof fi Deceinber1967.
2344(XXII). Qu~ction ofiheconsol~dationand integralioof thespxialeduca-
tioiial andtraining programmes forSouth West Africa, the special training
programincfor territoriesunder Portugricscadministrationand the-cduca-
tionaland training programme for South Africans (items65, fi7 and68)

(A/7010).
Resoluticinof 19Decemuer 1967.
2372 (XXII). Questionof South West Africa Cirem64) (AIL.546jRev. 1).
ResoIution of 13Julie 1968.
2403 (XXIII).ViiesUon or Nainibia(item 64)(Aj1,.556and Add. 1).
Resolution of 16Dcccmber 1968.
2404 (XXiil).Petitionsconcerning Namibia (itcrnM) (AIL.557).
Resoiutirinof 16 Oscentber1968.
2425 (XXIII).Activiticsof foreign econonand otherinterestswliicaiejitiped-
ingthe irnplemeiitationof theDwluriition othe Granting of, lndepcndence
tu Colonial Coüntriesand PcoplesinSouthern Rhodesia, South WestAfrica
and terri!oricundcrFortueuese dominationand inal[otherteiritoria undcr
coIoniaI don~ination andeffort10 elirninatccolonialism, apartheand ra-

cia1discriminationinSouthern Africr(item68) (A/7423).
Itesaluticinof It3Decembcr1968.
2431 (XX1I:I). United Nations Educational and Training Programme fur
SouthernAfrica(item 70) (Aj7425).
Resoluiion ol 18Dcecnibcr 1968.
2498 (XXIVJ. Questionof Namibia (ileni64)(A37736).
Rcsolutian of 31October 1969.
2517 (XXIVJ.Question of Naniibia (item 64)(A/7736/Add. 1).
Rcsolution of 1Decem ber1969.
25 18(XX fv).Petitionscon~xrningNamibia (itei64)(Ai7736iAdd. 11,
Resoluticmof 1Dcccniber 1969.
2554(XXIV). Activitiesofforeiçnwononiic andorhcrinterestswhich areimped-

ing theiniplementationof theDeclaration on theGrantingof Indcpcndcnce
Io CoIuniiiICountrimand Peoples in Southern Rhodesia,Soutli WestAfrica
and territoriesunderPortuyuex dominationandin al1otherterriloriesunder
colonial (IominatiunandeffortstoeIiminatecoIonialismüparthcidand racial
discrimination in SouthernAFrica (item48)(Aj7858). Kesolutionof I2 De-
ccmber 1969.
2557 (XXI\') U.nired Nations EducationalandTraining Programme for South
Afriça (itcm 70(A!7872).
Resoluticnof 12Decemkr 1969. .'
Annex B

Ams tir; TSOUI FIAFHLCAN PARLIAME NT RI'OKI- IO APPLY TO h'auin~n,
AND ENACTE DR.~URPORTT:DI.YEXTESDE D0 NA~IIDIAAFllK ~CFOBER 1966

AdiirinistratiofEstate.Act, No. 66 of1965. Sec.108A (iiddd by AC\ No.
54of 1970,sec.10)provjdesrhat theActappliestoSouth West Afnca andto
theEastcrnCapriviZivfcl, bu[ thin the Rehoboth Gebiet it donotapply
to personsto whom l'roc. No. 36 of 1941 (South Wcst Africa) applies.

Agcd Pei-soAnsct, No. 81 of 19.ec.16(1)ofPension I.aiv5An~endrnenAlct,
No. 79of 1968,authorizcu:thç StatePresidcntby proclamation intheGn-
zelletodeclare thAgd Persons Actto beapplicable tSouth Wesl Africa
"inrespectof natives".. . "so faras thoseprovisionsrcIat teBantu or
Bantu pcrsons". Thc/ICIwas applied by Pruc.NO.R. 293 of 1968, Soirth
WestAfrica Gaz.Extra.,18 Nov. 1958.
AgricultiirCredit Act, Wo. 2of 1956.h. 1 (aamendedby Act Ko. 66 uf
1970,scc.1)includcs itfoIIowingdefinitions:

"'State' theapplicitionof thiAct in the territory.meanthe Adminis-
tratioof the territo.. ." and
'"tcrritorymcans th: territorofSouth Wcst Africa."
The long titlof ActNo. 66 of 1970 reads ipart,"To apply tlieAgricut-
ruralCredir Acr,1966, tothe territoor South West Africa.. .".
ApostoIic FaithMissionof SouthAfrica(Private)Act, No.74of 1961.Scc. 8A
(added by ActNo. 4 of 1970m)akes theAct applicabIto Soulh WestAfrim
and Easlern CapriviZipfel.
Architects'Act, No.35of1970. Scc .5rnakesthc Act andarncndments appli-

cable toSouth WestAr'riw.
Arments Devclopment and Production Act, No. 57 of 1968. Soc. 1(ix)
definesthe RepubIicto incIudc SouthWest Africa.
Arms and Aminunition Act.No. 75 of1969.Sec.41 applies Act tSouth West
AfricaandEastern CapriviZipfel.
Assessmenrof DamagesAct, No.9 of 1969,Sec.2 appliesAct andamendmenfs
to SouthWest Africaand EasternCaprivi Zipfel.
Atomic Energy Act, No.90 of 1867.Sec. 36applicsthe Act to the "territory",
which is definedhySa. 1 (1(xijto include EastcrnCaprivi ZipfeI.
Attorneys,Kotariçsand ConveyancersAdmisqion Act. No. 23 of 1934 S.ec.

35A (1)(üdded by Act No. 93 of1970,sec. 16)applies Act and amendmenis
to South Wmt Africa and EastcrnCaprivi ZipfclSK. 2 (amended by Act
No. 93 of 1970,sec. 1) defin"law sodety" to incIudctheLawr Society
South West Africa; "province" and "Rcpublic" to inciudcSouth West
Africa; and "territoryto mcanSouth West Africa.
Bantu Anairs Act,No. 55of i959,sem.2, 3, and4, andregulatioissuedunder
sec. 15 (1)(a).Sec. 16A (added byThird Bantu Laws Amendment Act,
No. 49 of 1970,sec.6) sopmvidcs.
Bantu Education Act,Nc. 47 of 1953Sw. Star(added by ActNo. 44 of1970,
stv. 5) rnaktheAct artdamendrnentsthcrctoapplicabletoNamibia and the
Eastern Cnpriv iipfel.

Bantu Special EducationAct,No. 24 of1964.Sec.22A (added byAct go. 44
OF1970, SLY.7)rnakesihe Act and amcndrncntstheretoapplicableto South
Wcst Africa and EasternCapriviZipfel.DisabilityGrantsAct, No. 27of1968 S,ec15 (1)ofthe Pension LawsAmend-
mentAct, Ka. 79 of 1963,applies,ss tthe Aged Petson (q.v.)Act applied
byProc. No. K293 of I958.
Finance Act, No. 75 of 1970. Soc.1 onIy,wIiich providesforremission of
capita ald intercst owitrg hiagistr atReehotiorh Districtand the utiIi-
ration thcreuf.
FormalitiesinConiracts ofSale ofLand Act,Np. 71 of 1969.Sec.3makes Act
applicablera SourtiWr!,tAfrica.
Formaliticsin reswt ofLerisesof I.and ActNo. 18 of1969.Sec. 2 appliesthe
Aci to South Wcst Afric:s.
General LawAmendrneiit Act,No. 7h of 1962,sec.21 (the '-SabotagAct''),
n~adeappIicabtetoSouth West ATricaand EasiernCapriviZipfelby sec.7(a;,

added by Act No. 62 or 1966,soc.19.(Note that theeffectivedate of Act
No. 62 of 1866aras 1November 1x6,i.c.,afler the adoption of r2145.)
GeneraI Law Ainendmcni Act, No. 102 of 1967, sec.22 only, "Supply and
acquisitionofIiquorto and by Nativesin South WestAfrica".
fienerai LawAmendrrtenl Act. No.IO1of 19159s,ec.29 (prevcntindisclosure
in courtof widen~u: which iscertified by a Ministas "prejudjciato ihe
interests of thState oipubIic sccurity") niade appIicableto South West
Africa by sub-seclion(3).
General Law Arriendment Act, No. 17 of1971)Sec .oiily.whichamends the
Svuth West Afi-icaCbristitutioAct, No. 39 of 1968,by insertinga new
section31A therein.
GeneralLaivFurthcrAmendnlcnrAct, No. 97, of 1970,sec.14only (the section
amcndç sectioii 20ofttie CriminaProccdc~mOrdinanw, fio. 34of 1963,of

South Wcst Africa).
Hire-PiirchaseAct,No. 36 of 1942.Sec. 20A (addcd byAct No.79 of 1970,
sec.2) providethat theAct andal1amendnienls apply toSouth WestAfrica
alid EasternCapriviZipfel.
KumanScienses Hesearch Act,No, 23 of 1968.Soc. 16rrinkesAct üpplirablc
to South WestAfriça. Sec. I defines"Sfatc" to inchde South West Africa.
rdentityDoc~~rnent n So?ithWcsl AfricaAct, No. 37of 1970.
IncorneTax Act, No. 58of1962 k.. IIIA,added by Acl Ko. 89 of 1964W.
40,provides lhaf the principaAct and amcndinents appIy to South West
Africa.Note thar sec.109crnpuwerstheSouth AfricanFinanccMinistei t0
enter into an agreernerwith the Adminisrratorof South Wesl Africa rc-
garding prcvenlion of d3iibIetaxation.
11icoine'FaxAct, No.89 OF1969,soc.55, providcsthat it êppliesto Sotirest

Africa.
Incorn Teax Act,No. 52-sf1970. Sec. 30rnükesthe Act applicable ta South
West Africa.
lndecentarOhscicenePtiot4,graphicMaiterAct, No. 37of 1967.Sec4A (added
by Act Nu. 101of 1969,sec.26)inakes Act andal1amendments applicabl~ to
South West Africa andEüsfçrnCapriviZipfd.
Insurance Act,No.27 of 1943. Sec.17qüar(addcdby Act No. 39 of 1969,sec.
2A (1))providesthatth*Act andamendrncnts shahapply toSouth WcstAfri-
ca and Eastern CapriviZipfcl. Sec24 (2) provides thscc. 24 (1) shall bc
deemed tnhave conie iiiteffecas of theconirncncetneiltdate of tprin-
cipal Act.
Jusriceof thePeaceand Conirnisuionersf oaths Act,No. 16of1963.SN. 11.4
(addedhy Act No. 55of 1470,sec.2) applis thc ActtoSouth West Africa.

LandBank Act.No. 13of 1944.Sec.7 (1)is amendedby Act No. 31of 196%
sec.5 (c), (4, by adrlinga dtfinitioti of "Republic-'which includts the120 NA~WIA (SOUTH WES~ AFRICA)

Tercitory.The 1969 Act spccjficalIy repeals existordinanca end pro-
çlamütioiirelüting to thterritoridLandBank and rnergcit into theSouth
AfricanLand Bank.
LandSurvcyAct, No. 9 of1927.Sec.49.4(addedbyAct No.64 of 1970,sec.10)
makes Act andaniendmentsapply toSouthWcst Africaand EasternCaprivi
ZipfeI. Scc1 (asamended by Act No. 64of 1970,secY Id), (ej,(f) )dds
definitiortsof "province-'Yepublic"and "South Afriça": eüch"include~"
the territxyorSoutii WeçlAfrica.
LandSurvcyors'Registirtioii Act, No. 65of 1970.Sec . (asamended by Act
No. 65 of 1970 ,ec. {bj)defines"Republic" and"South Alricü"cach to
"incliide"theierritorofSouth Wcst Africa. Note thelong titlof Act No.
65 of 19N is "toapply the Land Surveyors'Registra[ionAct, 1950, tathe

territorof Saurh WestAfrica.. .".
LandTenui-e Aci,No. 32of 19GG S.ec.IOA [addedby Act No. 67of 1970,sec6)
makes the Acr and amendmeiits,except sec.5,appIy inihe tcrrito ryc. 1
(asamenlfedby ActNo. 67 of1970,WC. 1)detinesrhc territory tomean South
West Aftica.
LimitationandDisclaimer ofFinance Charges Act,No. 73of 1968,Sec.19 (1)
appliesthe Act toSouth \VesrAfrica and EasiernCapriviZipfcI.
Limitation3f kgal Procccdings (fiovincial andLocal AutharitiaAct,No. 94
of 1970.:Sec.7providcsthat theAct and amendments apply io South West
Africa ard EasternCaprivi ZipfeI.
Magistrat=-'Court Act,No. 32of 1944. Scc.115A (1)(added hy Act No.53of
1970, sec.21) providesthatthe Act appliesto South Wai .4frica and the

Eastern CapriviZipfel.
Maintenmm Act, No. 23 of 1963.Sec1hA added by Act No. 39of 1970,sec.4,
makes A.3 applicabletoNamibia and the Easkrn Caprivi Zipfel. Sec. 1 is
amended by Act No. 39 of1970,sec .,byadding adefinitioor "Republic"
which ini:ludc'-theierritory"anda definitioof theterritor("means.. .
South West Africa").
MarketableSecuritiesFa Act,No. 32 of 1948.Sec.11(added byRcvcnueLaws
Arncndmcnt Act, No. IO3of 1969,sec.4) providesthaiIheAct and an~end-
mcnts thi:retmadetifter 1 Octobcr 1969 shaIIapplyto South WCSL Africa
after1 October 1969.
MarketingAct, No. 59 of1968.Seclion99niakestheAct applicable tKami bia
inso FaraskarakulpIls are conccrncd.

Marrias Act,No. 25uf 1961.Scc.39.4 (1)(addedby Act No. 5 1of 1970.sfc.
(1))applicstheAct io South West Africaand EasternCaprivi Zipfel.
MatrinionialCifusesJurisdiciioAct. No.22of 1939. Soc. 7rerIsubslituteby
Act No. :IOof 1968scc.27 (1))mzkesthe Act andal1arnend~nent sppIicabIc
tu South West Africa andthe EasIernCaprivi Zipfel.
MedicalÇclienies Act,No.32uf1967. Scc. 45 applies Acto SouthWest AFrica
and Eastern CapriviZipfcI.
Members of Statutory BodieqPensionAct,No. 94 of1969.Sec. 7 providesthat
"This Act and any arnendment thercof shall. so far suis ncccssforthe
cfïective applicationrhcreapplyalsointhe territory""Çec:1{xiiprovides
that'the territormeans the territoryofSouth West Africa,tncluding that
part orthe.saidterritorknown asthc Eastcrn Caprivi Zipfc.. .."
Mcrchandi~eMarks Act, No. 17 of 1941.Sec. 21bis (addeby Act No. 39 of

1952,sec.3, and substituteby Act No. 55 of1967, sec3) providesthütrhe
Act and iimendmenisshalI apply toSouth Wcst Pifricü and EasternCaprivi
ZipfeI. 172 NAMlBIA (SULTII WEST AFRIRICA)

thc Act andamendmenti;applicable to South West Afrim and EasteriiCa-
privi ZipSel.
Railwaysaid HarbuursAmendmentAct, No. 23 of 1967.Sec.IO iipplicitto
Suth West Africa.RaiIways and HarboiirsAmendment Act, No.8of 1968.
kc.9 appliesitLO SWA. Rüilways and Harbours Second Amendment Act,
No. BO of 1968S.ec.10appIiesitto SWA. RuiIwtiysandHarbours Amend-
nientAct, No. 32 of1969. Sec. 8 applies10SWA.Kailways and Harboirrs

SucondAmcndmcnt Act, Ko. 41of 1969.Sec. 13 applies to SWA.
RaiIwaysandHarbours ActsAmendmenisAct,No. 57 of1970.Sec. 6 prnvides
that the Actandamendments to iapply toSouth WestAfrica.
Reciprwal EnTorcemcntof Maintenance Orders Act, No. 80 of 1963.Stx. 1
amended by Act No. 40 of 1970,sec. 1Io add dcfinitions of "IiepuhIic"
(includesrheterrirory) and "territory"(meansSouth West AfricaSec.10A
addçd by Act No. 40 of 1970,sec.5, makes Act and amendments thercto
applicabIeto Namibiaand EasternCapriviZipfcl.
Iiehoboth Inve%imenarnd Devclopmcnt Act,No. 84of 1969.
Souih African Mcdical ResearchCouncil Act,No. 19 or1969,sec.25 provides

that theAct and aniendtnentsshaI1applyio South Wcst Africa.
South West AfricaAlkirs Act, No. 25of 1969.
South WcstAfrica Constitution ActNo. 39 ol 1468.
South West AfricaConstitutionAmcndmcnt Act. No. 13of 1970.
Starnp Duties Act,No. 77 of 1968.Sec.37A (added by Act No. 103of 1969,
suc.22)pi-ovidesthat the AshallapplytoSouth WestAfricaafter IOctobcr
1969 and that an~cndrncnismadc iifier that dashallapplyto South Wmt
Africa hereafter.
SlatcAttorneyAct, No. 56 of1957T.he State AttorneyAmendmenr Act, No. 7
of 1966{effective3 January 1867),scc.6,mükcs the principal Acand aII

amendmentsappIicabIe to South West AfricaandEastern Caprivi Ziprel.
StatistiAct, No. 73of 1957.Sec. 16AIl) (addedbyAct No. 41 of1968.sec.4)
makes theAct and amcndnients apply io South West Africaand Eastern
Caprivi Zipfel.
Subdivisionof AgricuItirraILandAcl,No. 70 of1870. Sec. 14appIiesAct and
arnendmenls to South Wcst Africa.
Terrorism Act,No.83 of 1967Sec. 9(2)upplics theActto SouthWcst Afnu
and Eastern CaprivZiipfcl.
Training Cenlrm for CoIotircd CadetsAct,No. 45of 1967. Sv. 31 provides
that theStatcPresidentmay extendthis Act toSouthWest Arrrica,including
the Easiern Caprivi Zipfel1 have mn no evidenc teat he kas done so.

'I'ransfDuty Act, No. 40of 1949.Sec.21A (addedbyRevenue hws Amend-
ment Act, No. 103 of 1969,swi.9) applieçthe Actand amçndmentv made
afrcrI Ocraher 1969 toSouth Wat Africa as and after 1 October 1969.
WrirI'ensiotisAct, No. 82 1967.Sec.1define "theliepublic" or "theUnion''
to inciudctheterritoryof South West Africa.
Watcr Act, NO. 54 of 1956. Sec.180 II) (substitutby Ac1 No. 77 of 1969,
sec.13)pr-ovidcthattheStatel'residetniay,by proclamationin ihGazette,
apply al!or any of the provisionof theAct to South West Africaor any
partthereof.
Weightsancl Measurm Act,No. 13 of 1958Sec. 49A (üddcdby Act No. 55 of
1969, sec.14) makes the Act and aiiiendiiientapplicableto South West

AfricaandEasternCaprivi Zipfcl.
Wool Aci.No. 59 of 1967.See sec. (definition oKepublic includesSouth
West Africa).124 KAMIEIA (SUUTII WEST AFHICA)

Namibiaafter the termination of the Mandate are illegaland invalid,and
bywhich the SccurityCouncil took zdditionaldccisions withaview to the

eRective implcmentationofthe reIevantrcsolutions of thcCouricil.
X. Prmeedings leading to Security Launcil resolution 283 (1970) by
which tlre Security Council, reaffirmiiigand rccalting earIierrcsolutions,
requejled Statesto terrainfromany relationswith 3011thAfri~ irnplying
recog:~itionof the authoiity of tSouth AfricanGovernnientuvcr Nami-
b?~ aridby which itcalted upon afIStatesio takc appmpriatc merisuresin
regard to diploniatic and consular reIations, wrnrnercialand industrial
enterltrises and concessions,and initiated action concerniiiginicrnaiianal
treütitswhich until the termination of ihc Mandate were applicable to

Nami bia.
Xi. Prmeedings Ieiiding toSccurity C:ounciI resolrrtion 18(1970) by
whichtlie Swurity Ciiuncilrcquested an advisory opinion from the Inier-
nariorialCourt of Justicc.-
XII.The review isconcIudcd by a suynlary.
.. ' , I '
1
1. PKU~:EF~ING OS TtiEGENEKA ALSSEMALY WHI<:tl ~,EDTOTHE ADOPTION

OF RESOI.UTI 21N5 (XXI)

Considernfianofihe Qu~stionofSoiirh Wesr Ajrica usu ,Watrerof P~iority
3.'The repre.rentar ofvesAfrican States, in a Iettdated 3 August 1966
addreswd to the Secrctary-Generril,proposedthat the questionof Soùth.West

Aliica bc imnsidercd asa rnatlcrof prinrity at thTiventy-lirstSessioof lhe
GcneraLA~~mbly (Dossier item 151; A(6380).
4. The question was includedon tlie agcnda ofthe Twenri-firshion as
itcr6n5. The GeiieraIAsscrnhlydecided to considerthc item as a inifterof
prioritydirecrly in plcnarniixtings.
5. The item was discussedbetwoen23Seprçrnbcrand 27 October 1966, attlie
1414ti-1,4:17th,1419th:1425th, 1427th, 1429tl1431~ 11433rd;1439th,1448rh,
1449th,14.jlst, 1453rdand 1454th meetings of rheGcneralAssembly(Dossier
items 133 io 146). .-

5. The Chmeraltlsserrtblyat its1454thnieetingon 27Octobcr '1966 adopted
resolution,2145{XXI) un the Questionof South WesrAfrica(Dossier ikm 162).

Dor~mrnishcfore the Geiierof Assctnbfvin connectio~iwiirhe ;lent

7.The <;erieralAssembly, inconnectiog with the itemonC!hequestion of
South !Ver;:Africa,tiad hiore ir, in addittothedraftrm1utions andamend-
menrs mcntionedbelow, the Rcport of theSpeciatCornmittee un rhc Situation
with regard to the ImpIementationof the Ueclaration on the Cirantinçof

IndependtiicctoColunial CoiintriesandI'eoples,and the Heport ofthe Spwial
Coinmittoc'sSubCommitreeunSouth West Africa{Dossier item 125; Ai63001
Kev. 1).
8. Chap,!erIVof thercport ofthe SpecialCoiiimittecdcaItwith thequestion
of SouthWest Africa.*TheRçport ofthe Sub-Cornmitteeoti Sguth Wcst Africa
formcd an appcndix to Chapter IV of thcI+epart of.the SpocialCornmittee
(Dossierili:r125;A16300/Rev ., pp297-299) ., -
9. The F.cprirof the Suh-CornmitteeanSouih West ~fr& contained,inils WRITTCN 53ATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY-GF.NERAI. 125

paragraph 32, a =ries of rocomrrietidatioof tkarSub-Cornmitteeas to the
course of action which should beadoptedwith respecttoSouth West Afriw.
The Sub-Cornrriitteerecorrimend inpa,ragraph31(cl (iii), that the United
Natioiisshould decidetoexercisc thc rigof reversionoftheMandate toitseIf;
and in paragaph 32 (cl(iv),theSub-Committw recommendetd hatthe rights
and responsibilitieofSouth Africaasa Mandatory Puwcr in respecto South
WestAfricashould bc tcrininütedalcing rvithtlieassumprionof responsibility
by the United qations for the directadministrationoftheIèrrilory, and the
crmtion of appropriate m;ichincry for tpurposc (Dussicr item 125;Aj6300j
Rcv. 1,pp. 298-299).
10. The SpecialCommiitee,at its467thmmting on 15Septemher 1966,iidop-

ted the reportof itsSub-Cornmirtee on South West Africa byconsensus, it
king unde~tood thar thr:rescrvations express&by members would be re
flecredin the record(Do::sieritem125; A/6300jRev. 1. para. 380).he state-
mentsmade by mcm bers.3fthe SpecialCommi tteeon thc rcport ofthe Sub-
Cornmittee on South West Africaare containaiiriparagraphs330-379 of the
report ofthe Spwial Comniiitee(Dossier item No. 125; A/6300!Rcv. 1.)

(a)DrrifirrsoirrrinnAx. 183atrdAdd. 1-nnrnrnendntet!isjhicfwrre&pied

1 . A drtiftrcsolution(Dossicritcm 161;AiL.483 and Add.. 1-31proposcd
by [the,delegationof ihccouniries listcdbelow formcd the hsis of Generai
AssembIy rcst>lution2145 (XXr):

Afghanisian, AIgcriu, Ruma, Burundi, Cambodia, Carnçroon, Centra[
African Republic, CeyIon, Chad, Congo (Brarzaville), Congo (Dernacratic
Republic of) ,ypriis, Dahomey,Ethiopia,Gabon,Garnbia.Ghana, Guinea,
India, Indoncsia, Iran, IraqIvory Coast, Jordan, Kcnya. Kuwait, Laos,
Lcbanon, Libya,Madagaqcar M,ali, Maurirania, Mongoliahlorocc ni,ger,
Kigeria, Pakista nhilippines, Rwanda,Sencga lerra konc, Singapore,
Somalia, Sudan, Syria. Thailand, Togo. Turkey, Uganda. United Arab
Rcpublic,United Ilepul?iicofTanzania, Lppcr Vofta, Yeiiienand Zamhia.

i2. A set of aniendmerds 10the draft resolution, which amcndmcnls rvere
adopied hy thcGcneral A.;scrnblywere proposed (Dossier itcm 16: AjL.488)
bq'the delegationof thefoliowing countrics:

Argcntina, Bolivia,Brazii, Chile, Cblombia, Costa Rica, nominicm Re-
public,Ecuador, EISalvador,Guateit~alaH. aiti, Honduras,JarnakaMexico
Nicaragua, Panama, Pardguay, Perir, Trinidad and Tobago,llruguay and
Venezuela.

13. The textsof thedraltraoIution andof theainendmcnts were as foIlom:
UocuniertA.!L.483ondAnd. 1-3 Liocwnenr A/t.488

The lienerai Assenibly,
Ren#r~tiiilgthe inaIien;ible right
of South FVestAfrica rarfrcecloni
and independencc in a;cordanw
with rhe Charter of the llnited
Nations. General Asse;emb[yreso-
lution 1514(XV) of 14.9ccernber

1960 and earIier Assenibly rem-
lutions concernin tge ivIiiridated WKIlTEN STATEMEST (IFTHE SECRETARY~ENERAL 127

Uocu~neiitAit .Q8 3nd Add. 1-3 nocurncntAIL.488

Consid~ritig that al1 effortsof
the United Nations to inducethe
Governmerit of South Africa to
futfilits obligations irespect of
the administration of the
Mandaicd Territory ancltoensiire

the well-beingand securiryof thc
indigenous inhabitantshave been
of no aviiil,
,%findfiIof the oblit:arions of
the United Nations towards the
people of South West Africa,
r'r'otiyrwih ùwp cc+ncernthe
explosive siruationwhich exists in
the muthcm region of .Ifrim.
Afiming itsright trbtake ap-

propriate acrion in ttLernatter,
including the riglit tn:vertto it-
self the administration of the
Mandated lérritory.
1.Reczfirnz.that theprovisions
of Generai Awmbl y rem1ution
1514(XV) are fuIIyiipjilicabIe to
the peaplc ofitieMandvted Terri-
tory of South West Africa and

that, tiierefore,thc people of
South Wcst Africa have the
inalienahle right to self-dctcr-
mination, freedom antl irldepen-
dence in accordance with the
Charterof the United Irlations ;
2. Rç~ujfit.rsiirther i.hntSouth
West Africa is a territr>ryhaving
international status alid that it
shalI niaintain thisstaius untilit

achicvcs independence;
3. Ucclarrs thar Soiith Africa (1) Add the fduwing at the end
has Failed to fulfiitç cibligations of operative paragmph 3: "and
in rcspcctof theadministraiion of has, in fact,disavowd the hlan-
the MandatMt Tcrritnry arid to date". The parugrapli wvouid
ensure the moral anci material thererore1-cadas follows:
wcI1-being and security of the
indigenous inhabi tants of South
West Africa; 3. Dcclnres that South Africa
has failed tofiilfil its obligations

in respecof the administrationof
rhe Mandated Temitory and to
ensure the moral and materia1
well-being- and securify of the
indigenous inhabitanrsof South
Wesr Africa, and hi$, in facr.
disavowed th Mandate; 4. Dwides tu fakc over the (2) Replace:vpcrativc paragraphs
Mandate conferred upn his 4 to 9 by tlifollowing:
f3ritannicMajesiy to bc exerciscd 4. D~?ride.sthat the Mandate
on his khalf by the Goiuernrnent conferrd upon His Britannic
ofthe Union of South Africa and Majt~;ty to be exercised on his
IO assume directresponsibiiiiy fur hehalf by the Governmcnt oftlre
the administration of the Man- UriioriofSouth Africais therefore
dated 'Ièrrtior; terminard and that South Africa
has na other right toadminister

theTerritory,and thathenceforth
South West Afriw cotrics under
the direct reçpunsibiIity of the
Unitcd Nstions;
5. Keroives that iri ihesc cir-
ciimstances the United .Nations
must discharge those respon-
sihilities uii~respect to South
West Afrim;
5.Est~zblisheraUni tcdNations 6. EsrablisfiesaAd Hoc <hm-
Adminisrering Authori ty for mittw for South West Africa-

South West Afriça compoxd of composed of 14 States Memkrs
.. . States Mcmbersof theLnited tobc dcsignnted by rhe I'resident
Nations- to k immerljatelydes- of the CIeneral Assembly-tu
ignated >y the Prcsidcnt of thc recornrnend practicaI mcans by
General 4ssembly-t aodminister which South Wcst Ahca should
the Territory on behalr OS the be administered, so as icicnüblc
United I.laiionswith a view to Ihe people of the Territory to
preparinj:it for independence; cxcrcisc the right of self-deter-
6.fleques?s the Adniinislering minationand to achirve indcpcn-
Authorit,qio procccd irnnicdiately dence,and 10report trthcGcneral
with ils work inthe'krritory and Asscmbly at a speciai sessio as

to recon~mend to the GencraI sooit as possibleand in any cvent
AssernbIyas soon as possible, and not later thaApriI 1967;
in any rase not later than the
Twcnty-secrind Session of the
Generaliissembly, a date for the
independence of theTerritory:
7.Caii.r upnn tiie Governmcnt
of South Africa forthwith to
refrainanddcsist fronüny action,
constitutional, administrative,
polticalor otherwise,which wiII
inany mannerwhatsoeveralteror

tend to atter the present inter-
nationaI status of South West
ATriw;
7. Regucsrthe Securiw C:ouncjl 8. CnlIs the attentioitof the
to iake the necess;rrycffwtivc Security C'ouncilto the present
rneasures IO enablc the Adrniii- resolutiun;
isteriny Authoritto dischargeits
funçtions inaccordance wiih thc
prcsentn:solulion ; 8. Urges aII States 10 extend 9.Keqrresis al1 Staresto extend
- their whole-hart4 co-crvration thcir whulc-hcsrtcd CO-operatiori
and to render assistancc În the and to render ,lssistan% in thc
implcrnenfativii of the present implemenlation of the pre=;e n
resolution; 4 rcsolution;

Y. Reqtle.rrs -thc Sccrelary- ' 10.Keqircsfs. the Secretary-
GcncraI to provideaII iiecssary General to providc al[ nmssary
administrative.financial;md other ,assistance for theirnplementation
assistancefor the implcrrtentation of tlie present resoluticin and to
of the prcscnt resoIutioii and 10 enable rhc Ad Hoc Comnlittee for -
enable the Unitcd Nations Ad- South Wcst Africa to perforrnits '
ministering Authority for South duties.
West Africa tu perform its duties. ,

14. The arncndrncnts to draft resolution AIL.483 and Add. 1-3,proposecl
in docui~ieiitsAIL.488. and eventually adopted, were, inter rilioas foi[ows:

~~trulive'~ra~rnpf 3 ofthe drufircsolifrion.The additioiito operatiinc
paragraph 3 (which r:ontained the declaration that South Africa had
failedto fulfil irs ob1i::ations undcr thc hlandatc) othc stiitemcntthal
South Africa had in fact disavowedthe Mandate.

Accurdingly, the General Assenibly in terrilof the amendnient waç ta
declare,and theGenernl AsçembIy did in faclJwIarc,not vnly that Soutl~
Africa by omission anil commissioii was guilty ofa material hreachof ifs
obligations undertlie Fdandaie, biii aIsothat South Africa had repudiated
the Mandate,a faci wllich in itseIf constitutüsmatcrial brcach.
. 0prulit.e parngrapli 4 ofthe rcsobtriqn.The phrase,in operative
paragrapli 4,in ternisof which the General Assenihly rvould have decided
to takeover the Mandiite and assumc diroctrcsponvibiiityfor ihc adminil-

tration of thelerritory,was replaced by a provision in which theGeneraI
AsscrnbIy daided: th..itthe Mandate isrerminated; that Sourh Africa
ha$ no othcr righr Io adrninistcr thc Tcrritos; that hcnccforlh Soutli
West Africa cornes unilcrthc direct responsihilityof the United Nations;
andthütthe Cnited h'iitioiis musr discharge thoseresponsibilities(paras. 4
and 5of the arneiided text).
Operuti~w purqyaph 5 ofrhe druf~ resoliifiotr. Operativparagraph 5
(pmvidjng forthe immediatc establishnient of a United Nations Ad-

rninistering A~~thorityfurSouth West Africa) was replaccdbya provision
by which the Cieneral Asscrnbly established an Ad Hoc Committce to
rcwmrncnd pracrical ineans by which South West Africa shoiild k
adirtii~istemd,o as to enable the pcoplc of thc Tcrrilory to txcrcise the
riçht ofseIr-determination and to achieve independcirce (para. 6 of the
amcndcd Içx 0.
Oprrnrive paragrf~ph 6 ofiSlhdraf resoitiriotThe provision inoperat ive
paragraph6, which ivciuldhave contained a requcst to theAdminislering
Authorily, arriongot h1:rthings. IOproceed inimediaizly with itswork iri

the 'Iérritorywas rcplaccd by a provision calling on thc Govcrninent of
Sourh Africa forthwitlt to rcfrai frnomany action which woiild alter or
tend to aIlertlie iiiternntionsialus of South West Africa (para. 7 of the
amcndoci tcxt).
(b) A sizbunr~~üimnl rn tlie anienhrents containeriindorutnent AIL.488,whi&

M.? iioradopid. . .,
15. A subarnendment totheamendrnents proposcd indacümcn tAiL.488 was 130 KAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

rnoved bs the Gnited States of Anterica (Dossier item 145; 1454th rntg.,
para. 58).In its iinaI vcrsionthc sub-antcndnientsoughttoreplace operative
paragraph 4 of thedraft resoIutio(A!L.4R3 and Add. 1-3) with thefollowing
text:

"Becides that South Africa's Mandate over South West Africa has
therzl'ore terrninared and rhat South Africa kas no othcr right toad-
ministertheTerri toy,and that,in these drcumstances, the UnitedNations
has 2.direct responsibilitto prcserve the intçmiilional stalus of the
Tcrriioryof South West Africaunderconditions which will enableSouth
West Africa to exerciseitsrightsof self-determinationandindependence."

The General AssenibIyat ils 1454th meeting rcjcctcd ihcsub-amendment
(Dossier ircm146; 1454thmtg., para. 242).

16. A tfraft icsoIution A/L.487jRev. 1 (Dossier item 146; 1454th rntg.,
paras. 25?-262)submittedby the delegaiionof Saudi Arabia (which rderred,
ina preambular paragraph, 10 anearlierdrart rcsoluticUT~hciemc dclcgation
fAjL.486) envisaging the appoinment of oneor more co-administrators to
adminisiet';outh West Afrim on behalfof the UnitedNationsduringIheshort
'periodrequired before the United Nations AdrninistcringAuthorityfor South
WestAfric:ü assumes theresponsibilityfortheadministrationnf the iehlandated

Terrirory)propased that the GeneraIAssernblydeclarethat South AMca isa
racistcoIcmia1pvwcr in rcbclliunügainst the United Nations; and that the
GencraIAssernblyreconimend tothe SecurityCouncil thatittakethe necessary
measureswith a view toIiberatingrhe people of the MandateclTerritoryfrom
the Staiç oSuuh Africii.
17. The General Assernblyat its 1454tliineetinrejectedthis draft rescilu-
tion(Doscier item 146; 1454thrntg., para. 280).

Adoption cfCeticraiAssemhly Resolufior!1/45 (XX f) atzdDetnilof the Volirig

18. TheGeneral AsxmbIy ittits1454thrnoctingadoptcdthc draftrcsulution
AJL.483and Add. 1-3a,mendedas proposedin document AlL.488.

19. The voting in theGeneralAsscrnbIyun thedraCtresoIution,as amended,
as awholr: was os fulIows.Thcrc wcrt:114 votcs infavuur and 2 againstw,ith
3 abstentionsPossier item 146; 1454th rntg.para,244).
20. The twovotes againstthedrrtftresolutionwerecasr bySouthAfrica and
Portugal. Thc dclegation of South Africa expIained itsnegativc votc at the
145Is t eetingof the General AssernbIy (Dossier item 144; paras. 18-33).
Earlierin the debatethe delcgationof South Africahad expIain etdattitude
at the 1417th mccting (Dossier item 134; paras. 1-97), thc 1431st rnccling
(Dossieritzm 139;paras.211-258),theI433rdmeeting(Dossieritem140;paras.
220-230) and at the 1439th meeting (Dossier item 141; paras. 157-719).The
delqation ofPortusalcxpiained itsnegativevoteat thc 1454thmccling{Dossier
item 146; ?aras.284-290).
21. The threedekgritions which abstainedin the vote were the delegarions

of France,Malawi and the Unitcd Kingdom.
22. The rcprcsentative of France explained his abstention at the 1454th
meeting{L>ossieritem 146; paras.325-330). Earlierin thdebate the represen-
tativeor Francc had spoken atthe 1439th meeting (Dosuicr item 141; paras.
143-156).
23. Thc United Kingdom's contributionto the genera1debate on the item willbefound in paragraphs 17 to 54 of the verbürimrecord of the 1448th
meeting (Dossicr ilcm 142).The representativeof the United Kingdom spake
in cxplanation of his abkntion in the 1454th mmting (Dossier item 146;
paras.17-59).
74. -1'hrcprcsentativeof Malawiabstainedin the voreon the amendments
proposed in document AiL.488, on thc United Statessub-amendment,and
on thedrart resolutianas a iilholc, aninthe vote on theSaiidi Arabian draft
resolution(Dussier item 146; 1454thrntg.,paras.238. 242, 243,244 and 280).
The representativeof Malawi stated subscqucritlyal the fiftspecial session
ofthe GeneraI AssemhIyiDossicr itcni 167; 1504th mtg., p. Il-Dossier item
176; 1513th rntg.,para. 254) that atthe Twenv-Hrst Sessioo nf the CieneraI
AswnMy his deiegationhad made it cIearthat itheIdnobrieffur the inanner

in which South Africa aiiininistcrcd tlie Mandate civerSouth W-1 Afrjça.
Although recognizing lhatachange was nwssary, hisdelegationhadabstained
un thç resolution strictca thebaçisthat it\vas incapableof irnplementaiion.

(1) Siuremena ~naciE ininrrodilcingclrnfrresoiioiAn/L.483 und Add. !-3
25. Thc draftresolutior, AiL.483was intrriducedat thc 1419thmeiing of
~heGeneralAssernbly{Dossier item 135; 1419th intg.)by the represenratives
of Chno (paras. 2-32and 127-138), ïraq(paras. 16-32), C:eev(paras. 33-55),
Cuinea (paras. 58-85),the'Iniled Arah Kepubfic(paras. 86-98)aliSirrru Leone

(paras.99-138).Thesespoiisorsof the draftresolutionpresentcdto the GencraI
Asseniblythe propositionson which the draft resoluriowas bôsed:rhatSouth
Africa by itçactions had failed tofulfilits obligations undcc the Mandate;
that South AMca had forftiteitsrigh~to adrninistertheMandated Tcrrilory:
tbat the people ofSouih '#est Africa had the righttoself-determinationsnd
indcpcndcnce;that the GeneralAsscmblyhad the authority and the obIigation
to seeto itthat the rightofthe jxoplc ofSouth WestAfrica arerestored;that
the Mandateshould bc talicnawiiyfrom the Governmcnt of South Africaand
that it should be taken over by the Gnited Nations; and that the actionfor
which thedraftresolutioncalled was clearlyineswpabIe in the circumstances.

26. The representativc of Mexicu, at the 1451st meeling of the General
Ascmbly, introduced the aineirdments conrained in docurncnl AjI,.488on
behalf ofthe 21 Latin Anierican delerations which had sponsoredthe amend-
rnents. Iie siated that the amçndrnents,as a whole, merely senied to clarify
andrcinform theGeneralAssembly'saction, and that they wuId beconsidered
not inerelyas arncndments 10 the originaIAfro-Asiandraft, but asü setwnd
version of thesame doculncnt, inspire bdy the same priaciples and aimed at
thc same goaIs (Dossieritc:m144; 1431st m tg.paras. 55and 59).

(3) Starcmenrs nriule ith<:i:oirrseoJdhcüssion
(a) Spoiisursofdrnfi r~:~oiuriAn/1,.483and A&. 1-3

27. Severaldelegationswhich sponsorcd thc drart resoIutionAlL.483 and
Add. 1-3 participaredin liedebatcand argued infavourof the termination of
the Mandate. Some of the delegations stressed, in particuiarthe violation
of the Mandate by South AMca. Othcrs crnphctsizedthe repudiation of the

Mandate by Soiith Africa.Still othersconsideredthat the rightof the pple
of South Wcst Africa ioo:lfdeterniinalionderivedfromthe Charter and that WRITTEN ST4TEMtN-1'#fiTHE SECRETARY-GEKERAI. 133

.wereunwcirthlyofthe Mandatewhich shodd be ivithdrawnfrom the11(Dossier
iteni 138; 1429r hntg.,paîas. 159 and 164). The representativcof the Cmrgo
(Brüz/aville)saidthat ont, ont: rertsonablecourse of action reinainedopcn :
thc rcvocation of the Mrindatc {Dossier item 139; 1431~1 mtg., para. 27).
'I'hercpresentativeol'1he .Y-vrintzArd Rrpublic carnrnented thüt thc draft
resoIiitiohad thennieritof ,markjiinew spart.Thestep to revokethe Mandate

was a bold one, but one .uhich was justified and Iogical (Dossicr item 139;
1431st mtg., paras.105, I16).Thc r~prcsentat oivCyprus said th.^a point
hd ken reachcd whcrc d~xisiveand drastic steps must be faken in orderto
rcrntxly the intolerabteskuation of the inhabitants of the Territory. The
GeneraI AsscmbIy~iiust move from therealmof theory into the fieid prac-
tical implenientation of itscibjcct(Dossi etmr 139; 1431st rntgparas. 119,
129).The reprexiitativzc,f Mdi claimed that thc problcrriof South Wst
Africawasnota Icgalproblern.X nation'sfuturecannot be placedin thehands
ofa jurist. hui rnust dcpcrid on poIiticaljudgmenrand choice,adripted judi-

ciousyy. ThiUnited Nations could notshift the burdcn tu the Organization
orAfrican Unity (Dossierirem 140; I433rd-rritg.paras. 59,60,64) .he rep-
rcsenzaliveof Ii.qotidklievcd that the only way open to the <)rganizatiun
as thcprincipal, ivalo reloke rhe truscassignedto South Arrica asthe agent
(Dossier irem 140; 1433n1rntg. p,ara.84). The repi-esentativcof Rwondo
considcred that the Ciener.1Assembly muscuncquivûcally reaffirm the right
of the peopicof thc Tcrriltiryto liberty and independenccin wnforrni~ywith
theCliarteraiid resolutio1514(XV) (Dossicr itcm 141;I439tlii~itgpara. 1Y).
Thc representrt OrPineAr stated thatthe oonlycourse OC action Ieftto the
tvorldcommunity is tu terminateSouth Africa's Mandatc iind iotakdupon

i!seIthe responsibiliof atirninisteringthcTcrritory untitsuchtirneasarrange-
nienis can be madefor rhe peopleof South West Africaro assume the reinsof
governrncnt thcinsclve(Dmier item 146: 1454th mtg.,para. 120).
(b)~~fr~arirriis witidiri-HO!puiirordmjt rcsol~t~iot$.@? and Add. I-3

birr whichvoted itfnvour oj'therlraJrrso~uriori
29.Prtriigraph s 0io 66belqw contain rcicrcncato the staicmentsinadc by
delegations which did not iponsor draftresolutionA/L,483 hur supjmrted the
resolutionin thcir inierveions and in theirvote.Kefercncc jsalsv iiiade to

reservationsexpressedby somc delegations.
(i)EasternEuropeanStates'

30.The represcntativeO:.the GISSRhüd fulIy shared the view of the African
Srate concerning thenarurenf the actionwhichthe United Nationsmust take.
Through ils poIicy olctpnriLlteiacial discrimination andsystematic violaiion
of the fundümental rights ~nd frecdoms of the people ofSouih West Africa,
South Afr~cahad fnrfeit any legalor inoml right10 adminkterthe Tcrritory,
andshould thcrcforc:bedeprivedof the Mandate.Thc Unitcd Kations should
clearly and unequivocallydeclare that it withdrcwfroin the Goverrimentof

Sotith Africarhe Mandate ta administei.South WestAfrica. Itshautddeiiiand
that South Africa leave th.: Territury,andgive ihepcupIc an opportünjty tri
exercisetheirrightto independence in accordancewith the Dcclaration on ihe
Granting of independence to CoIonialCoulitriesand PeopIes. He suggested
that il would bc Iogi~ito %tir in mindthe appropriatencssofassociakingthe

Thc arrangement uwd thisand the foilowing sectionbccn hnsstleçtcdfgir
convcnicncc. lt docsin no wny prejudictheclassificatioFcountrit.by rcgji>nal
gr<iups.Orpanizatioiiof African Unity with thcapplicationof the measures concerned.
He expresjed,however, sume doubrscrincerningthose provisionsof the drafi
resolutionwhichrelatedto theinstitutionfor Suuth West Africa,afterlhc with-
drawaI of theMandaiefromSouth Africa,of some kindof transi tionalwriod,
and tu the assumprion by the Lnited Nations Torihui pcriodof directrespvn-
sihility fotheadministration of theTcrrirciry(Dossieriteni 136; 1425thnitg.,

paras. i36,133,141). In ejrplaininghisaffirmativvole,therepresvntativeofthe
USSR made a resewaiion inregard toparagraph3 whichadduws, as a reason
fordepriving SouthAfrica of theMandate, theargument tliatSoulhAfrÎcahad
itxlf clisasowedthe Mandate. In the Soviet view that was not the reasoiiir~hy
South Africa was deprived ofthe Mandate.The reiiwn \vas that the people of
the 'krritrjrymustbe enlancipatd frum Soiith Africlin racioppreçsiun and be
given independence.He also rcpcatedreservatinns previonslyma& in regard
to rhe adiisability of fixina kind of transitionalpcrivd (Dossier item 146;
1454th mtg., paras3 12,3 18.319).
31. The representativeof Albnriiastatedthat the United Nations çould not
allow itselfto rolerateany loiigerthe cibstinuieand insoIentrefusa[nf Soiith

Africata iinplemen tthenurnerouç raolutions adopcedby theGeneralAsscmbly.
IL was higliiirnt tputan cnd to the situation;the Mt way io deaIwitli iwas
to revoke:heMandateof SouthAfricaovcr SotrthWest Africa imniediateiyand
to prnclaitthe independencc of rheTerritory(Dossier iierr142 1448th mtg.,
p:ira. 15).
32. The reprcsentativeof the Rye~urussiun SSR stated that, as regards the
draft remlution submitfed by the Afro-Asiancoun tries(AiL.483 and Ad&.
1-3)h,is dcIcgAon fully understood the endeavours ofthese countries to end
thecoloni;ilistrégimein tliTerrituryof South West Africa and was, according-
Ly, preparcd tosupport the draft resolutioirKis delegation,howcvcrithought
ihat thc various transitionai meastirewere superfluousand that it\vould be

betterto grant South West Africa indcpcndcncc immediately by depriving the
Republic niSouth At"ricof ifs Mandateover the Territory(Dossicr itcni 143;
1419t h iy.para. 146).
33. The representativeofCzcc~zcrsCowkinfuIslu ypported the propo~alof the
Afro-Asiancountries that iheRepublic ofSouth Africrrshouldbcimrncdi-aicly
deprived ciihc Mandatc to administerSoirthWesl Afrim. He doubted, horii-
ever, whcthertransferringtheadministering of SoitthWest Africa trithellnited
Nations would be the mmosarppropriatesolution. IIi:look. iriprincipk.a fa-
vuurablçaititudctowiirdsthedraftrejolution.and added thathe thought thcre
wouId be widespiad support in ihcGcncral Assemhly for givingtheOrganiza-
tion of ArricanLJnity apart ro play in iiiipleinentingthe proposcddecisionç
(Dossier tein 136; 1325rh rntg.,paras.98-IOI). Inexplainjny his vote, he rr-

peated rhdrtheprobleinof SouthWesl Africawas inracta prnhlernof the im-
mediate and urgent irnplenlentationof the neclaration on the dimination of
colut~irtlisS.outh Africa. becausof its policyofapnrihcid. rüciadiscrimina-
tion,etc.,tiaddivesteditselofany rightswhütsocver to administerfurther thc
Territoryof Sotith Wesl Africa;it must thereforebe deprived OC the Mandate
(Dossier iiem 146; 1454thrntg.,paras.342-347).
34. The represen~rttivofHungnrywelcomed thedraft sesrilutionAIL.483and
endorsedcornpletelythat pari rvhichstntedthat the provisionsolGeneral As-
senilily resolution 1514(XV) werefullyapplicable to ihepeople of South West
Africa. TtreHungarian delcgation joincd those who demanded that, considc-
ringthe givensituation, Southiifrica shouidbe Jivesiedof itsMandafe iinnie-

diateiy.Hc cxprcssed reservationsconceming those provisionsof thedraftreso- WRITI'EN SIA'IEME OF rHE SEC:RETARY-GES~KAL 135

lution which proposai the establishment of a United arions administering
riuthority(Dossi itrm I38; 1429th rnig.,paras. 107-1IO).
35.The representative of Pdund said that the necessary action had to he
taken to pavc thçwiiyto thefull indepeiidencc of tpeople of Sotitfi\YestArrica.
On political,moral and lepl grounds, Poland supported the draft rcsolution
(Dossicr item 137; 1427th rntg.p.ara. 82).
36. 'I'hercprcscntsitivcn~fRanrurrstated ihat South Africainlis1be declawd

divested of its rights overtheTerritory; rightswhich had never been and were
iiotthase uf niasteror the Territory. Komania's acfiotishould itino ivaybe in-
terpreted as nieaning ths~ Roniania considered any IcgaIaction whatsoeverlo
bc rcquiredon the part of the CnitedNations, or any other forum, before the
people of Suuth West Alrica couId have thc right to be master of their own
country {13nssieritem 141 ;I439rh rnig., paras40,42: Dossier item 146: I4541h
mtg.. para. 348).
37. Thereprcseniative r~the UkmiiiiriiiSSRsiatcd tha1the irneforpersuasion
hacl passed; iwas now tinlc for iictiun. Hisdelegation thereforefulsupporred

thc dçrriandsof tlieAfro-,$sian countriesthat the Mandate shotrldbe rcvokcd.
Withregard to thepropos1:dtransi tional period,ht:bctievedIliatan independent
State of thepeople of Sou thWest Africa shouldbe set up immediateIy afrerthe
status of the Maiidated Territory and of the colonial régiine waf ended (Uos-
sier item 139; 1431strnlg.p,ara. 97).
38. Itwas the opitiion of the rcprcscniativeof YugosInvin that the Courl's
ruling had actualIyreturtied lie question wherei t belorageci-t-o the Gencral
Assembiy.Yugoslavia hail always considered theproblcm ofSoiiihWestAfrica
tu beprimarily a politicalone. South Africa had depriveditwlf of the legaland

mord grounds to adtrlinis!eSoulh lest Africa(Dossier item 141; 1439th rntg.,
paras. 86 and 89) .he representativeof Yugoslavia bclicvcd hiitthe titne liad
comc no1 to seek fttrtherwaysto administcr South West Africa, but IOdccidc
what measurcs should bc takcn to make it possibIfor South West Africa tn
becurneindependent (Do~sieritem 146;1454th mtg., para.155).

(iiW-stcrn Eurvpcan andother States

(1) WesternEiiropwn Stc:tes
39. The representative,~ Af~~sfrisaidthat, as the Interratio Cnou1tof Jus-

ticc did no1 find ilsefii:iposition to delivera judgmenr on the nicrits of ihe
case s~ibrnittedby Ethiopiii and Lberiü, theGcncral Assenibly had the duty to
acr on the basis ofits own ~isscssnicntof tlie situarion. That assessrnentwas
adequately surnmari7ed ~iithe preaiiible of the draft cesolution. Thcrc was
generül agreement regarc-inyihe termination of thc righi of the Mandatory
Power; however certain apprehensions had been expressedby a nunikr rif
detegatioiis witli regartrtlie inost appropriatervayoffilling thcyap betweeii
the terniinaiionof Soiiih Africa's rights undcrthe,Mandateand the timewhen
thc rccomrncndationvofthç ad hoc corninittee tvotildbe implemented. Thc

representative of Austria surnrned up the general consenssu ss follows: fisstIy,
South Africa had lostby itsdeedsas welI as by ifs disavowal of itsobligations
undcr thc Mandate, the rigtit to continue to administcr South West Africa;
sewndly. the United Nations had special responsihilities fothc ~ransitory
period ;tliirdly, thepractical rneasutosIietakcn should bccarefüllyconsidered
by an ad hocconirnittw, and the Sccuriiy Council should bc asked to giveatten-
tion to theGenewI AssembIy's resvlution (Dossier ire145; 1453rdrntg., paras.
53, 55 and 57).
40.Thc rcprwntative of Belfiir~icxpiained that his dejegation'support ufthe text for which hehad votcd did not, in any way, impfy that the dclegation

approved it withoiit doubts or reservations. His dekgation ivtiuld have pre-
fcrrcd thc point of law of the GeneraI Assernbly's cornpetence to be clarificd
as fully aspossible(Dussiw iicm 146; 1454rhrntg.. paras. 350.351).
41. The clclcgation of Drtmuirk was of ihe firmopinion that South Arrica
had lost every rightwhich it had in respect of SouthWestAfrica becaux of the
countles and flagrant violations of jtssacredtrusl under the Mandate. The
rcsponsibility of the United Nalions for ihc future of South West Africa must
be dearly defined. Ttie Danish ùelegation was in full agreemeniwith theideas
underlyinythc draft resoIuticinwhich they coiild supportapartfrom some of
its provisions concerningthe modalitia and the procedure to befollowed (Dos-

sier iteni14i; 1451strntg., paras.63, &).
42. Thc rcpresentative of FinIf~ndsriiùthat,since there was ge~eiieraalgree-
ment that S3uth West Arri~a was a tcrritory having international siatiisand
thaiSouthAfrica,bydi~avowingthe Mandate and by intruducing into the Terri-
iory, thc systcm of aprrrrfreld,hadIosttherighto administer the Territory,then
it followedthai the Unitcd Nations rnwt assumeresponsibilityfur So~ith West
Africa and ilspeople (Dossier iteii144; 1451si rntg.para. 5).
43. Thcrcpresentative rrfGrrrce emphasized that the question of South West
Africa was essentialiya poliiical unc caIIing for a political solution by poIitical
means,and that the vaIueof theresolutiuii would dependon thc nurnber and

tht:importance of thnsewho joined in sutirtg for it (Dossier iten136; 1425th
rntg., para. 121:Dossier itcrn 146; 1454thrntg., para. 196).
44. The r~presentative of ire/arrdsaidthat sinçeSouth Africa had not only
repudiaicdthc Mandate but had openty procccdcd to governSouth h7estAfrica
as part of ht-rnational terrilory, the GeneratAssemblyrequired no furtheropin-
ion of the Court. He suggesled that the AsscrnbIyshouId decide thatSourh
Africa had not only failed to fuIfithe Mandate, but that it hadthus iorrei~cd
any right 10 administcr the -1erritory. He aIso suggested that the AsscnlbIy
should decide toteminate the Mandaiç ut thc mrlÏcst possibIe dateand bring
fhcTerritni to independen (cossier item 137; 1427thrntg.,paras.27and 31).

In his stakrncnt in cxplanation of vote, therepresentative of Irelandsaidthat
suçh doubtsas his delegation had had, and to which he had referredin the
1427th meeiing would be fuIIy met by tlieacseptance of the atnendrrientspui
fonvard by thc Latin AmericanStates(AjL.488, eventurtlly adopteci) and by
the Unircd States (AjL.490, subscquently rejected).He earnestly appealed to
theGovernrnentor South Afrim to co-operate with ihç Ad iioc Cummill~% so
as to ensurt:the orderly transrer ro an independent South WestAfricaof the
powers which South Africa had hithertn exercised in the Territory (Dossier
item 146; l454!h rntg., paras. 138-141).
45. The rcprcsentativenf Iraly rcferrcd to the opinion widely held arnong
Mernbers ol'the United Nalions that the present Assemhly(rhe'Twenty-first

Session) should declarethat tlie Governinent ofSouth Afrin had forfcited the
right to cxcrciscthe Mandale, and that the General Assembly should dccidc
that thcTcr;itory must k brought toindependenceat the earliest possibledate.
This vicw was fully shared by the ItaIian delegaiion and inipIierI, he said,an
politicalcoiitextlhctermination of the Mandate (Dossier ircm139; 113 1stmtg.,
paras. 197-198).In explaiiiing his affirmative voie, the representaive of Italy
said that thrtext of the resoiutionin itfinalvcrsion hud comrrianded the sup-
port of an o.r'erwhclniingmajorily ofIheAsscrnbly;met in principlemosl ol the
requirernenlsof thesituation, if no!aI1shorved thefirmstand whichthc intcr-
national corrimunitylook on tliproblem of Sauth Wtst Africa; and indicated
a practicaIcoursc of action fortheGcneral Asscrnbly to take.The IlaIian dele- WRlTTEN CT.4TEMES-lOF THE SkCKtTAKY-GSNEKAL 137

galion considercd that ogcrativc paragraph 5 (establishingthe Ad Hoc Com-
rn~ttccwtisthe key provision of the resolution. rnaintained its reservatioon
the declariition in operaiivparagraph 4 that henceforih South West Africa
came underthe direci reponsibility of the United Natioiis (Dossier item 146;
1454th rntg.paras. 298-300).
46. The reprcscnlative of thN'eri~erimdssaid that,after thorough consider-
alion of'1he IegaI asPt!:, hjs delegation had corneto the conclusion thnt the
GeneralAsscrnbly was1c:gii)lcntiiledto put anend 10South Africa'sMandate

bmause of non-cornplian-:c bythe Mandatory Priwer with the essentialobliga-
tions ensuing from the rr~andareagreement. Evtry party to atreniy had the in-
hercnt righl fo terrnirtatthe treaty in case of a marerial breachby the other
party. 'I'hatright could in this case. nforriori, heclaimed by the United Nations
as rhesiiccessorof the League of Nations in view of theviolatioiiof tlie stipu-
lations of thc mandate agreçmcnt. The Nethcrlands dclegati oad no doiibi
that the MandatoryPowc:rhad violatedtheterrnsof theMandate. It had there-
fore forfeited the right tc.administer the 'Ièrriiory further.That wrrsthe main
sspoct. HE exprwed hoiiever, some reservations wirh regard to paragraph 4 of
the draftresolution as it wouId be amended hy the Latin American amcnd-
ments,because thestipnl:ition rhat the Unitcd Nations wtiuld assunieimmedi-
ately a dircct rcspvnsibilily Ihe adminisiration of the Territorycoiildnot be

carried out inpractice ithe forcsccablefuture.Even ifthe United States amcnd-
rnents. which the Nethedands delegation support&, uwe not adopted. the
Nethcrlands dclcwtion v:ciuld rnciintaits resewation with regard to opera-
rive paragraph 4; but in order to give maximum weiglit to the resolution, the
Netherlands delcgation woi11d not wirhhold ifssupport for thc rcsoIutionas a
whole {Uossicr item 146; 1454th nitg.,paras. 95-101).
47. The representative of~Vorwa-vdeclored rhat after 2yearsof futile discus-
sion sbout the South Arricanadministmiion of South Wcst Africa, ihe con-
sensus had arisen at tht: Trventy-firsf Sessionof the General Assembly t hat
South Africa hud los1ilsIight tuadrninistertheTerritory,and tkat its Mandate

was terminaicd (Dossier item 145; I453rd mtg., para. 40).
48. The representative of Snvde~istated rhatthe Judgment of the Interns-
tional Court of .lustice djd not mean that thc GovernrnenrofSourhAfrica had
recieveda blankcheqiie riran aiithorization in any fornito carrout thepolicy
of apnrrhcid in South West Africa. In the vicw of ihe Swedish delegation, ihe
Judgrrirnthad placed upon rheUniied Nations a diityto fulfithe sacredtrust
of civilizaiionwiih regard to South West Africa which had ben betrayed by
South Africn. Thc problcm bcforc thc Asseiibly was how thisresponsibility
wrrs to lie discharged. So far as the SwedishGovernment ~~asconccrncd, its
startingpoinr had been iliat Souih Africawas incontinued brcach of its obliga-
tions undcr the Mandate and that it had forfeited by itdeeds evcry right to
continue to administer the Territary. This siittarionsholild he forrnaI1yand

solernn rlyognized and stated by [rheGeneral AssernbIy.Tht: Swedishdelega-
titln fclt thtficGcncraI Assembly could and should go fürtherand decide that
tlie Mandate. as a cnnzequence,\vas terminatcd-a Mandate which South
Africa itwlThaddisavow~id.and that the Lnited Nations had specific responsi-
biliicsfur transitory ndr:iinistrative arrangetrientspending the excrciby the
inliabitants of tlieir right to self-determinationalso favoured the cstablish-
ment of an Ad IIuc Commilree (Dossier item 144; 14SIst rntg.,paras. 40, 41).

{2) Other States
49. Thi: representativeof ArrsfrnIiasaidthal his delegationround itdf in a
grmt dcaI of ügrocment with the statements made by the reprcsentatives ofthe138 NAMLBIA (SOU-1.11 WESTAFRICA)

Uniicd Kingdom and France (seebelow, paras. 67-72), butnot haviiig thç spc-
cial respoiisihili rwhichthose two couniries had underthe Charler,AustraIia
feltabIe lo vote for the resolution (Dossier item 146; 1454th nitg.,para. 255).
Inthegcncral dcbate on the itent, the representativc of Austi-alinhad refcrrcd
to ttie comptexity ofthe lqal and prücticnI problems involvcd. Hc had agreed
with the point made by the representative of Japiin (xc below, para. 57) that
the CieneraI Assemhfy must keep stricrIy within the fraineworkof ihc Charter

and ofinternational law. But it was necessar also thai the GeneraI Assernbly
shouId bc active in the pursuitofjustice by al1IawfuImcans, and jus riccleariy
rquired th2.t South West AFricashould be administered by an authority fulIy
ccimrriiiiedIosuchprincipics as enjoyn~ent, in freedom and without racialdis-
crimination. of the basic huiiian rights,thc principle of self-deterrriinatiuof
peoples, etc.(13nssieritem 141; 1439thmtg., para. 142).
50. Ttie ieprexntulivc of Catindo expressedCanada's full support for the
rightsof peopIes to the unfetteredexerciseof ihcir scIf-dcterniinatioCanada
sfrnngIydeplnredrhe uncomprwnisingattitudetliat SouthAfrica haddisplaycd
in regard iciSouh Wcst Africa. '1-hepolicy of apnrrhpid carricd withiiiitthe

seeds of corifiicrCanada believed thatSoulh Africa hnd forfeited its right ta
administer ~he Mandate. Wilh reFercncc to the uincern expresd by sumc
speakers thatthe GeneralAsscnibly rnightnot enjoy fiill fegaI cornpetencto
assume the Mandate unilaterall y, the Canadiandclcgation tended to the view
that in rhe Iightof theadvice which theCJeneraIAsseinbly had recxivcdin the
past f'rom rlieIntcrnationiil Court afJustice, the AssembIy had an adequate
basis for th<action proposed. Tidid ~cognizc, however, that in raking inroac-
count the douhts expresseci by some speakers, there inight bian advanlasc in
liaving this rtiatteclarificd. He said rhatby any reasonable standard, South

Africa's policyunder the Mandatejustiticd thc general opinion thatSouth Africa
hadproved ro be an unacceptableadniinistrator of iheTerriiory. In thc view of
the Canadiün dclcgation, the General Asçernbly was not called ulioito make a
juridical judgnient as toii-hethcrin onc respect or another the tiovernment in
charge of the Mandatc had ken detinqiient incarryin ogutthc Mandate en-
trustcd tu it. Thiwas amatter whichhad ken arguedand contested before the
Internationrl Corirt olJusticc. What the General AsseriibIywas called upon to
do wasto inskc a decisionin tiie tightoTullihçrclcvant factors. and taking inta
cwsidcrütion South Africa'srefusa[ to accept üccoui~tahiltyto tlie United Na-
tions, asto v;hetherthe Govcrnrncnt ofSouth Africa shouIdcontintietotxercise

the Ivlandatc..The Canadian Cioveinmeiit believed ihal ihc answcr wüs "no".
In Ihcopinicnn of theCanadiandelegation. the record of SoutliAfricacoiistitu-
ted clzar gri>utidsfur stating that South Africa had los1 the right~oconlinue
adtninisterirg the Mandate (13ossier item 140; 1433rd rritg.paras. 38, 38, 42,
43). In exp1:iining hisvote, rhe representative of Canada reitcratedrhc belief
thatSouth Africa had forfeitedilsrightto adniinistertheMandate, and thatthe
people of SciufiWest Arrica should accedeto seK-dererrniniiliunand indüpcn-
dence as surinas possible (I3ossier item 146; 1454th rntg., para.292).
51. The tcpreseiitaiive or 1srlrr.lsaid thatthc legal positian as previousiy

doclaredby the Coiiri in rhc Advisoi-yOpinionsof 1950,1955and 1956and in
tlreJudgrneritof 1962remaineci unimpaired.The Advisury Opinionof 1950and
the Gtveral AsseinbIy's resolution 449 A IV) awepting it,cnnstituted the point
of departurefor al1thesubscquent phasesof United Nations actiorOII heques-
tion ofSouth Wcst Africa. Since the Coiirthad foiind itsclunabIc rofrirnish
anyFurthcrguidance on the important factual and Iegalissuesplaced More it,
hisdcIegarion belieuedthat theGeneral Asseinblywas nobv freeio rmch itsowii
concIusiotison thc biisisOF the record beForr:itIn the IsraeIiview, the reaIef- fectofthe 1956 Judgrnent was thatthe politicalaspec of thequestion of South
West Africa outwciphrxl the possible legalprobIems, and that even thc most
scrupulous concern for 1t:galnicetiemight at this juncturc mdç its placto hc
political wisdomOF the niajority nithcGeneiaI Assembly. It scemedclear Ihat
the Mandatory l'owcrwas in brcach ofthe major obligations rvhichit tookupon
itwl-ln iheMandrtteAgri:emcnt and which it wasnow rcpudiating withoutjusti-

fication. Sincc the Mandztory Powcr wu I'ailingto fuIitsessential ubligations
underthe Mandate, itfollowcd rhat the Uniteù Nations as fiqeeto iake appro-
priai~ action. TIiereprestmntatioefrsraerrererredin thisrcyard to paraprapli6
of the Comrncntary of tlie International LawComiiiission on its drafrArticle
57 on the Law ofTrcatic? (now ArticleGO of theVienna Convention on thcLaw
of Trcciiies). TIie Genernl Assembly, he stated, was csi1Icdupon to enunciate
clearl is political decisioon the future of the mandated Territory or South
Wesr Africa. The GcncraI Asscrnblycould quite legilimately do so on the basis
of thetxistingjurisprudeiice oftheCyourt,and any attcmpi iueinbroilthe Court
further inthe afIàir5of SouthWest Africnw~ould oiilyaddto the cunKusionand

contrrivei-syand notassuagc il,and would only cornplicatestill furthcrthwork
of the GcneraI Asxm bly. It followedthat the Generril Assernbly was now en-
titledto terininate the kIündate(Dossicr itcrr141: 1439thnitg.. paras.91,92,
96, 98, IOIIand 101).
52. Thc representativf of Ian~airr:said his Gove~nrncnt wils in no doubt
whatever that SouthACricabad forfcitcd the riglit to adininistcrthis Mandate.
The only practical step ,vhich the United Nations could take was tcirclicvç
South Africa of thc Mandate. Thc questions which would rcmiin would be
questions of iiniing,of jirncedure, of tacrichat is,ofthcniachiiiery tobecm-

ployed in wirhdrawing tlie &landare. In thisregard the dclcgation of .lamai=
would support any rcssonabIy and effective arrangement (Vossicr item 139;
L431strnty., paras. 67,6')).
53.The represcniativeof ~Vew Zenlcriidsaid his delegaiionhad voted infa-
voiirof the resolutionbet:auscit bclievedthata veryimportant principlc was nt
stake. In essence,the isslienraswhether, in the facofSutiih Africa's FaiIurto
comply with irs substnnrive ohtigatioiis and itdisavowa1 of the Mandate, the
United Nations would assert lhe responsibiIitieç whichitundoubtcdly had. Iii
thc rcsolution lhose respiinsihilitrwre unequivocaIIy iiilirmcdThe situation
justifiecan actof solidariryon the pürtof iht inteinationd community in sup-

port of a resalurion incvrpuraiing the restatcmcntol he collectiveview or the
Organization. despite differenccsof vieriasto thc mus! appropriate and eKec-
tivewording of Ibar resolution as a wIio(Dossier item 146;1454t htg.,paras.
303-308). The qitcstionof imp1etiientationreniained forstudy. Thç representa-
tiveof New ZeaIand regrettecithatrhesub-amendmcnis tooperative paragraph
4, siibmitred by Ihe UnitedStateshaJ not bwiiadopted. The siiggestedreword-
ing rvould have clürificd therrieaiiingof thpnriqraph and\vould have uiider-
lined that South West Africa's internarioiiül status rcrnaineduwltcrcd hythe
rerrriinatioof the Maneate (para. 3I)Yf.

54.Tnhis jnt~rventior~in rhegeneraldebate on the item, thc reprejentative
of New ZealariJreviewgdtheseriesofrewlurions which coliiiinatein theadop
tion of resuic~tio1541 (XV), whichapplied equally toal1Trust and Non-Self-
Governing Territorics, iiot excluding the Kon-Self-Governing Territory of
Soutli West Africa. IItlic:casof South WcsrAfricü, theAdministcring Power
also had specific and exp-]iiobligütions towards the international carnmunity
which wereof niore dirctt significonc[han rhrisder~vingfrom the declaratory
resoluiions of theGenerxlAssembly. '1-hereprcwntative of Yew ZeaIand also
stattd thaiNew Zealanc! accepted ihat South Africa had forfeited itnymoral 65. The representative of Peru stated that the positiotankenby South Af'rica
obIiged the United Natioas to condcmn South Africaand to revokeits Mandatc
ovcr South Wcsf Afriça. The United Nations must exerciw its right, and its
düty, to lead al1 people; whiçh had not yet attsincd independencerowards
coiiipleteand fruitru[savereignty (Dossicr itein 14; 1439th rntg., paras57, 70).
66. The reprcscntalive of Veri~~zrtcstated that South Africa had failedto

fulfiitsobtigationswith respect to the adniinistralion of the mandated Ter-
rtory. ConsequenrIy,antlin vicw or thefact that thercpeaied effortsof vuricius
United Naiions bodies Iiad iint had the slightest resiilt, fheLnitcd Kations
niust iakeovei the Mandate and assuine dircct rcsponsibility for the adminis-
tration of the Territory(Dossicr itcm 139; 1431st rntg.,para. 140).

(c)D~lt.ya!ior~wsiiichr:bs~nintini riiibore

(i)Frünce

67. In hisinterventiort inihe general debatc on ihe iteiii, tlie represeniative
OSFrartccsaid, iiirrv cifihat with cachyear ftiat passedone siilirioneform
or ano~her an aggravation of raciaI discrimination inSouth Wcst tlfrica thar
wascontrary to the EiiitedNations Charter, contrary to lie UniversalLkclara-
lion of IIurnanRights, and contrary to thr:unanilnous wiI1of the Asscrnbly
(Dossier item 141 ; 1439h rntg.,para. 143).The French delegation considered
that the international obfigations cvntractedby the South AfricanGovernment
when itms entrusted wirhthe Mandate were not extinguished with thc dis-
solution of the I~açue cifNaiions. If, asSouth Africa cIaimed, ihe Mandate
had ceased tn exist, Sliufh Africa would bedepriwd of aIIIegalfoundation Kor

excrcising its authority, IOilwould have no justification for keeping its rights
arising out of the Mandate ivhilcal the sametimcrcpudiating obligatioi~sderiv-
ing from the ssrnc source.Coiisequently, rorthe French dclegation, the inter*
national status ofSouth West AFrica was stillthesame as beforcthediswlutivn
of the Leapue of Narioirs.Thc United Nations could and must exercise the
supervisory functivns foi-merly entrusted iothe bague of Nulions bara. 144).
The French delegation o~ld only reaffirm ils total opposition io the principles
appIied by the Ci~vernrni:nt of South Africa bv exrtnding to thc Territory of
South Wcs~Afriça i ts pc.licyofnparrh~ili.The SoirthAfriçat~Governmenr hüd
riianifestIy failed in thai. fundamental obligcilioto which i t had subscribed

underIhe terna nf the biïndatc. The French delegation wasatso firrnlyatrached
tn thc rikhl <ial1peoplfs to seIf-delermination (paras. 145-147).
M. In explaining his *me at the 1454ih meeting (Dossier item t46), the re-
preseniariveof Franccc;;pressedliis delegaiion's opinion that the international
status ofSouth WestAfrica was stili iforce,that Souih Africa haddisrcgarded
its fundanrentaujbligatkins under the Mündaie byextendhg its plky of nparl-
IZPM ro ihat Territnry,a~idthat the essentid aim or the United Nations shouId
bc toenubk the population of South West Africa tu deterinine Coritsclf ils
futureandthus IOaccedt:to indewndcnçe, The French dclegation stated that in
niairtrainingthese vicws, it had approved at lcasrparagraphs2, 3 and 7 of the

draft rcsolution in its ainended forrn, i.e., the reafirmation that South West
Afriw uras a territury h.iving internationastaius and that it shouldmaintain
fhis status utilitachievixlindcpendence; the dccIaration that South Afriçahad
failcd tofultil its obligaiioiinrespect of rhe adniinistration of theMandiited
'I'erritoryand cnstire the moral and material well-heing and security of the
indigenous inhabitants (ifSouih West Africa, and has, in fact,disavowed the
Mandatc; and the cal1 upon the Government of South Africa fortbwith to
refrain and desist from any action, conuti~utional, administrative, poIitica1or144 YAMIBIA(SOUTII WEST AFRICA~

otherwise,whiclt would in any manner whatsoever alter or tend taalter rhc
present internationaI statusof South West Africa.The views which Ied the
French delemiion tu abstain in the vote didnot reIate tothe basicfindingsof
fact and of Iaw, but relatedto the Içgal validity of the method proposed for
putling anendro the policy of South Africa inSouth WestAfrica. Thc French
delegation staiedthat the question as towhich United Nations bodies wouId
have cornpetenceto eîTectihc rcvocation of the Mandate had not kn suffi-
ciently çonsidered. Idid not seethe justification for the UnitedNations itdf
assurning the administrationof the Terrirory (Dossier item 141; 1438th intg.,
paras. 143-156). Finnce'sdisent xla[ed iv thc \visdomof having South West
Africa administered by rhc United Nations. Al though the French dckgation
had statcd tliat did not excIude rhewithdrawal of the Mandate, itmuid iiot

agree with the inaniieriiiwhich thc wiihdrciwa1 had been decided upon. The
French deregation aIso mentioned its disagreemeiit with GeneriiI Assembly
rcsolutiun 1514 {XV). It considered that the very speciaIcas of South West
Africa had nothing ta gain from being linkcdwith a generaland questionable
textof this kind (Dossier item 146; 1454thrntg.,paras. 326-330).

(ii) Unitcd Kingdom
69. The rcpresentativeof the Utzikd KKing</umstatedai thc 1448th meeting
fhat certain concIusions were absoIuteIyclear: rhatthe 1950AdvisoryOpinion
stood ; that the South Afnmn Govcrnment's contention that the advisory
opinions had ben over-ruIed had complctcly failcd; SouthWcqt Africa had
heen and w;is a terrilory itnderinternational Mandate;South Arricahad thc

international obIigations statd in Articl22 of the Covenanl. The provisions
for internationaI accorintability Iaythe heart ofihcmandates system (paras.
33-38). Hyword and by action theSouth African Government had clearIydem-
onstrated itcundeviating deterriiinalion to deny and repudiate essentialobIi-
gations incriinbetupon ii undcr the Mandate. Byrepudiatingtheseobligalions,
socIearly affirrneby the Intcrnational Court of Justice. il had, in effeci,forfcit-
ed iis tillc tri adrninister the Mandale.The South African Governn~ent could
not deny itessential obligations undcrthe Mandate without forfeiting whai-
ever rightsii might have had iilregard to the adminislralionof thc Miindafc.
IIno longer hiid thc righto mrry the sacred trust conferretiponit. These,in
the view of the representativol the Unitcd Kingdom, were concIusions abouf
which one nzed have no doubt whatsoever(paras. 41-45).
70.The reprcscniativcof the United Kingdom poinfed ro a number of Iegal

qu~5tionsaff'cctingthe friturof th~Tcrritory, on which the AssembIy had no
guidance frnm theCourt. His dclegation did not wish that the lasword of the
Court on this greiit issuc should theJudgmeniof JuIy 1966. Itseemed highly
desirableto demonstrate to theworldand to the South AfricanGovcrnmcnt in
particularthar the Judgmtnr by the Court given in JuIy1966 was in no way a
victoryorjustificationor vindication for the Soiith African Government. The
clearconslusions which the AssernbIymust rcach frarna study of the Icgd and
factua1aspecyisof the question of South N7estAfrica must be that by its disa-
vom,alof its obliyatio under the Mandale. in particularby ilsbruch of the
requirernenr~of internationa1 nccountiibilitythe Soufh African Govcrnmcnt
had forfeitedthe rigtitto adrninister the Mandat(pars. 45-49}.After referring
to what he hacl saidin the Special Poliliçal Cornmittee(472nd mcering) on
LDecember 1455on the issuc of apnrrkeid generay,the representatk #ofthe

United Kingdom cameagain to the mainquestion which hc wishçd 10 put to
the Assembly-thrrt South AVrica.had forfeited the nght to adminisrer the
Mandarc (paras. 50-53').Thc Unitcd Kingdom could nat accepr the IegaIar- WRITTEN SI'ATEMEhT OF THE SECRETAKYGEYERAL 145

guments put forward by thc rcpraentatives of South Africa in the dcbüic; it
certainly could nof accept their defence of their racialpolicies. Even more
sirtlngly, the United Kirigdom rejecred the applicaiion of thuse policies toa
countrywliich was an intrrnational rcsponsibility(para.57). lieconcludcd that
methods and means n-iuith found to cnable a11 the people of South West

Africa tuproceed to frecdoni and trueseifdctcrmination (Dossier item 142;
1448thmtg., paras. 33-5t;).
71. At the 1454th mo:ting, the representativeof the United Kingdom cx-
presscd a nurrikr of reslirvations with resp~ct to lhe resolution.These reser-
vationsrelatcdto the last parüyraphof the PreambIe.He believcdthat il wvuld
be at least unwise to use the ivords"including the right to reverttn itselihc
administration of the Mandated 'iérritory", a clause ulhich the delegatirin
regarded as doubtfulin law. Ii had througliout ben the UUtcd Kingdom's

contentionthat the Assernblyshould no1ai Ihat stage ddn more than state that
the rights of the South .\frican Government undcr Ihc Mandate had termi-
naied. That was a findin~which thc Lnited Kiiigdom clainled to k rrightin
vicw ofthe failure of tht:South African Gavernment ta fuifililsinternational
obligazions.Thc rcprcxritativcfeltthatthe General AsscmblyshouIdunite in a
formai dedaration that tl~eSourh AfricünGovernrnent'srights iinderthe Man-
date had terminatcd asa resuitof ils lailrireto cornplywith itsobligations under
the Mandare (Dossier itin 145; 1454th rnrg. p,aras. 72-77).

72.It was made clearin the statements of the United Kingdom delegaiion
tharirs dissen which led itto abstain in the vote on the draft rcsolutioii, did
no1 relateto the findingsof the violation ofitsobligationsby South Africaand
the ccinscqucnct. folIor~iiifrom them, i.e., thc tcrrnination of the Mandate.
but to the technicaland legal aspectsof the steps to be taken subscquently.

(d) D~legnrio~iwhich I'O~P~~~(~NI lI drufi rcsoitrriotiAIL.483and Add. 1-3
rïtlrhc artrendrn~ffif2doctinzentA/L.46:8

ci)Portugal

73. The representativeof Porrrrgalsaid tfiat the resoIutioapprovod by the
General Assemhly had railedto take into considerationvery pertinent and
important juridical aspcts or the question. In his opinion the international
status of thc Territory zould bc modifieclonly by agrecmcnthtween both
parties tothe contractual retationship, Le..Soiith Africa aiidtlie organizaiion
that crcatcd the Mandate. Neilher party could altcr the prcsent sratus of the
Territory without rhc crmcurrenLuo : l ihe other. The resolution went clearfy

beyond the competcncc of the Gcneral Assemhty asdcfined inthe Charter.
Under the ChartertheSccurityCoiinci[alonc would apm to he thedceision-
niaking organ of the United Kations while tlie CreneralAsscmbly co~ildniake
only reconimendations. I:romthat point of view again itdidnot seem Iegitimate
for thc Gcneral Assenibly to take a decisian to considerthe Mandate as tcr-
minating andSouth Afrizaas having no right to administer South West Afrim.
On the other iiand, the FecuritCouncil itsclfcould take up thisquestion only
if therewercanactuaI or impcnding breach of,or thrcai(O, inttrnationatpeacc

aridsecurity.Since this\vasnotthe case, itwas dificul1 for the ddcgation of
Portiigal IO uriderstand how ihe Security CounciI could take up the matter
(Dossier item 146; 1454lh mtg., paras.285, 286, ,288).

{ii)South Africa
74. No atrcmpt hns teen made ta surnniarizein the presentstatemenfthc
argumentssubmittcd torhe General Asxrnbly at its Twenty-firsSessionby thedelegalionof rhe RepubficuJSouthAfrica. Iteferencesto thecontributions to the
debatc of the South African delegation,10thespeeches made by ilinexcrcixof
therighiof repIyand to the staicrnent madc inexpIanation ofvnfe are given in
paragraph20 '.
Nor does t.k present paper sunzmarize the coinprdiensive statements made
iiireply to tne South African intçrvcnfions by the deiegations of Ethiopia
(Dossier irem 138; 143 1stmtg., paras. 270 elseq.), Liberia(Dossieriiçm 140;
1433rdmtg., paras. I 12erseq.)andthe Philippines (Dossier ilein 141; I439tli
mtg,, pans. 280 el ~eq.).

75. Refereiiceis also niade ro the statements made beforethe presentation
of draft rwlt~tion AiL.483 atthe 1414th meeting by Llhiopia, Liberia,Pakismii
and Griinea, ;indat the 1417th mwiiny by SouthAfrica, India and Tanrania.

75. As hnsalready ken notcd. resolution 2145 (XXI) was adopted by 114
votcs to 2 with 3 abstentions. (At that timthe Uniled Kations had 121Meiii-
bers.)Not only thesponsors of thc draft rmolutionand afthe Latin American
amendmcnts, butalso the other mernbers of thetieneralAssembIy(apart from
South Africa andPortugal) supporled the substantive pro\'isionsof the reso-
lutioiinameIy:

(1) the re&immation of the right of the people of South West Africa to seIf-
dctcrminiition;
(2) the reaffirrnatioof Souih West Africa's intcrnationii1 status;
(3) the declaralionthal South Africa had failedtafulfil itsobligations and had,
infaci, disavowed the Mandate;

(4) tliat theMandate was ierrnintitcdand that South Africa had no oiher right
to adrninistertheTerritory.
77. Onc ol' the abstaining delegations (France) expresly supported para-
graphs 2, 3 a:id 7of resoIution2145 (XXI). Thc diflerence of opinion hetween
that delegatic~nand the 114 delegationswhnvoted in favourof the resolution
did not relatetothe hasicfindingsoffactandof Iaw,but to the mcihod proposed

for putting an end iothe policy of South Africa in South West Africa. That
delegation aIxo mentioncd its disagreementwith Geiieral Assernbly resolution
1514 eV) Irconsidered thatthe very special caseof South Wesl Africa had
nothing to gain from being linkedwitha gcncral and qucstionablc tcxt of this
kind.
78. Thc di:;scntofanofherofthe three abstaining delegations (United King-
dom)did not relate tothe findingsihat South Africa hridviolntcd itsabli@tions
under the Mandate and to the mnscquence following from this finding, Le.,
the termination of thc Mandate. The Cnited Kingdom delegationstatd that
thtse conclusions, inter aiiu,were absoIu tely dear: that the 1950 Advisory
Opinion stood; thal SoiiIh West Africa was(i.e., in1966) a territoryunder
inlernationtilMandate; that hyword and by aclion theSotith AfricanGovern-
nlcnt denlonstrated itsundeviaiinp dctcrrnination to deny and to rcpudiate

essential obIigationsinçumbent upon it;that it had forfeiteditstitletu ud-
minirier thc Mandate.

A summary tifa ccimprelicnsivwritteistateriirnoi ihe Foreign Ministcr of
South Africa will be round in par275 bclow.II. PROCEEUIN OFG.SH~AD HOCCOW.~~TT F.R SOUTH WEST AFRICAESTAB-
LISHFn RY RFSOL JTION2 45(XXT) Oi: IEGENEHA ALSSE~~BLY .

79. The Generdl Assembly in resolution 2145 {XXI) on the Question of
South West Afrjcaestablished iheAd Huc:Cornmilice for Soiith West Africa,
cornpnsedof 14 Staies Membersofthe Cniied Nations trbe designaic bydthe

Presidentof theGeneraIAsscrnbly. The rnernbcrsof ihe Cornintteeas desig-
nated by the Presideniol'ihe General AswmbIywereCanada, Chile, Czecho-
slovakia, Eihiopia, Finlaiiiialy,Japan, Melrico,Nigeria,Pakistnn, Scncgal,
the Union of Soviet Socjalist Rcpiiblics, the UnitcArab Republicand the
United Statesof Arnerics.
80. The pürpose of the Committee\vas to recornmend practical means by
whjchSouth West Africashould bcadministered,soas 10cnabte thepeopIeof
tlreTerritoryfo exerçise the right ofself-determinationandto achieve inde-
pendence.'I'heCommittcc was lu report tothe GeneraI Assemhly at a spocial
sessionof ihe Asseiribly.
IJ1.The Cornrnittecmc tbeiween 17January and 3 1March 1957.Thercporl

of the Cornmittee was siibmittedto thc Fifth Special Session of the CieneraI
Assernbly,21 April-I3 June 1967 (Dossieritem 185;AiG640].
82. Tlie inembersof the Cornmilteewere agreed on theaim which the Corn-
mittee was topursue.Thi:rewerc difîcrencesofvicw, however,as to the nature
of the actionwhich the llnited Nations niight takeanthe extcnt of ils capa-
bilities.

83. Three principalpriiposalswrc cxaniinedby the Committee: a proposal
subrnittcd by the delegations nf Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal and the United

Anh Repubiic(AIAC.129jL.3 and 1-.S)a proposa1 bythe delegalionsufChile
and Mexico (AjAC. 129j.L.7);and a proposal by the delegations of Canada,
Itdy and the United St.itesof Amena (AjAC.129;L.S) (Dossier iteiii 185;
Ai6ti40:forAiAc. 129jL.3 andL.5. se paras.45.81and 82; forA/AC.1?9/L.7,
see para.93: for A,!AC.I29/L.S,sccpara. 84).

(a)Prolmsrtlhy Ethiopin,Nigeria, S~argii] urhe UtliteiAruh Hcpirbiir.
84. The proposalsubniitted by thc Jclegationsof Ethiopia, Nigeria,Scncgirl
and the Unitcd ArabRepublic was fuIIyendomd bythedeIcgstion ofPuAistair
which stiitethat it wishedtoassocia isell formalIywitthose propouls as a
CU-sponsor(Dossieritem 185; A/6640, para.99) . he proposa1 was Rvriured

by ihe rcprcscntativeofi;l~ikr(Dossier item185; Al6640, para.a), and had
to a very large extent thesuppori of the reprcscntativeof Cr~cfios~lo~difl
(Dossier item 185;A/664), para.103)and thcUSSX (Dossieritcni185; A;W0,
para. 117).
85. 'l'he proposal cor,taincd provisionfor the creation by the Gcneral
AssembIy of anorgan to he called the Unitcd KationCounci lor South West
Africa, and for thüppointrnetliofa United Nations Cammissioncr Tor South
West Africa.
86. The terrnsof refen:nct of thCouncjl wcreto incliidethe iask of taking
vvcr thc administration of theTen-itory, cnsuring thcwi~hdra~al of South
African policeand milt.lryforces,and theirrepIacemen thy United Nations

law enforcement personne1. I'hCauncil wds !O be basedin South Wesi Africa
and io bç raponsible foithe ~naiirtenancef iaw and ordcr.
87. The proposal alsrr reconiniended that ifie CieneralA~scmbly should148 NAMIBIA (SOUTHWEST AFRICA)

declareSouth Africa'scontiniid presence iiiSouth West Africa,and any action
by South Africawhichfrustrated or obslructed the taskof the Council, as an
act ofaggreision agaiiistthe peopIc and theterritorjalintegriryof SoutlWest
Africa,and ;fiagran1defianccof the authority of the Unitcd Nations.

(b)Pr~pol hy Chilemd PieA-ico

88. TIie proposa1submittcd by tlie delegations ufChile and Mexico was
supporfedby ihc dcicgation of Jopw (Dossieritem 185;A/6540, para. 98).
89. The proposal ah containcd provision for the establishment by the
GeneralAsscmbIyof a United Nations Council fur South West AFrica, and for
tliedesignationof a United Naiions Cunimissionerfor South Wcst Africa.
90. The CounciI wasto assurncfull responsihilityfor rhe admiiiistratioof
South West Africa. It was alsofo~ake thenectssarystcps toestablisha con-
stituentüsscinblychargedwithdrawiny iipan independenceconstituiion for the

Tcrritory. 'I'Council was toenter iinmediately into contacwith tlieauttiuri-
tiesof SoiitliAfrica in order to IayJvwn proecdures for the transîerof the
Territorywi-,:htheleai possible uphcaval.
@} Prupasai b.~Cunnda, if& (indtheL7niiedSrores

91. The proposa1 submitted by the detegations of Canada, Italy and the
United Staiescvntaineda provisionin terms ofwhich theComtnittçe, considcr-
ing rhar by rt:solution2145(XXI)fhc General Assemblyhad,iiirer alin,declared
ihat the Gorernment of South tifricri had Iost theright toadrninisterSouth
West Africaandthat the 'Ièrritory had corne under tlie direct resporisibililyof

the United Nations, would rccornniendto the Fiflh Sptyial Session of the
General AssmbIy, int~dria, tiie appointmentof a SpeciaI IiepresentativeTor
South West Africa and a United Nations Council forSou111Wmt Africü.
Y?. The miandate of the Spccial Reprewnrative was to include the duw "to
çsiübIish al1contacts that hc rriaydeem neccssary"andthe duty "to determine
the necessac< ccondiitons that will enable South West Africa to achi~yc.self-
determinationand independcnce".
93. The gistof the thrce-Power proposalwas explaincd to be rhat the -lei.-
ritorywas tcibç administeredhy the peuple of South Wcst Africatheinselves
and anyforrn of direct alien administrationshriuId heruled oiit.

94. The tkireedelegalions were of theopinioti that the Unitcd Nations had
to exhaust al1oihcr ineans to realizethe piirposetof resolution 2145 (XXI)
hefore considering coercivc mcltsures. They consjdered the requirement. in
thtir propos:iIs, thathe SpeciaIReprewntaiiveshould "cstablish ail contacts
rhat hemay deem ncrrcssaryto be an essentialelcmentinhisteims of reference
(nossier iteni 185;.4/664 paras. 85 to 87).

Trniis~nissio~Jrhe ThreeProposais fo ihef;eireruAssenitily

95. None ofthe threeproposa15obtainedniajorilysupportand the Ad Hoc
Cornmitteetlccidcd io transmit ro theGencriil Asseinhlythe three proposais
suhmitttd to the Conimittcc by the three groups of it;mernberdè~eia~ions
(Statcrnentaf the Ravoorteur of the Ad IiocComrnittccat thc l503rdnieeting
of theGenerilI ~ssembly (Firth Special Session])(Dossier item 166.para.5).

96. IIwiIlh noted thaiwhiIeihc thrce prnposaIs differedasto thepractical

actionto be taken by rhc GeneraiAsseniblyai thai siage,ihey al[procccdcd 103.'The Fifth Special Sessiortof ihc General Assembly convencd oit 21
April 1957 ;tnd disctissedthe"Questionof Soutli West Africa" at its 1503rd
thruugh 1518ih pknary rncctings (Dossjer itetns166-181).

104. As uas ilotediisection IIof ihcprcsent review,theGeneralAssernbly,
in resolutiori7145 (XXr) ,aragraph 6. created the Ad Hoc Cornmittee for
South Wcst Africa trrecornrnend praciicaimcam bywhich kutti West Africü
shouldbe administered,aiid to report to the CieneralAssembly at a special
sessionno 1;irerthan ApriI 1967.

IlnrtrrtwrrrsI;eftheGet~ernA f sscriihittC.bnnecrionwirh rheIrern
Report ofthe Ad HOC Coint~itre forSolirhW~si Africu

(05. The General AssembIyhad before itthereportorthe AdHoc Cornmittee
for South Wesr Africa containhg threeproposaisand an informaisuggestion
transmitted~ithout reconimendationaftcrconsideratiotlbyrhcRd Huc Com-
iiiiite(Do.;(ieitern185 ;A/6&iO).

106.At the 1506thplenary nize iigthe rcpresentativeof Nigeria introduccd
document AjL.516 and Add. 1-3, a SI-Power draft re~lution recornrnending

theesiablishrneniin the Territoryof a United Nations Council for Snurh West
Arcirato adininistcrSouth West Africa (nossieritem 11-9;1506thmtg., pp.2-17:
Dossier iteni 185;A/L.516 and AJd. 1-3).
107.The xpresenrativeof h'igeria in introducing thcdrafi resoluiionstated
thai prciinibularparagraph 3 reaffirniedresoliit2 i1on5 fXXI) by which the
GeneraI Asrenihly ierrriinüted ihc Mandate exercised by South Africa and
decided thar Sotith Africa had no other rigl~t tadrninistcrthc Territory of
South West Africa; thnt preambular paragraph 4 recordedthe Geiieral As-
sernbly'sassurnptionof direcircsponsibility for the TerrilopoF South West
Airica in accordancewith resolution 2145 (XXI); and thar prearnbuIar para-

grsph 5 rec3gnized the Geiieral AsscmbIy's consequential rcspunsibility to
effet its obligatiorbytakingpractical sfeps totransrerpower to the people of
Soiilh Wesl Africa.The representativeof Nigeria statcd "We cannot rhink of
any niciiiber Starof this Or~nization takingexception to any of thcscpara-
graplis..." {Dussicritcni 169; 1506thrntg., p. 5).
108. A rer'isedraftresoIution A/L.5I6/Rcv. 1.co-sponsored by 79riiembers,
was introduc:d trythe repreçzntativcof Nigeriaat the 1516thplcnary meeting
following consultalions(Dossier items 185 and 189; AIL.5I6jRev. 1: Dossier
item 179; i5lCithrntg.).

109.'Ihe draft resolution AjL.5 I6:Rev. 1 represented an accomrnudaiion
betweenthe Afro-Asian tcxt<A/L.SIhand Add. 1-3)and severalLatin Amri-
can siiggesticirispropounded initily byChiteand Mexico in the AilIforCorn-
rnit[ccI.n piesenting this revisedtexrecommending, inzcr c~li,he establish-
nient ofa IJiiiteNationsCuuncilon South West AfricaIo administerdirect[y
the Territoryof Soiiih West Africa,the representatjvcof Nigeriastated: "Otir
starting poiritis resolution2I45 (XXI) .nd if we are able toacconimodate
anssuggestionfor arncndmcnt itisnccessary thatwhoevcr proposcs thar sug-
gestian beclearIy operaringiipon the understaiidinyno! only that resolution2145 (XXT) cxistsbut also that icxiststo heirnplentented"(Dossieritem 179;
1516th nitg. pp. 3-37).

IIO. At the 1507th plenary meef nç the representaiiveof Saudi Arabia
intrriduced drafi rcwluiion AiL.5 17 prvvidin fgr the appojntrneni of Co-

Adminisrrators to adininisier SautlWest .4friu togethcrwirh South Afticaon
aii iitterimbais pending the funçrioning of the United Nations Council for
South West Africa (Dossier item 170; i507th rntg., paras. 109-29: Dossicr
itcm 185;AIL.517). Drafti:esolutionA;I,.17 was nevc rut iothevote: it was
"suspeiided" ü therequesi ol theaiithor (Dossier ite174; 1516thrn tg.p.j 1).

Adufiriunof' Res-o/u!i2248(S- Yj

I 11. ThGeneraI Assembly at its1518thmecting advptcd ihcdraft rcsolution

AjL.5 I6;'Rev. Ia5resolutid>n2248 (S-VI.There were85 voies in favour and 2
against,with 30 abstentions:
11fmoiir: Jamaica. Japan, JurJan, Kenya, Kuw~ait.Laos,Lebanon,

I,beria,Libya,Madapascar,Malaysia,h.iaIi,Mauritania, Mexico, Moroc-
co. Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigr, Nigeria,Pakistan,Panama,Paragitay,Peru,
Philippines,Rwanda, Saudi Arabia. Sene@[, Sierra hone, Siitgapore,
SomaIia. Spain, Sudan, Syrra,Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Ug: nda. United Arab Republic, United Repu bIicor
'1an~ania,Upper VoItii,Uruguay, Venezuela,Yetnen.Y gusla la Z,ambia.
Afghanistan, Algeria. Argentina. ParbadosB ,olivta, BraztI. Burma,
Burundi,Cambodia, C'ümeroon,Central African Kepublic, CesLon:Chad,
Chile,China, Coionitia, Congo (Bra7.zaviilejCongo (DeniocraticRepub-

tic of)Costa Rica, <:yprus,Dahomey. Ecuador,EISaIvador,Ethiopia,
Gabon, Ghana. Greet:c,Guatemala, Guinea, (iuyana, t faitHonduras,
India,lndrinesia,Iran,1raq,Tsrael,Ivory Coasl.
Agnitisl:Portugal, SouthAfrica.
Ahstaining:Luxemtourg. MaIawi, Malta, lMringoIia,Ketherlands, New
ZeaIand, NoMay, Priland.Komania, Sweden, UkriiinianSoviet Socialist
Republic, Union of Sr~vicSociiiIistRepuhtics,UnitedKingdom of CIrëat
nritainand KorthernI reland,United Slatcsof America,Ausrralia,Austria,
BeIyiiim,Botswana, Rulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Saciüli~t Rcpublic.

Canada. Cuba. Czoclioslovakia, Deninark, Finlaitd, France, Huiigary.
Tceland.Ireland,Italy(Dossieritem IXI ; 1518th mtg.. pp. 6-10].

Srnte~trc?iinthe GeizerrtDebntc aiidE.vplariatioriroYurc

112. The CO-sponsors of draft iescilutionAlL.516:Rev. 1 believcd that1he
Fifth Spcial Sessio had teen convenedtn implement resolutinn2145 (XXI);
and that resolirtinn2145 i:XXI) was the poinr frorn ivhich the Fiftti Special
Scssion must pruc-red. Some or ihe m-sponsors refcrrcdexprcssly and ap-
provingly to certai principltsin resoiiitio2145 (XX1). The representativc
of Eihinpiu ohsewed that if the GcncraI Assembly was to be consistentwith
ÎtscIfits dcbatc a( the fiftltspecialsessinould have to procoed within the
sole context of resoluiion 2145 (XXI) and in theIightof the report ofthe Ad

ifoc Comniittee on Soutli West Africa. Having dtrided to terniinate the
Mündatcand tu assume directrespoiisihilityforadvancingSouth West Africato independence, theGeneraIAsscmbly wasobligd tacreateetkrive machincry
for impIernentingits decisions (Dossier iteni 166; 1503rd rntg., paras. 20,
65-66) T,hc rcprcscntativa~of Trij~idland Tobago,Kitwaii and Yemen açreed
that the Assembly was not convcncd to renwn discussionof the merirsof
Soulh Africa's case with respect to the Mandatc, but tu discuss practical
alternatives for implementing resoIution 2145 (XXO and toexamine thc
reportof the Ad ffucComrnittcc massier item 163; 1505th mg., p. 36:Dossier

item 171; 1508th rntg.,para. 64: Dossier itcnr 173; 1510th rntg.p. 71). The
deiegationof Thuilandconsidered the termsof resolutioii 21(XXI) irrcvocable
and non-riegotiablc and beIieved the question of South West Africa inust
proceed ''ïrom rmffirrnat ioof AssembIy resoIutinn2145 (XXI) COtranslarion
of the proiiisionsilhatresolution intoconcreti:and practical action" (Dossier
item 173; 1510thrntg., pp.77-78).
113. The representativeor Sui>wIic~rcfcrrcdto the rnost important niatter
on whichtherewas generalconcurrence: "thefactthatal1rnembersrccognid
that therii,ïno gojngback on the provisions of GencrüI AssernbIy remlution
2145 (KXI'),which tenriinatcd thc right of South Afriw to administer South

West Africaand wwhiçhplaccd the 'Ierritory underthe direct rsponsibilityof
the L'nitei Nations(Dossier item 169; 1506th mg., p.27). The representative
O€ J~moicii considered the AssembIy'spoint of departure "the international
statusof C;niithWest Africa, which isnow under the direct responsibitity of
thc Unitcc! Nations" [Ilossier item171; I508th mtg.,para. 28). The represen-
rativeof hépal emphasid that the Assembly had adopied a decision{resolu-
tion 2145 (XXI)) on certain "basic and fundamen ta]" principles, rwpcniny
of ihe debatcupon which would be impermissibIe. "lt js theundcrstanding of
my deIegation that these principlcs are (1) the Mandateconferred on the
British tiovernment to bcexercised on itsMaIf bytheSouthAfrican Govcrn-
mcnt is teiniinated;(2)the Government ofSouth Africrihas noother right to

adrninister theTerritory; and (3) South West Africa cornes under the direct
responsibilily of the United Nations, and ihis responsibiIity must bc dis-
chargcd"t'Dossieritem 173;15IOI hntg.,pp. 83-85 ).e representativeofthe
U~zitcdAr& Republic bcticvcd the first step ithe direttion of enabling the
people of South West Africa to exercisewIf-dctcrniination and to achicvc
indcpcndence had beentaken by the Generrrl AssernbIy when it terminated
the Mandate. "Whiit should logically follow ishow best we can ensure the
transfer ofpower to the people of South West Africa." "What WC arc caIlcd
upon to d~ isto foIlorvup resoIution 2145(XXI) and step fowtrd" (Dossier
item 171; 1508th rntg.paras. 16-17).The rcpresenrativeof Tanmin refcrred
to the ass.rmption by the Asscmbly of responsihility for SotitWest Arrica,

and called uwn the AssembIyto irnptenientitobligation to transfeal1powers
to the people of thc Territory, in accordance with the DecIarrition un the
Granting cifIndependenceto ColonialCountrics andPenples and resolution
2145 (XX1) (Ilossier item 172; 1509th rntg., p22). The repreçentaiiveof Iraq
emphasizedthat thc As~mhly at the currentspecial sessio kvas ubli1:c.ta
concenrraic on a single issue-lht: administration OF South West Africa by
thc Unitcc. Nations with a view towardspreparing the people ofthe 'l'erritor?'
for self-deierinination andindependence(Dossier item 176; 1513thnitg., p61).
The repre::eniarive of Chileobserved: "Thc basic doclarstions of thc United
Nations-Lhat the Mandate kas-t-rmi----d. thatthe Lnited Nations it.?surnes
direct responsibiliiy ovcr the Territnry, thatobjectiveof rheUnited Nations

is toIeadtheTerritorv to selfdeterininatiunand indcoendencc-arc immutable
and irrevcrsible.Thai is \%hywe bclicvcthat thecommari denaminalor, from
whichno -iroposal can dcpart, i~ still the qtrictframeworkof reçoliitio2 145mtg., para. 58).The representativeof Spuitibelieved the fjîthspecialsession
must proctxdstrictlywithin the context of resolution 2145 (XXI) and in the
lightof thc reportof the Ad Hoc Corninittee on South Wesl Africa (Dossier
item 18U; 1517th rntg.,p. 37).
117.Thr: folIowingdclcgagationüslso emphasized thatthe frftspecial session
had been <~nvoked to implenient resolution2I45 (XXI), not to discuss the
meritsor shortcomingsofrhalresolution:Mnii (Dossi trm 173; 1510thrntg.,
p. 4f$, China (Dassicr itcm 177; 1514th rntg.,paras. 82-94), Isru~I(Dossier

item 178; 1515th rntg., paras.1-91,Crceer (Dossier iicm 181; 1518th mtg.,
pp. 47-50).

Siarertzet?rsby pertrinricntnretizofihe Serzrriry C:ouacabsruiningitithe vote
uporfdrqfi resolufionA,'1.516/Rev. I

118. The rcpresentative of France stated that South Africiihad '-rcncged
an the obligations impasedupon it by the Manrlate with respect to ensuring
thematcriiland moralwcll-king asweIlas the wial progress of the inhabitants
of South West Africa". He helieved ilie problein "confronting the Asçembly
is not sorriuchthat of guaranteeinglhe administration of theTerritoryduring
a transitio~~apcriod,as it isthat of determiningthe ways and nieans by whiçh
the population of South West AfricawiI1 be able, ifitso dcsircs, taccede tri
independence"(Dossier ilem 173; 1510th rntg., pp. 58-61).

119. Thc dclcgatio onthc USM endorsed theinfornialsuggestio itnhad
made in the Ad Hoc Conirnitteeon South West Arrica, includingsupport for
the immedate independence of rhe peopleof Suuth WestAfrica(Dossier itein
157; 1504thrntg., pp.4647).
120. l'hb:delegationof the UtzirrdKinbri/ornraffimed ils conclusion"that
the South African Governmenthad forfeitcd the right to administer the
MandateciverSouth West Africa"andrestatedits support for rhe =If-dcter-
ininationcifthe people of South West Afrrcaand ~hccorrcctness of the 1950,
1955 and 1956 Advisory Opinions of the InternationalCourt of Justice,The
reprcsenta-.ivcof the Lnited Kingdom repeated that his delegalion had ben
unable to vote for resolution2145@XI) for a nurnbcr of rasons. "We had

and siill hivedoubts on severai Icgalissues.""Moreover, we rvereconvinctd
that the terms ofreference of the Art Hoc CornmitteeshouId not havc boen
confined and restricied asthey werç but should have bcenwidened taaIlow
and require the Comrnitlee io considcr al1aspects of tlie futurecourseto be
follriwed by the Lni ted Nations, with theagreed object of self-determinatiun
and indepmdetice for al1the people of iht Tcrriiory."The representat oive
the United Kingdom concluded that his delegation Iiad ketr prepared to
support the proposal subrnifted to the Ad Hoc Cornmittee by ItaIy, Canada
and the Ciiited Statesbut could no! endorst ihç altcrnativc proposais before
the GeneralAssernblyfor they werenot bascduponbroadagreementandcould
onIy raise liIse hopes (Dossier item 1615Il4thmtç.. pp. 62-65, 68-70: Dossier

item 181; ,518thrntg.,pp. 11-12).
121. The representative of ihe CIriifedS~nrcsreafirined his delegation's
support for rmlution 2145 (XXI) which "contains the basic agreed position
oftheIli~iiedNations" on the questionof Souih Wcst Africaandwhich '-1our
ançhor". 'l'hereprcscntativc"proposcd not to step backwaidfroii~resolution
2145 (XXl), but to findways within the capacityof the United Vations to piif
itinto pra4;ticeffect" (Dossier iletn 168; 1505thrntg., pp7-6, 8-10;Dossier
ifem 181; 1518th mtg., pp.51-52).support for resolution2 145(XXl) but fcarcù that the reviseddraft resolurion,
unlikely tobe irnplementcd, would adversely affectthe prcs!igc ofthe Lnited
Nations (Dossier item 181; 1518 th inig.,pp. 46-47). The representaiivc of
Icelriprobseived thai discussions and negntiations during the firth special
sessiorn eAccted the prevailing desirin ihc Asscrnbly to take a srep forward
in pursuailce of the goals seforth in rcwlution 2 145(XXI) and, at thc same
titne,tcir:ndeavour to maintain the overwhelminy majority by uwhichtlrat
rcsolution had ken adopted (Dossier itçm 180; 1517th mtg., p. 11). Thc
delegation of Ausfria resrak idtapproval ofresolurion 2145(XXI) obscrving

thai only;tdraftcnjoying the fuIland activesupport ofthe per~nai-tenmembers
of the Scc.urityCounciI couid enublethe Unitcd Nations taachieve the goal
set out in that resolurion (Dossier item 181; 1518th nitg., pp. 32-35). The
representativcof frelmtd suggsted that, in view of South Africa's obvious
detcmination to reniain in rorcibleoccupation of South West Africa, rhe
Aswrnbly, as the aiithority legally and ~noraltresputisiblcfor thc Tcrritory,
scek forihwith the assistancof theWiirily Coiincil in cffectingthe Assenibly's
obligations tothe people ofSouth Wcst Africa(Dossier item 170; 1SI3th mtg.,
p. 22).

Srormiriirs b-vnictnhrs of ~heAjh-Asiuir gruup abstainirritithe roofsupon
draft r~,ro~uriotIL.5 161Rrv.I

125.'I'he representuiivc ofbf~iatrlreferred to his delcgation'sposition at
the Twenty-lirst Sessio of the Geiieral Assembly during which "we made it
abundantly clear that we held nobriel for the manner in which the lvlandatc
over South Wcst Africa\vas administered by Seuth Africa. We recogrtizedthat
a change :vasiiecessary. ItuiiideIegation iibstaincdon the resoIulion strictly
on the baçislhal ilwas not capableof king impiemenitul". Howcvcr, as the
resolutiuri had bocn supporteci hy the vas1majority of AssernbIyineinhers,
he considered the Assembly obligated 10 continue searching for ways to

implement it (Uossier item 169; 1504th mtg.. p.8 t : Dossier itcm 176; 1513th
mtg., p. :LOI).The representative or Butswona bclieved tlie statiisof South
West Africa iiiust be dclermincd by the Unired Natioris reprcwnting the
international commiinity, not by SouthAfrica acting unilatcrally; he could not,
however, cnvisage a change in the status of South West Africa without the
active CO-operationof tIie prcscnt administering authoriry inany rnachintry
designed roWI in motion the process of seif-determination and independence.
Aliliough hc considered itpossibie to argue that the Maiidate had been ter-
mimted and that South Africa ilIcgallyoccupied South West Africa, the
rcprewnt:ltive reminded the Assenihly that resciIuliun 2145 (XXI) had not
removd :<outh Africa's administra lion [rom the Tei~itory (Dossier item 174;

1511th n-irg.,pp26-30).

124. Tite reprewntative of Czcchosiov~kia klieved the iask of the Iifth
speciaiseisionwas to consider and adopt rneasuresbywhichthe provisionsof
resolution 2145(XXI) would be brought fo Iife. He proposed the withdrawa1
ofSouth Africa frornSoiith Wcst Africaand the independcncc of thc Tcrritory
(Dossieritem 170; 1507thmtg., paras. SI. 54).The representative of Korilariia

believd one of the basic dutiesof the Gcncral AssembIy at the Fikh Special
Sessiow nas to demandfirmly that al1States withou t exçcption strictlcomply WKI'TI'ENSTATEMENTOP THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 157

with thc pr~\~isionofresolution 2145 (XXT) (Dussier item 171; 1508thrntg.,
para.5 5).The reprcsentatih{ef the Byeloru.rsion SSR supported the exercise
by the peopIe of South West Africa of thcir righto self-detcrrninationand
indepcndcncc inaccordanccw : ith theprovisionsof thUnited Nations Charter
and the Declaration on ihr Granting of Independentc ueColonial Countries
and Peoples (Dossier item 173; 1510th rntg., para.32). The represcntativeof
the Ukraitrian SSR reafiirniedhis delegation's opinion infavour of the im-
mediategranting of indepcridcnccto the people of South Wcsl Arri~u(Dossier
item 174; 1511 th rntg.pp. 7-18). Thc dclcga!iitnf Htingary maintaincdthat
the peoplc of South WestAirica, likethepeople of any othermloniaI territory,

hiid everyriglrto immedizitcindependence (nossier itcm 174; 15111h rntg.,
pp. 62-63).The representativeof Bukaria cndorscd ihe decisionscontained in
resolution2145 (XXI) and :;rrgggstethat theeffortsofthe United Nations he
diruclcd toward theexpulsion of South Africa and itsillcgiiIadministration
from Solith West Africa iiiorder to proniotc the Territory's independence
(Dossier item 175; 1512th mlg., paras. 5-7, 20, 22,24). The represeniative
of Pu/und rcferred to his ~ielegation'sunderstanding that thc provisions of
resolutions1514 (XV) and :!I4 {XXi) wereaimcdat the iminediate likeration
of the people of South Wctt Africa and to his delegation'continued support
for the inaIiet~ablrightof the people of Soulh West Afncü tofrocdom and
independence(Dossier item 176; 1513th rntg., para92).

Slrrtertieopposirtgrhenr/ojltioofdru&reso!~iiionAIL.5161 RCF. f

127.Having referredIo his delcgation's opposition to the adoption of
resdution 2145 (XXL), th(: representativof Porrupf stated : "The pracni
resolution,contained in document A1L.S i6jRev. 1, iintended to irnplement
thox provisions.C'onsequentiy,thc Portugucse deIegation could not do any-
thing other than assume the saine position as Iastymr ..." (Dossier itcm
181 ;1518th nitg., p27).

128.The representativc +r Albutriabelieved the GeneraI Assemhlyshould

suppiement its decision of27 October 1966 by formally ancicfTatively pro-
claimingthc independence of SouthWest Africs (Dossier item 172;1509thmg.,
pp. 53-55).'l'hercprcscn~aliveof f-eso/ho consideredthe terrilof resolution
2145 (XXI) cfearabout tht:terminati onthe Mandatcpreviously exercised
by South Afriça over Soudi West Africa. He thought itof the utrnostimpor-
tance tharihe spccisscssiuriagreeon equally cleartermsto govern ihe transfcr
of auihoriiy froni the de ,%ci0 administratorof South Wesi Africa to the
UnitedNations admjnistration(Dossier itcni 174; 15lthmtg., pp. 69-70).

129. All delegations participatirtgin the dehitwith thc cxwption of one

(Portugtit) considercd the implementationof rewlution 2145 (XXI), no1 the
sirbstanceof thatresolution, theproperrocus ofdiscussionat the FifrhSpecial
Sessio n.esolution2145 (XXT) wasfrcqucntly dcscribedas apoint of departure
or thecontcxt within which the Eifth Swcial Session rnustprweed.IV. SURYLY OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY REX>LWION SEUTING TO NAMIIIIA
ADOPTEI SUKSE~)IIENT TO C<EXER,% A SSEMIIL IYESI>L~JTI2 ~14S5(XX 1)AND
2248[S-V)

130. Tlie GeneraiAssemblq 'ontinucd to be seid of the question of South
West Africa afterthc ~crrninationof thc Mandütcby rcsolution 2145(XXI) and

afer the i:stablishineiit of tlie United Natioiis Council for SoWest Africu
byresolii:iw 2248 (5-Y).

131.A: its 22nd Scssion, on 16 Dmrnkr 1967, thc GcneraI Assernbly
adoptedresolutions 2324(XXII] and 2325(XXII)(Dossier iteiiis 245aiid 147).

Resalittior2314 (XXII)

132.Tlie GeneraI Assenibly, iiirewlution 2324 (XXII), condernncd thc
illegalarrcstdeportatiun andrrial at Pretoria of 37 SouthWest Africansas a
falgranr \infationby the Government of South Africa of their rights, or the
internalional statuof the Territory, aiiof General Assernblyresolution 2145
(XXD. Ktcalled upon the Governmentof South Africa to discontinue fnrth-
with Ihisillegal trialanto releqe and repatriaie thSou th WestAfricanscon-
~xrncd. 1talso drcwthe urtentior~of~heSecuriiy Councit tu the rwlution.

Resu~iifiui2-723 (XXifj

133.In rcsvlution2325(XXII)theGeneral AsscrnbIy,inter &a, wndcmncd
the refus;tl of theGovcrnment of South Africa to comply with General As-
scmbl yresolutions2145 (X X1)and 2748 (S-V),anddecIared thatthc continued
presencc of South African authoritics in South Wwt Afrim was a flagrant
violation ~fitsterritorial integrity, iiiternational status and thoftearlier
General rissrrnbly resolutions.
134. It calleupon thc Guvcrnmcnt ofSouth Africa to withdraw froni th
.TerritoryofSouth West Africa unconditionally andwithvut delay all itsmili-
tary and lioIice forces and its administratiio;rcieasc:al1 political prisoners;

and to aI1-~aIIpolitical rcfugccswhoürc nativcsof theTerritory to returfoit.
I35. TIie General Asseniblyalso directedan appeal to al1member States,
pürticularlyto the main trading partners of South Afriça and to those which
had econliiinic and othcr intcrcsts in South Africa aSouth West Africa, to
take efîectiveaction and other nieasuresdesigiied to ensure ihe imrnediate
withdrawal of the South African adrninisrrarion from rhc Territory of South
West AfrIca.
136.Tlie General Assernhly requestedthe Securit): Council iotake effective
sreps locnable [he Unird Nations tafulfiIthe responsibilitiil hadassumed

wirh respectto South West Africa, and ifurtherrequested the SecurityCouncil
tu iake al1 appropriate ineasures to enable the United Nations Council for
South West Africli ro dischargiuHy the îtinctions and responsibiliries entrusttd
to it.

,137. On 12 June 1958 the CieneraI Assernbly at its resuiiied 22nSession
sidopied i~esolution2372 (XXII) <Dossieritem 2A8), andexpresstd its concern

fhat the continued refusal of thc Govcrnnient of South Africatoconiply with
its obIigationsfothe United Nations and totheiniernationaI cotnniuiiitya a WRITTtN S'fA'1EhtENTOF THE SECRETARY-C;kNtKAL 159

wholewnstitutcd a fkagrantdefianceof thc authority of tlie United Nations.
138. Ttdçplored the defiance by the Govemmcnr of South Afiica of the

Gcncral Asscmbly and Sc:urily Counçil resolutions conccrning the illegal
arrst, dcportation, trialand conviction of South West Afrian patriots.
139.The GçneralAssemSlyprocIsirncd tha!,iiiaccordancc wjth Ihe desires
of itspeople, Souih West l~fric shnuid hençeforlli be known as 'Lh;ürnihia".
140. At the samc tirne il charged the United Karions Council for Sourh
West Africs (renamed the United Nations Couiicil for Namibia) with the
perforrriance,asa matter ol' priority,of additional funcrions.
141. It condemncdihe Governrnent ofSouth Afrjca for its persistent refiisa1

tocornplywifh thc resolutionsof the Gencral AssetnbIy aiid ihcSccurity Coun-
cilits refusaito ivithdraw Vrom Namibia. and itsobsrrucrion of the efforts of
the L'iiitcdNations Council. for Namibia io procecd to Narnibia.
147. it cond~mned actioiiby the Goverfiment ofSouth Africa designcd 10
consolidate its illcgaI controlover Namibia and to destroy the unity of tlie
people and the terrilorial inlegrity of Narnibia. The Gcncral Asxrnbly also
condenined thc actions of States which, by continued political, military and
econornic coHahoration witii South Afiica, had encoiiraged its Cio\~ernmentto
Jery the aurhorityof the Unitcd Nations.

143. It reiieratd jtsdem:ind tliat the Gavcrnntentof South Afriça withdraw
from Narnibia immediatcly:indunilatenliy al1itsrnilitaryand police forcesand
its adininistration.
144. 1trecornrncnded toihe SccrirityCouncil urgently to takeal1appropriatc
steps to secure the imp1ernt:nratiunof the resolurionand trtake effectiveinea-
sures in accurdance with th: provisions of theCharter to cnsurethe immediate
rernovaiof the South Afric:tnpresence from Namibia.

145. At its13rd Session,un 16 Dccember 1968, by resolution2403 (XXIIr)
(Dossier item 269)the C;ent:ralAswnbiy again reafirmed thc innlienabk right
of the people ofNümibia t-3self4ererminatinn and independenccand rhclcgi-
timacy of their struggle ag:aimt thc foreign occupürion of their country. it
rsjierated jtscondemnation of the Governmcnt of Souih Africa for its persis-
tent dciiance of the authority and resolutions of the United Nations. for its
refusal to wiihdraw froni Plami bia, and for itspalicy and actions designed to

dcstroy the national unity z.nd territoriaI infcgrity of Naniibia.
146. Itdecided to draw ihc attention of the Securjty Couiicilto the scrious
situation which had arisen;tsa result of thç illegal !iresena:ndactions of the
Goveinment of South Africa iriNamibia. Ir recornrnendcd 10 the S~curity
CoiinciI ~irgentlyto takc al1effective measuresin accordancewith the relevant
provisioiis of the Charter.

147. At its 24th Session, an 31 October 1969, by rsolution 2498 (XXIV)
(Dossier item 3 i2)the Gcnc:ra[Asxmbly again reafirmed. the inalienablc right
of the pcoplc ofNamibin tu self-deterrninaiionand independence,condernned
the Crovemmcnt of South Africa for its persistent refusal tu withdraw its
administration FrornNuniiliia and drew rhe attention of the SccurityCouncil
to thc dctcrioratingsituaticn which had arisen asü resuitof therefusa1 of the
Çor~ih African aiithnrities ti) can~ply with resoliitinn (L969 of the Security
Council.160 NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

148.Ai ils 25th Scssion, on 9 Uecember 1970 by resolution 2678 (XXV),
the Cieneial AssemhIy having rwalled the prcvious GeneraI Assembly and

Security Councilresolutions which havca bearing on the question of Namibia
and also the relevant provisionsaf GeneralAssernblyrcsoluii~n 2621 (XXV)
coniaining: the programme of action for the fuII implementation of the De
clarationon theGranting of Indepndence to CoIonial Countries and Peoples
exprcssedits deep coiicern at the deterioraiing situation in Namibia and the
continued refusal of South Africa to conlply with the ielevaiitdecisions.Ii
look in10 considcration thc Fact thatSouth Afria has persistently violated
ihc princiliIesof theCliarter. The GeneraIAssembly was "mindful of rhe obli-
gations af rnember StatesiinderArticle25 thereof".Zt condernnedttie Govern-
mcnl of Soulh Africa, inrerni& for theextensionof the intcrnationaIlycon-

demncd policies of apartheid to the Tcrritury, and for itspoIicies aimed at
destrriying the unity of the pcuple and the territorial integrity of N~rnibia
through ttiecreaiion of theso-calIedseparate"homelands".It aIsocundernncd
the suppoi-tgivento South Africa by its major tradinpartners and calledupon
the Govetnmentsconcernetd o cease immediately any assistanceto and cc+
upcration with South Africa. The tieneralAssemblyinvited thc SccurityCouii-
cil toconsider taking effeciiverncasures including thoseprovidd for under
Chapter VI1 of theCharter.

Nore. For ducumcntationrelevant toresolutionv 1324(XXIT), 2325JXXIT)and
2372 (XXII), see llossierilerns 190to 245: for docurneiitation relevant to
resolution 2403 (XXIIn, see Dnssier items 749 to 268: for documentalion
retevant 10 rcsolution2498(XXIV), see Dossiçr itcms 271to 31 1.

149. The Security CounciI had occasio n pronounce itseIf on the subject
of theternitnationby General AssembIy resolution2145(XXI) of South Afriça's
Mandatcovcr Sciuih West Africa for thefirstime when, on 24 January 1968,
in a conimunicatioii addrcsscd to the l'residenof the Security Council, the
delegations of 53 States Mernbers of the United Nalions rcqumtcd lhat an
urgent mccting of ihe Securiry CoiinciI bc convened(Dossier item 51; S18355
and Adds. 1-2).
150.The dekgations in their letter rererred to thrw rcsolutiuns of the
General Assem bIyon the Question of SouthWest Africa:resolutioii 3145(XXI)
of 27October 1966.resulution 2324 (XXI 1)of 15Decem ber1967,and resalution

2325 (XX II) of 16 Dccember 1967(Dossier items 162,146and 247).
151. Thc dclcgations stated that rhe question of South Wcst AMca has
assumeda most seriousand urgeni dimension following the decisinn of the
Governnv:nt of Soiith Africa to resutnewhat the delcgations caI1d the illegal
trial at Prctoria o35 South West Africans inflagrant iviolationof theirrights
iind of ths interiiationat status othe 'Ierritnrof South West Africa.They
urgedthe .SecuritCounciI to takeinimediately effectiveand appropriate iiiea-
sures to cpsurc that the tiovernmentofSouth AfricacompIiedwith theGeneraI
Assembly rewlutions and discontinued forthwit h the illegal triat,and released
and repatriatedthe South West Africansconcerned. u'RITI'ESTPTEiMEhTOI: THE SECHETARY-CiEKERAL 161

Met /irg 01the Srcurify COU~ZC~~

152. The Security Council considcrcd thc qucstionat its 1387thmeeting on
25 Januav 1968(Dossier item22; 1387th nitg.).

Docümet?tsô&-e rheSeatrity CourtcilinCotrriectiowitirrheQues~ion
Considered

153. The documentsbefrtrethe Security CounciI ithis coniiectionincIuded
a communicationdated 73January 1968to thePresidentof theSecurityCounciI
from the Presidetitof rhc United Nations Coiinci[ for South West Africa
(Dossier item 50; Sj8353). The cnrnrnunication recalled,inrer uliu. Genzral
Assembly remlutions 2145 (XXD,2248 (S-V) and 2324(XXII}, and addressed
itsclf particularIyto the ari:and tria1 of theSouth West Africans referred
to in the pr~cding paragraph.
154.The Swurity Cuunr:il also had before itthe report of the Seçretarp

Gcncral on the Questionof South Wat Afiica (I>o~%ieritem 52;Sj8357 and
Addenda)whichreproducedreplies from States,spcpccialireadgenciesanother
intergovernmen~aI organizatio onsaction rakeripursuantto operative para-
graph 3 ofGcncrd Asserntly resolution7324(XXI 1).Paragraph3 of thermo-
lution had appealed toal1 Statesand internatinna[organiztiti tonusse their
influence with thefiovcrninco ntSouth Africa in order to obtain its corn-
pliancc with thc parpgraph of the resolutioncalling upon theGavernmentof
South Africa to discontiniiforthwith the illegatriaand toreImse and repa-
triatethe South West Afric-~nsconccrncd.

155.The SecurilyCouncil at it1387thmeetino gn 25January 1958 (Dossicr
item 22) uiianimously adgiltd what became Swurity Council resolution 245
(1968) (Dossier item 105). WhiIe the opcrativc paragraphs of the rcsolution
dcaItpnncipally with theqiiestionofthe trialof SouthWcst AfricansbySouth
Africa, the firstpreambubir paragraph of'lhe remlution rcad as foIlows:

'-TheSeciiriiCourzciC,
Tukiiyrnolt.of Gcnoral Assembly resolulion 2145 (XXI) uT17Oclober
1456, by which the A ;wrnbly ferminated Soiith Africn's Maiidatc over

South {est Africaand decided, inîrr uliuthat South Africahas noather
rightto admiaister the Territoryand thal hencefarth Soulh West Africa
cornesunderthe directresponsibiIityof the United Nations,".

156. Inthc dcbatc oiiili:probleinwhich was berore the Security CaunciI,
a numbcr ofdeIegationsrecalledand emphasixed Gcnwal Assembl y iesolution
7145 (XXI) bywhich Snuih Afrjca'sMandatc ovcr South \VmtAfriçahad been
tcrrninatcd.
157. 'I'herepresentativcof E~hiopiaand fhe UtiireStcitescen~phasize hat

resolutiori2145(XXI) , hichobtained thcovcrwlielniingsupportof theGener-
alAsscmbly, had alreadyd<*cidetd hat South Africa'sMandate for South Wesî
Africriwas terminatedand thrithenceforth South Wcsr Africa calne underthe
directresponsibiiityof the United Nations.Thc decision was cIearlybas4 on
South Airica's own action5 in breach of its obligations, its disavowal of the162 NAMIBIA (SOL:TIIWEST AFRICA)

Mandate, and ils dibregarof the opinions of the International Court of Justice
(Dossier item 22; 1387th rntg.,Ethiopiii, pp.37, 38-40; United States, p. 43).
158. The ritpresenralivof lhe USSR rcpra~cth dat atthcTwcniy-iirsl Session
of the Gr:i~eraAl ssembly an overwhclming iiiajority had decidedto liquidate
the Mandate of the League ofNations, under rhe cover of which the racists OF

South Africa ata blisheda coloniaI régitiiein South Wcst Africii(Dossier iicm
22; 1387th rntg.p. 611.
157. The representative of Hiiii,-uryshared the opinion that the tria[ at
Prctoria was part uf the persistent deiianceof GcncraI Asscrnbly resolulions,
inclüdingresolution 2145(XXT).In the Ilungarian view, any step or. mcasure
by the SourhAfrican authorities in South West Africa couldonly be considered
as an üct of sggrcssion {Dousicr item 22; 1387thnitg., p. 71).
150.Tlie representative of Srtzeg~ripoinred out ihatwith the adoption of re-

solution 2145 (XXI) the tieneral Assembly had taken an historic decision,
putting an end to thc Mandatc. Hc stated that resolutiori2145 (XXQ wüs in
danger of remaining coii~pletelya dead Ieiierunlessrhe United Nations adcipted
coercive rneasurcr: agüinstSou1h Africa IO force it to comply with drx-isionsof
the United Nations. The Security Council must take effectivesieps to divcst
Souih Africaonce and for a11of al1sovcrcignty uvtr Soutli West Africa, mea-
sures thaiwould finallypermit rhe Cnircd Nat ions toassume its responsibilities
for theTcrritory. Iwas a demanstration ofcynicisnithat,despiteresolut ion2145
(XXI), South Akica haddard to arrest,within thcir ownierritory,to deport to

Pretoria and to pIaceon tria[in its oivncourts 35South WestAfricannaiionals,
applying its ~IèrrrirismAct, a law which was in iiselfa defiance of al1human
conscienceand iiviolation of the Universal Dcclarütion of Hunlan Kiglits
(Dossier item 21; 1387th mtg., pp. 77-81).
161. '1-lrereprmntative ofPffrnguaysaid rhat it was primarily in thcIighi of
the provitaionormsoIu tion 2145(XXI) rhat thc Sccurity Coiincil niustconsider
the subjczt before itand it was in zccordance with those provisions that the
llnited hations in general,and the Wurity Cuuncil in particular, must adopt
the necessarydccisions(Dossicr itcm 22; 1387th nitg.,p.BI1.The representative

uf Bra=il remlied that BraziI and the iatin American countries had played a
significant rolein the adoption of General Assernbiyresolutirins2145 (XXI)
and 1248(S-V).and thüt in conformity wjth rhose resolutions Brazilhad voted
in favour of Generai Asseiiibly resolutions 2324 (XXII) and 2325 (XXII).
Remlution 2324 (XXII) establishtd quitc clearly thar the arrest, deportation
and tria13l ihc 35 South Wcst Africüns had heendecidcd in disregard of reso-
lutions 7145 {XXI) and 2248 (S-Y) (Ilussicr item 22; 1387thrntg., p. 93).
162.The representarive of Nigeria ytated tliat the Unircd Nations Council
for SvutIi U7cst Africa had rejected, and wouId continue to rciwl because it
consideredthern absolutely invalid and void, any and al1 Iaws and Icgislatinn

enactedbySouth Africawhich had theeffectof partitioning the Territory or of
annexingi t toSouth Africa. '1-heUnitedNations (:aunciI ForSourh West Africa
rrioutdconsider ways aiid iiieansof abrowting al[ and any laws or Icgislation
enacted kySouth Afrim aftcr the adoption of 1-esolurion2145 (XX 1) as illcgal
and uf nc-conscqlrence. Wha~everauthorily South Africa continu4 to exercise
in the Tci-ritory mustin the view of the dcIcgati ofnNigeria, bercgardedas a
usurpation nf power. and illegaI. Soiith hfricia's coniinued prewnccin tlie
-Ferritory rriuul bc rcgarded as an act of open aggression (Dossier item 22;
1388th mtg., pp. 98-1üü, 106.)

163. The represeniativc of Pakistan recalleda seriesof resoIutinnswhich the
SecurityCounciI had adnpied in regard IO the policy of apnrrhridpursued b~
South Afrim in South Aîrica (resolr~tions 181(1953). I82 (19631 1,0 (19&)), WRlTTEN STp.fEMEhT <>FTHE SECRETA RY-GESERA 1. 163

and added that if thc Sxu;i~qVCouncin l 'asimpelld ru pronouncc ilself inso
furihright a mannerin ille resolutionsrrom which he had quotcd in regard to
the situation wirhiSuutfi .4fiicuit was cIcar lhat theSecurity Council Ras
under a muchgreate crornpuIsionto take a sirongersiandregarding ~hctragiç
and cxplosivc situutioniir,S'otiWest Africr~(Dossizr item 22; 1387th mtg.,

pp. 108-1IO).
164. The reprcwntatirv ifthc United Kit~gdunx, hosedclegarionhad voled
for Gcnernl Assembly resolution 2324 (XXII) seeking disconrinusncu:of thc
trialand for ihc rcsoluiionof the Sccurity Couricil,stated however charthe
reservarionsof the Unitcd Iiinydom Governmcntin rcspeci roresolution 2145
(XXL)rcmainedunchanged.TheCnited Kingdom delegationwishcd by iitvute
io associatitselfwith the irdernationalçoncçrn provokedliythetrial,andwith
theplea made to thc South Africu~ ituthorities. He \vent on todescribe in
dctail the objectionahle fealureof the South Afrimn Tcrrorisni Act (Dossier
item 22: 1387th mtg.,p. 87).In explaininghisvote, the representative of the

United Kin~dom said that,likeGcncraI Assembly rcsolution2324 (XXII), the
rcsolution adopted by the SecurityCouncil (245 (1968))took a.its starting
poiiit and quotcd in its firspreambulür paragraph, rcsoliitioii 2145 {XXI).
The Cnited Kingdoni delegation hüd absiaineciin the voteon thatresolution
and had rcpeaiede lyplairiedthe rcasons why itwas unable to support it.
In supportingwhat becamc SccuriryCouncilresaluti2u 45 (19681,the United
Kinydoni delegation reservtdiis positioor1thme parts of itwhich referred Io,
or flowcd from, GerieraIAssembly resolution2145 (XXI), and the dclcgation's
support forthe rcsolutionand ils wording must bc understoodin that sense.

In particular, rhe United ICingdorndelegation must have doubls about the
unqualifiecluseof the word -'illcgcii~thisresolution(Dossier item 22; 1387th
nirg.. pp. 116,117).
165. Similarly,the repreentative of fronce said that,sharing the etnorion
feItbythe majcirityof dclc,saiiriunsr,he French delegationhadassmiated itxIf
with the voting on resol~~t 245c(1968) inspiteof thcfact thul idid not vote
at the linrein favoiirof re~3lutia2145 (XX I)to wlliclreferencckvasmade jn
thc first prciinibularparagrüphof resolurion245 (1958).Furthermore, as con-
ceins the dis~rihutionof cornpetence among thc var~vusorgans of the United
Nalions as thiswaq envisagxl in theCharter, the Fi-enchdclegationconsidered

that rcsolution2145 (XXI jwas not binding iipon IheSecurityCouncil which
theceforerernainedthemaster ofitsown decisionssofaras thequestionof South
West Arrica wasconcerned (Ilossier ilem22; 1387th rntg.,p. 116).
166. Thc Prcsidcntof thr;Secriry Council(Pakisrnn) in closingthe rncciinç
said thatthe Council had takenan historicdecision.Thc facl hat the decision
had been adoptcd tinanjrn~.iusl dyemunstraid coiiclusively that the Security
Coiincilhad thaï daysp0kr.n incimr and unequivocaliermsas fhe conscience
of al1niaiikind(Dossier ireiil22; 1387thrntg.. p. I17).

167.In evaluatingthe iniportancc of SecurityCouncil resolutjon 745 (1968)
in relationio rhequestion ;iow before ihe InternationalC'oitrtufJustice.it is
to be iiotedthat the resolu!ion.including thefirstparagraph of itspreün-ible,
was adopted iinanirnousIy tiya11 i5mernbeisof the kririty Council.
168.Two petnianenimeinbersof ihe kuri~y Criuncil.whik ncither voting
ayainsl, norabstaining on. the first prcambularparagraplior on the draft
resoIutirin,neverthelessmade certain reservatioiisto the rakingnote, in thc

fini preümbuiiir püriiyrapli.by the Seçiirity Coiincil of Generül Assem blyresoliatio2145 (XXI) .1wilIbc secn, hauuever(seesection 1, paras. 6ta72,
abovc), thiithcreservatinnsof thesetrvopermantnl rncmbers of the Security
Council didnot reIat iethewholc ofGcneraIAssemhlyresoliition2145(XXI),
and that both supportcd thoseprovisionsof theresoIuiion which are relevant
in the presencontext.

Requesifor a Meeting ufthe SerzrriiCutiticil

169.Tlie South African authorities notwithstandingthe adoption by the
SeçurityCounciI ofresolution245 (1968)on 25 JciniiarI9fd (Dossieritem 1051,
pmceedecl with the prosecution of the Suiith West Africanswhusc trial had
been diesubjectof resolution 24{19G8),and aIsothesubjcutof resolutian2324
(XXII) adoptcd bythe GeneralAssemlify on 16 Deccmkr 1857 (Dossie iem
246).
170.On 9 Februar 1968 aSouthAfricancourt passed se-eveeentenceson

nlostof the SouthWest Africansaccused.
171-179.On 12February1968in a communication addressdto thcPresidenr
of theSerurityCouncilI, I Stateswhich were members of the United Nations
Councilfor South WestAfrica requested thatan urgent meetingoftheSecurity
Council heconvened (Dossier item54;5/8397 'I.erequest w-dssupported hy
47 uth~rStatesMcmbcrs of the United Nalions, in a Ictteraddressed(Othe
Presidentof theSecurity CounciIon 12Fcbruary 1968 (Dossieritern55;Si8398
and Add. 1 /Rev. 1and Add. 2).

180.TItc Security Criuncilconsiderd rhe q~~cstioai its1390th to 1397th
meetings, between 16 Februaryand 14 March 1968 (no-sier items 23-30).

Uociimen~s hrfor eliSecurit.v Co~tttcif

(a) Cuin?nt~t~icntinsirreporls
181. Tlic documents betbre the SecurityCounciin this contiection inctuded
a commuiiicatioiidated YFebruap 1968to the President otheSewrity Coun-
cil from the President ofthe United Natioiis Council for SouthWest Africa
(Dossicr itcm 53; 5/8394) ;comrnunication dated 15 February 1968 tothe
Presidentof theSecurityCounciflrom theChairman of the Special Cornmittee

on ille Siltiatwith regard to the iniplementationofthe Dedaration nn ihe
Grantingof Independence to ColonialCountries and Peoples (Dossieriten57;
Sj8410 )nd a comrnunication datcd 15 Febniarg* 1968tnthePmsidentof the
Security C:ouncilfrom the Chairmanof the Corrimissiunun Human Kights
(Dossieritem 58;Si8411 )lhe SeciirityCounciIaIsohadbefore itthe reports
of theSec-retary-Generain documcnt~ Sj835a 7ndaddenda(Dossier item 571,
and S/83<9 (Dossier itcnl 56).

(b)Draft resolttfionSIX429cin~vtenrimrtz~s
182. U:aji resoitirioA drafi resotution sponsorcd by the dc1cgationsof
Algeria,Etrazil,Ethiopia, India,Pakistan,Paraguayand Seliepal(Dossieritem

63; SJ8423)was subtnittedtothc SccurityCounciI at its 1394thmeeting(Dos-
sier item27;1394th meetingp ,.6). WRITTEN STATEME~TOF THE SECRETARYGEXERXL 155

183. The draftrcsoIution was introducerl,oti behalfof the sponsors, by thc
representativeof Pakistanat the 1395th meeting of hc Seciirity Coiincil, who
stated, itz~er(dia, ihat ~heSrrurityCounciowed ittoitself io make ii clear to
SnuthAfrica that the Count:ilhad thc will to act effwtively if thuAfricadis-
regardsthe{tlien)draft resolution.For hy doing so SoiithAfricawould be vio-
latinyArticle25 or the Chatter.He went on to =y:

'-Itis clear. in theliglii of wastsaidand done in regard ta the inter-
pretation of Article 25at the time ofthe signing of theUnited Naiions
Charter at theSan FraficiscCutiferencein 1945,thattheSecuntyCouncil

is competent 10 makc n:commendations as welIast<~iake decisinnsunder
Chaptcr VI of thc Chai:ter..The question whether theSecurityCounciI in
acting under Chapter 1.1of the Charteris mcrelymaking arccornmenda-
tion .oris takingadecisiunis, inour vicw, amatter more of policy for the
SecuriiyChuncil rhan c.flaw.FIaving regard to South Africü'sdcliunw of
thç United Nations Tor rntirr:[han20 years,and finaIIyhaving regardto
South Arrica's dcfian~: of SocurityCouncil resalution 745 (1968), the
seven sponsors considei thatthetime has now corncfor thc SocurityCoun-
cil tuaJopL a rcsolutioninthcnaturc of adecisionunderChapterVI of the

Charter, rather thanto make yet another recornmendation toSoiith Africa
(Dossier item 28; 1395th mtg., p. 13).
184. Artretidi~ieto~ the(i'rnreso~~~rtrioti.e drafresolutionwas amended,
in thecourse of the proceedina gss,ollo~,s:

(a)The Jotirtprcan!lirtlrpurugrnph of ~hr dMi r~sokitioo riginaly
read as ~ollows:

"Mindfulof thc obligation of MemberStates ro acceptand carryout
the decisioiis of the SecurityCouncilinaccordancc with the Charter."

This text paraphrasaiiirticlt:25of the Charter by which Membcrs of the
United Nations have a)-d "to accept and carry out the decisionsofthe
Security %uncil in accnrdance with the prcsentCharter".
In the final tesof rr:soIuiion246 (1968), the fourth preambularpara-
graph reads asfollows:

"Mindful that hlernher States shaIl fuIfilal[ theiobligations as set
fort1in the Cliarter."

(b)Operciiiw purr~~raph 4 oJ ~he drafi rcsoiiirio>originallyread as
follows:

"Thc Sccurity Council,
4. necides thal in tht:event of Pdiluon the part ofthc Govcrnrncnt of
South Africa to cornply with thc provisioiis nf thpresent resotution,
whichwiII be inviola~ionofArticle 25of Ihe Charrer.theSecurityCoun-

ci1witImeet immedi;.leIy todecide on the applicationof cKcctivcmea-
sur= as envisaged in the Charterof thc UriitedNations."
Operative paragraph 4 ofthe rJruftre.~oltiiionwarepIriced.in the finatext
of rescilutio246 (1968). by the folIowingtwriparagraphs:

"The Security Council
. ........................
4. Memher Stateswho areina positionto contributetotheirnple-
mcntationof thepresect resolutionto assist the SecirrityCouncil in order166 NAUIFUA (SOUTH WEST AIXICA)

ta abtain cornpIiancof the Governinent of South Africa with rhe provi-
sionosf the present resolution;
5. Liecidethat inihc cvcnt offailureon thepartof the Govcrnmentof
Soiitii Africa tcompty with theprovisionsof thc presentresolution. rhe
Sccurity Council will meet immtxliatclyto determine upon efléçiivcstcps

ormcasuresin ccinrirmjiywith the relevant provisionsof the Chai?erof
thel-nited Nations.",;
The arncndrncntconsisted mainly in the omission of the express ~lcrcncc tu
Article25 of the Charter.

cc) Opcrativeparagraph 5 of thedrafr rcçotutionrequested"lhe Sccrc-
Vary-Genera to followclosclythe irnplementaiionof thepresentrcsolution
and ro reportthereon to the SecuiityCoiincilby ... 31 March IYbtl". III
the Iinatcxt of resolution246 (I94S)theSecretary-General was rtquested
rurclmrt to theSecurityCounciI"not Iaterthan 31 March1968".

Arlupriu~o~fSecuriryCoutirif R~soliron ?$4 (1968j

185.Ttic Security C:ouncilat its1397thmwting on 14 Mareh 1968 unani-

mouslyatloptedas tesolu ion246 (1968), thedrait resulution Si8424amended
as nold :ibove (Dossieritem 30; 1397thmtg., p. 11).
186. Ttie representaliveof hc United Kingdoin, inexplaining hjs vote for
resolution 246{1968),ernphasi~edrhatthe SecuriryCouncil urastiotthetidcal-
ingwiih thewhole question ofthe statusandfutureof South West Afriça, but
that it was concernedwith the prisoiiers ttiePretoriatrial. Hc rocalleclthat
the llniterlKingdom dclcgritionhad refervaions on GcnerriI Assemlily reso-
lution214-5(XXI) and the wordinybascd an it, and maintainedthese reserva-
tions (Dnssier item30;1397thnitg. pp. 11-15).

187. -l'loperative paragraphs of resolution246 (968) wcre devoted ta the
questioncifthc trial,and senrencing.of rhcSouth West Africaiis.
188. TIteprenrnhle to tIiçresuIiition, however, rererredin its seconpara-
graph set aurbeiow. tu the termination by GencrcilAsxrnbly resoiutinn 2145
(XXI) of Sou[h Africa's Mandate over Soiith West Africa:

"7-~kitr~itrroncrount Cenerai Ajsernblyrcsolution 1145 (XXI) of 77
Octoxr 1966by whichtheGeneralAssembly ofthellnited Nations termi-
narei t.e Mandate of South Africa over South Wesr Africaand assumed
dircc: respnnsibility for theTerritory unilsindepcndcnm."

189. TIte wording of this provision diRèrssomewhatfrom the wording of
rhe correipondingprovision inthi: Iirparagraph of the preamble of Swiidty
Council r~:scilution24(1968). One diFeren cas thatin rcsoliition 245 (1968)
rhe SecurityCouncilhiiùtuksn?zoreof GeneralAssemblyresolution2145(XXTj:
whereaç iiiresolution746{19h8)the SecurityCouncil icirithe General Assem-
blyrcsolutionil11nrroun~T . heexpression"takingiriloaccount" was thought by
thespoi~sorsor ihc draftrcsoIutinnto be moreappropriateto tlie situation thaii
rhe wordç "trikingnote" (Dossieriicm 78; 1395th nirç.p p. 8-10).

190.TIiefollowing paragraphs containrefcrencesto staternentsmade iitheaisof a TcrriloryIiavinginternational status.Thc Frcnch deIegatiutiaccepted
~hetext in çpite of thc facthal somc of itspreainbularparagraphscontained
rcfcrenas to which ithadrescrvations ivhichwere weII known (Ilassier item
30; 1397th rntg.,pp. 21-22).
196. The reprcsentütivcof tIiLWR agreedthat al1atteniptsto give.eSem-

blancç of IegaIityto the juridicalforce by invoking the Terrorism Act were
absolutelyhollow. The Terrorism Act was adopted aftcr thc United Nations
had deprived South Africa of its Mandate over South N'est ARicii,that isto
say aftertlieUnited Nation sad, by a cIear-cutdecision, terminated any and
al1excuses South Africa might have for cnntinuing toadniinisterthe Territory
(Dosier item 24; I3915trntg. p.67,W ).hatwas iirvolvedwas not~nly thefate
of thc pers~iiivhofelIvictirnto thc colonialists'oppressions.Thcase revealed
once more how Soiith Africa was seeking, unlawf~tlland in violationor welI-
known derisionsof thcGcncraIAsscmbly and of theSecurityCounciI, roexlend
its jurisdicijoniritotheTerritorof SouthWest Africa(Dossieritem30; 1397th

mtg., p. 16).
197. The representative ofBrazii statcd ihat tlie illegofithe South Afri-
can Govcrnmcnl's decision rvastwofold:

(1) Since the adoption of Genewl AssernbIyresolution 2145 (XXI)
South Africa had no right toadminister theTcrritory. The South West
Afri~insconcerned werc not subjcct.io the jurisdiction of South Africlin
court:;.
(2) The Terrorism Act cannot he accepttd sincc it incorporates the
principleofretroactivity(Dossier ilen125; 1392ndrntg., p. 7).

i98. The representativeof Ethiopincommcnred as follows:

"H.iivhgfor yearsrefusedto rccognize any UnitedNations responsibility
andirideedits own responsibilitto thepeople ofSuuih WestAfrica under
thc Lzaguc of Nations Mandate, ithas now escalaicd itsdehance. ..by
usurpingaltogetherthe iniernatiunalterritory of South West Afriça. for
which theUnitedNations has aqsurneda uniquc and speciaIrespoiisibility
sincr eheadoption of Asscrnbiyresdutioti 2145(XXI).Thisdcfiance has, of
coursi:.assuinedparticularsjgnificincewithSouth Africa'srejcction of tht
ClounsiI'sdecisian of fastinonth to dixontinue forlhwiththeilkgal trial
of 33 SouthWesi Africans in Pretoria.
No one can indeed describethe illegal naturerifthesc trials without
-
beggiiig theessentiat qiiestion-thai is. thcsc: tricould not have kcn
Icgd rirjust, athcyart. brrseon theillegal usurpationofpower. Since the
adoption of Asscmbly rcsoIution 2145 (XX I), whatevcr rcsponsibiIity
Soiith Africamight have had with rtspccttu Souih WestAfrica, arcspon-
sibilitywhich itrcfuscdlo discharge,suchresponsibilityas had esisted has
ken terminated. The United N:itionshas çinc assurneddiroct rcsponsibi-
liw forrtieadministratiriof thel'erritory. SoutAfrica cannot thuslegally
prornirlyatelaw,arrat and try Soutti West Afrians or adrninister justim,
letalonc injusricc.
Itniust hemade clear in the CnunciIthat ithad alread,:condcmnedthe
trialsnui becauseihe triab of Soiith WestAfricanswere illegal per sebut

prccisclykause thcy kad prc-empid United Nations rcsponsibility.In-
deed ihe CounciI wauId he treadin on flimsy groirnd ifilwere tu content
iiselrcmlywith ttiefindinthat the trialu~ei-eille~albecatisthe Actundçr
which they were conducieù violateci basic nornis of justiceand law. Al-
though this aspect is significantand rclcwnt in this specificcontext. the overriding considcration, 1 suhinit, should be that the [rials were illegai
bocaux ihey are based onanexercise of powei.,acquired and now rizain-
tainedhy force.
...*.. L L ..,....*.-........
Ii isobvious to us tliat in reVusita abideby Security Council resolutioii
245 (1968). the Gove;nment of South Africrrhas in fact refusedto carry
oiita spcific decisionof theCouricil.Thus, any action the Coiincilseesfit
tcicontcmpIate atthisjuncturt: slrouldin our aswssinent, be based 011the

recognitionof the factthat what is invvlved isnothing lessthan Article 25
of the Cliarter, that is, thc faiIureof a State Memberof tht: Organiz-
ation to carry outdecisions of the Councit" (Ilossier item25; I392ndnltç.,
pp. 22-26.)

199. The reyiresentative ofEthiapia further said that thc quesiion arose
whethcr ornot the defianceof South Africa came under the purview of Artide
25 of the Chartcr and coniinued:

"It cannut bç tuo sii:ongtcmphasizd in ihis resvt that decisionsofthe
Corincil are decisionsof thc Organizationwhich, on signinp the Chartcr,
each une of us has agreed tu honour and carn, out. No one cari indeed
ignore decisions of th-:Cvuncil without at thesarnetime contravening his
Charter obligations, which,1 must repeat, arc obligatiuns freeIy entcred
into.

It is bocaux we view thecontinueddefiance ofSouth Afrjca as a chal-
lengetothe authority of the Security Council, and, indeed, as a refusaiio
carry oiitthe decis~o~sof the CIouncil,in the langimgc of ArticIc 25,that
iuc urgc thul theCouncil shouM contcrnplaretnare effective rncüsures to
see that South Afriça carries out Sccurily Council resolutinit 245 (I9h8).
At any rate, in our asscssrncntthe very Ieastthar the Council could du is
notto rulc out the po:sibiljty of invokingmoreeffective action on thbasis
of Article25 ofthe Cliarter."(Doss~critcm25; 1392rid iiitg.. 26).

200. Thc repre~eniative of Aiperiu recalled tharthe Security Council, rcaf-
firiiiing resolutio2145 (>XI) of the Gcncral Aswmbly,wished toplacein its
proper context the prohlem raised Iry the arrest and condcmnarion OF somt:
South Wcst Afriçans, particularly ru deiermine whether the South Aftican
Governinent was prcpared.to go backon itsdccisiun toniaintain itsauthority
over a Territory responsibil fitywhich belongs to the United Nations, and

cspcciallythc SwurityCoitnciI. Ije wenr on to say thar a certainhunianitanan
interpretation Iedto a desire ro lirnit the foresccablcconsequeilcof the adop-
tion of resolutioi745 tothe nlere liberativn of the personsunjustlyderained.In
the view of thc Alycrian I-eprcsentativcthe problemconfronting thc Sccutity
Council \vas a political,aiidonlÿ a politicai, problcm. He believedthat other
measures,suchas those provided Forin ArticIe 40 of theCharter, were necessary.
South Africa ilIegallyuccupied and administered riterritorthüt was under the
authority of the Unitcd Nations. 'I'heUnited Nations isentrusted with the
task of ensuring respectfor the derricritary principlesof law in South West

Africn and ofIcading rhai. country to a siatus ofindependentrc (Dossier item
25; 1392nd mrg..pp. 31 to37). Foranadditionalstarc byztnereprcsentativc
or Algeria,see 1395th niec:ing,pages 2I to 27 (Dossier item 28).
201. The representative of China said rharrhe conviction of ~heSouth West
AfricansLinderthe relroaci iveTerrorisniAct was Iheinore deplorableiviien ont
bears in mind the international statusof South West Africa (nassier itcm 25;
I392ndmtg., p. 37). 202. 'Therepresentativeof Purugiruysaiù thatinjllegatlyarrcsting,deporting
and lryinga groupofSouthAfrican tse South African Cioivernrnenthas na-
grantIy violatcdresolution2145 (XXI). Ifthe detentioti, deportationand trials
were illegalthe handing down of sentmes was doubIy soand thcrcfore assuin-
ed thecharacter of iin opcnchaltcnge.Otherspeaker hsavequestioned the le@-
ity of the laws applied hwuse they are cvntrary tu world-widc noms and
standards. These views were inost important. But the büsicquestion Ras the
lack or any right on thc part ofSouth Africa toexercise any administrativeor
othcr f~inctionin SouthWest Afriw, when thisriglit has beendwlarixl termina-
ted pürsuaiitto the terms of resoIu[ion 1145 (XXI) (Dossier item 25; I397nd

rntg.,pp. 35 to 421,

203. Thc statements Listedin the presentparagraphand in paragraphs 204
to 208 belowwere made bçforcihr:SocurityCouncil by rcprcsentativesof States,
rnernbcrs or the United Nations Couiicil for South West Africa,non-iiiemixn:
of the Sec~irityCouncii. The reprcsentativeof the Ut~i~edArab Rep~ibiic said

thatSouth Airiciihad no ri& to administer South West Africa and therebre
had nojurisdiction overthe personsconcerned in lhetria[and that Ihc Unitcd
Nations had a spôciaIraponsibiliry tvward the people and the Territory of
Soutti )Vat Africa.McmberStates, cnllectivel y and individually.have an obli-
gation toassistand help inputting itito effecttdecisionsof the UnitedNations
(Dossier item 25; 1392nd mtg., pp.43-45).
204. The rcprescntative of Indotteerinsaid that remlutinn 245 (1968) was a
decision, not ürecommendation. As suctiit had bindingforci:upon 111hlcm-
bcrs ünder thetertns of Arlicl25 of [heCharter (Dossier item26; 1393rdrntg.,
p. II).
705. The representativeof Turkey ieferred to resolution 2145 (XXI) as

epuch-making. In his G~~ernnient's view, inasinuch as the Mandate of South
Africa has ken terniinatcd oncc and for all, thGovcrnment of South Africa
had no IegaI right whatsmver to adiiiinister tlie Territory (Do~sier item 26;
1333rd mtg., pp. 19-21).
206. The represeniaiivc of Yiigoslnria,addrcssing thc Sccurity Council
ernphasized rhat thegroup of SouthWestAfricanswere takenfronitheirhonie-
land so thatthey could bebrought toirialin;rforeigncountry. The delegalion
of Yugoslavia considerd rcsolution 245 (1968) tcibe an iniportünt stcbccüusc
in if thSecurity Council, by takiiig note of GeneralAssen~blyresolutions 2145
(XXI) and 2324(XXII) has forthe iirsfiine been seized of the problernsrelating

to Soutli WestAfrica.Thc rcsponsibiIity and cornpetenccof thc Sccurity Coun-
cilhas thusbecnasserted {Dossier item 25; 1393rdnitg., pp. 22-23).
207. The repi'esentativeof :Werin srrcssed that theaccuwù had kn tried
in a foreigricouniry. Tt \vasnot theseverity of rhe penalty to beiniposcd on
South Afrii-a, cg.,thequestion whetlier itshould he undei Article 5or Article
6 or undcr Chapter VII, chat was atissue bit1the facrthat the Secürity Council
retainedits wilI andcapacity toact (Dossier item 28; 1395th rntg,pp. 36-37).
208. The representative of InJicr,commetited on the reference in the draft
rcsulutjon (asdistinct frornresolutiun 246 (196üs adoptcd) toArticle 25of ihe
Charter and on siatcmcnts made within and without the Council chambcr that
fhisreferencenwessarily commitstlieCouncil totake action uiiderCiuptcr VlI.

He said that, in general, lndiwas aniong ttioseMenibers ofthe Organization wliich believe thar Arricle25 had very close and perhapsexcIusivcIinkswith
Chapter VIT.Huwever, tiragreed with the statcrncn(bythe representatieeof
Pilgeriihat.allusbii to Article25ducs nul neceaarilyimpla mechanicalrefer-
mce to a specihcchapterof the Charter.
209. The represcntafiveor Indiacontinued:

"This I do bccausethe cas we areconsidcrinytoday issuigenrrir. We
are notnow dealingwith rheuSuaIsituationsenvisagedunderChapters VI
aiid VIIof theCharter.'I'hisis nota disputcbctwen two or more mcrnber
Statesof theOrganizof ion.Ifisa dispute.althnughthat isa mildword fur
it,betwccn the Urgariizationand a mcmberSlate which hüs persistentIy

JefIedthe Organization. Insuch a situationit is necessarytriwarn the
n~cmber State conccnicd thatany fur1f~erdefianceof the Uniied Nations
will notbc tolçraic:dytheSecurityC'ouncil.Hence the referenceto Article
25 of theChanrr" (ftossier item 29; 1396thmtg., p.6).

210. The importance o:rcsolution 246 (196X), Iike that of resoltion 245
(196X) consistsin thracttliathyitthe Security Councilunanirnously,without
abstcniions, canfirmedGeneralAsscmbIy resolution2145 (XXJ) jnsaying ttiat
itisrakingresolution2145 (XXI) intoaccount.Trvo perrnancn trnembersofthe
Security Council, votiiig for the resolution, r~alled reservationsearlcx-
prcssedby them rclating iopartofGeneraI Assernblyresolution2145 (XXI).

211. Thc Swurjty CounciIin resolutions 245 (1968) {Dossier item105)and
246 (1969()Dossier item IO61had dealt, inwnnection with thc qucsiion of
South Wesl Africa, with ihe specifiçincident of thc dctcniion, trial and sen-
tencing ofSouth West Africansby aSoitth AfricanCourt. The first resolution
in which the Security CouacildeaItwith the gencralproblemof Namibial wtis
resolution264 (1969) (Dwsicr item 107).

212.On 14 Mürch 1965, in a çoinn~unicatioaddressedto thc PrcsiJeriof
the SeciiritCouncil, thçirpresentaiives of 46StatcsMetnbers of the United
Nations rcquested thatan urgent nicctingof theSecurityCounciIbe convzned
to examine the deteriorating situation in Namibia. and to takc appropriate
action toenahlethe pcvplt.:oNamibia IOexercisc thcirright oselfdetermina-
tian (Dossieritem 75:S/91)90and Add. 1-31.

213. The SecurityCouncil consideredthe quesrion atits14541 and 14651h
riieetingnn20 March196!i(nossier ilenis31and 32; I464thand 1465ihmtgs.).

vided ihar South WesAirica"inaccordanccowitholhe desirof)itpeople''is10be-
known as"Namibia". UocutireiirBefore the SecurityCoriticil

214. Th<-dacumenrs beforethe SecurityCouncil inthiscnnnection includeda
communics.tion dated19 Marc111969addressedto the Presideiit of theSecurity
CounciI frtim the ChairmanOFthe Special Cornmittee on the Situation4th
regardro the LmpIementationof the I3eclarationon theGranting ofIndepen-
dencc toColunial Couniriesand Pctlplej(Dossieri tcm 76; SjW.97).

215. Ar itsl4Mth nicctingadrüft rcsofution sponsorcdby thedelegations of
Colombia,NepaI,Pakistan,Paraguay, Senegaland Znm biawas submitted tu
theSecurity Council(Dossier item 77;Sj9I00).
216. The representativeof Zanibia, in introducing the draft resolution,
statcd(Dossieritem 31; 1464thnitg.,pp. 21,221 thatitwasincunibentuponthe
CounciIto be activclyseizeù of the questioninviewof rewmmendations thar
had &en made ta the CounciI bythe GeneraI A~qernbIy.The draft resolutinn
fclIfarshortof thesponsor sernands,but he saidit coniaitiedsonieposiiivt
elementswhichadvanced thequestiona littlefuriherthanhad becn donebefore.

217. As regard5 the firsroperativparagraph of the draftremlution, which
recognizcdthe ierrninatioof the Mandate,he siaiedt hatilwas important and
necessaryifthe Counçil was to enjoy theconfidence of theGencraI Asscmbly
and thewrId community as a whole; and theparagraph also servedto empha-
siz~thüiSciuthAfricahad no righi toadrninistwNaniibia.
218. As regardsthesecond operative paragraph,whichstatcd thatthecontin-
ued presenceof Soufh Africa inNamibiawss illcgaland contra7 to thc princi-
pies of the Charter and the previous decisions of the United Nations, he
expIainedrhat the sponsorswould have likedto statecategoricallythatSou&
Africa's continuedstay in Namibia was an actof aggressionandthcrcforc a
threattointernationalpeaceandsecurity.ThesponsorshadIiou~ever to accom-

modate the fwlings of certain mernbers who were averse to theid- of an
inevitable confrontation with South Africa. Asa consequencc, the sponsors
found itnecessaryto tryto advanceon such littleprograsasthey had been abIe
toachieve prcviously.
219. Operative paragwph 3 of the draft resohtion, which callcd upon the
Governtnentof South Africaro withdraw irnrnediaelyitsadminisirationfrom
the Tcrriraryintroduced no ncw eternents to the rlucsrion,the representative
ofZam bia stated,the cal1having alreadyheenmade bythe GeneraI Assernbly:.
The represr:niatiuTZambiarcicrr~xilu thefact ihaiSouth Africa had already
crnbarked on a divisiveprogramme of creating Bantustans inNümibia.The

programme, apartfrom beingillegiilwas Fraughtwithdanger. Itwas designed
to weakcn thcniilionalunity and tht:dcterniinatiunof Narriibianswho liad
wngcd themselvesagainstthe forces OF occupation.
220. The represeniativeofZamhia aIsn statedthat, in the view of thc spon-
sorsof thedraft rt.wlu~ion,operative paragraph8 of the draft cesolution did
notenrirclyexcludethe applicationofChapter VIT oftheCharter.The ùemands
ofcomprriinise had militaied against the definition ofsuchaction, but it was
. readilyacceptedthat thiswas aquestioii of thartof the possible.

The GeneralAssembty, in resolutio2323(XXII) OF16 Deccmbcr 1967. called
upon the Governnient ofSouth Africa to wiihdraw fram rhc TerritoryofSouth
West Africa unconditionally and withodetayal1its militaand police t'orand
itadministration. WRIïTEh: Sq'ATEMEhïTUT; TI3tSECRETARYCrESERAL 173

Adoption of .YecüriryCouncii H~soiuIion 264( 969)

221. The Security Courtcil atits 1465thmeetina gdopted as resoIution264
(1969) (Dossier itcm 1071,the draft resolutionprnpmd in document 8/91(30,
without iimendments. Tb:re were 13 vota in favour, none against, with 2

abstentioiis, narnelyFrance and theUnited Kingdom (Dossier itcm 32; 1465th
mtg.,p. 71).
222. Thc resolution, wtiilalso ~c~kii~inioaccoutirinits secondprmrnbular
paragaph GencralAssembIyrcsolution 2145 (XXI) and reofirntirig itssixth
prcarnbularparagraph thçspecialrcsponsibilityof theSccurilyCouncil towards
thepeoplc and the Territc-1):f Namibia, recag~~izedini:sfirsiuperuti ven- ,
grnptr "that the CnitedN:rtionsGeneraIAssemblyterminaledthc Mandate of
South Africa aver Karnibiaand assumeddirect responsibili ty foi.the Territory
until its independence".
223. 'Th eecuriiyCounr:il,irthe secotidoperaiive parugrupuhftheresolution,
considerd the continucd riresenceof South Africa in Namibia to beilIegaIand
contrary to the principlecof the Chartcr and the previous decisinns of the

United Nations.
724. TheSecurj ty Coun ci1,in the~hirroprariw paragrc~ph of the resolution,
caIIcdupvn "the Governrnentof Sou thArrica to witlidrüwimmediatcly its
administrationfrom the'rerritory".
225. The fortrr apt.ruiripar~~graphof the rcsoluiion dcclared rhat "the
actions of the Gnvernmer-t af South Africa, designedto dcçtrtiy the national
unity and territoriaIinteprityof Namibia through the estahIishnientof Ban-
tttststan,rtcontrary tu the provisionsof the United Nations Chürtcr".
226. Operutive i~nrngrnpbs5, 6 anif7 of the resolution dwIared that the
Government O€ Sou1h Africa "lias no right to enaci the +SouthWest Africa
Affairs Bill'-'' {pnragraph 5) ; ~wndernned "the refusa1 of South Africa 10

cornplywith GeneraIAsseinbly resoIutions2145(XXI),2248(S-V),2374(XXII),
2325(XXII), 2372(XXII) and2403(XXIII) and SeciirityCouncil resolutions
245(1968) and 245 (1968) (pnragrnp h): and invited "ai1Statesto exerttheir
influence in order to obta-incornpliancc by the Goveriiment of South Africii
with the provisio nrsthe prcsentresolution"(pnrngraph 7).
227. The SecuriryCour~ciIalso dccided,in opera~iveparr~grupl8 i , "that in
the event of FaiIurcon thc part ofthe Crovcrnmcnt ofSouth AMca tocomply
with the provisions OF [hi:prcscni resotution,the Securiry Council will meet
inimediaiely to determincuponnccessarysieps orrneasurcs in accordancewith
the relevant provisionsof Ihe Charter ofihc Uniied Nations".

228. Thc folIowing paragmphs contain references to staiements,made in the
course of disciission in :he SecurityC:ounciI, which Inay be considerd as
rcflwting the vieiis othe nienibcrs ofihe SecrirityCounciIand of thc United
ArabRepublii:(unhoserepiesentative,beingthe President ofthe UnitedVations
Coiincjl for Namibia, wa; invited triparticipatcin the discussion)as to the
effcct and consequenccsof Gencriii Assem bly resolution 2145 (XXI) and the
subseqrren treçolutÏansof the CieneralAsscmbly and of the SecurityCouncil.
229. 'I'her~p~sentativeof Afgerio stated that in 1968tfieSaciirityClouncil
Iiadconsideredproblcmsselating to thetreatment of Namibianpatriolsby the
South Africanrkgime.In Marcfi1968the SwurityCounciI had not, howcver,

A drarr slatute thtn pciiding befoie PrirIjanicnt S<iuthAfriça. 174 SAMeiâ (EUUTH WEST AFRICA)

tackled the fiindamentalquestion lhat farxd theCouncii al its 1464thmeeting,
tht was to Yay the adoption of pracricalmeans to achieve the Council's ob-
jectives,whicb were the accession of thc Nitrnibianpeople to sovereiyntyand
independenx H.e wcnt on to say that now tlie Cauncil must go beyond the
recognitio ofn its respnnsibility,which miistbe assumed (Dossier i!cm 31;
1464thintg., pp. 11-16).
730. The statement made hy the representative of Zurnbia in introducirig

the draft resolutionSji!YIOnt the 1464th mcering ofthe SecurityCouncil kas
kcn rcfcrrcd tocaiIjc lr paragraphs 216-22Ia1bovc.
231. The representative of Senegui slatcd ihat the Gavernnient of South
Africa. despitathecelevan1dwisions of the United Nalions on this msttcr, had
purclyand jimpIyanncxed theTerritory of Nami bia,The constituent elemeiits
of that act of annexation were to be foutid in an eniire seriesof Icgislative
measures and reguIations adoptai by South Africa. [One of thcrn, hc South
Wcst Afri~in Afhirs Bill, isexpressly mentioned itiovrative paragraph 5 of
the rewlutian.] (Dossier ite31 ; 1464ihmty., p. 36.)
232. It had alwaysbeen the contention ofhis delegation, iht rcprcscntatiire
of Nepi said, ihatthcpossibiliiies of the Securi~yChuncas the orgm prirnarily

rcsponsibIefor themaintenance of internationa1 pcace and securiryshotildbe
urilijrwith avjew to giving effect to the GcneralAssernbly'shjsioricrcsolution
2145 (XXIj and subscquent rawlutions on the question of Namibia. Con-
srituting the United Nations CmunciiforNamibia by resoIutian2248 (S-V) \vas
nearly as inipnrtantas resolution 2145 (XXT).Itwas the wnsidered vicrvof thc
delegation of Nepaf that ticcause of its refusa1to varatethe Tcrritory, the
Governmerir of South Africawas guiltyof romiiiiiiingactsof aggression.The
delegation of Nepal war not enlirelysatisfi weih the provisions of the dmft
resolutionin sofaras thc draft resoiution failed to dctcrrnine the reaofthe
situation, nsmeIy the continued illegaloccupiitiuf theTerritory, which con-
stitutea ikirat tointernationalpeaw andsecunty, and wardtd ofT any hint or

suggestiondenfortxrncnt action under Chapter VIT.Hc alsosaid that theope-
rativepart cithedraft remlution evaded.~sofution 2248 (S-V).IltwiIIbenoted
chatinoperative paragraph5theSccurity Corincilccindcrnnsthcrcfusalaf South
Africato compIy with, among others, GeneralAssernbIyiesolution 2248(S-V).I
In spiteof these shorr-cornitn hc,rcsofution marked. in the view of the
delegation of Nepal, a vastimprovemcnt overSecurily CorincilrcsoI tons 245
(1968) and 246 (1968) which tnuchediipon thesubstantive political aspecof
thequestio7 in thejr preambular partsonly. Lnder the draft resolution now
&fore the :kurity Council, the Councif would signifimntly for thefirstfime
in its historreinforce the historicGeneraI hsernhly resolution 2145 (XXI)
by recognizing the terininatiun of ihcMandafc, the assumptionby the Or-

ganization of direct responsibiliforthe Territory until its indcpcndcnw and,
alsofor ~hcfirsttirnecal1upnn the Governmenl of South Africa to withdraw
from the Tcrritory(Dossier item 31; 1464th mtg.,pp.41-46).
233. The represenlariueof Fr- recalIed that hisdclegaliun hudsiiitein
theGeneraiAssembly on 27May 196R that, if sucwere the desire of thc ma-
jority, theFhnch delegation would be infavour of theSecurity Council being
scized ofthe problem uf South West Africa (Dossier item 236; i663rd mig.,
pp. 2425). After rcfcrring to previous disappoititrnents, tothe delicatene-
gotiations tküt hapr~eded the unanirntlusadoption afCounciI resolution 246
(1968)and theexpIanations of vote given atthat tirne,a11clearly showing the
lirnitswithin which the Council cnuld acc if it desircdroachieve unanimity

among its niernbers,the representativeof Francc askwherher the membersof
the Council were not al1already atonein desiringto sw an end tu the unjust175 NAMIBIA(SOUTH WEST AFRICA)

Africa to withdraw its adtninistrationfroin the TerriiorqvA. nother pvsitivc
elernentwasthe sztaternentin the draft resolurion that the activitiesSouthhe
African Gcivernnient,which violated the national univ and territorial integ-
rity ofNamibia thrvugh the creatingof so-calledBaniuslans, wcrr contrary to
the Charter. As a whole ihc rcsolution was, inthe USSRuiew,weak (Dossier
item 32; 1465thrntg.,pp. 21-26).
237. The represen~tive of FNrieirdstaled thatthe rcsolution cxprcssing thc
recognition oEthe Eactthattbc General Awmbly had teminated the Mandate
and hadawurneddirect rasponsibility for the lèrritory, wouImeanniore than
a mererestiitementof whatthe Genenl Asem bIy liad aIreadydwrwd. It would
mean lhat the aufhoriry and the puwerof the SwurityCouncil would bc fuIIy
cngagd in fhc task of translating that decision (resolut2145 (XXT)) into

realityHe recalled thatheagreement reachedin the GeiieraIAssetnbIyuii Ihe
decisionto terminatethe Mandaw did not extend10the means by which it cuuld
Lx:carriedout. He also said that onc must bc mindful of the factthat there-
sponsibilitieof the Security Council were of a differenorder froiri those of
other Unitcd Kations organs The termirialion of South Afriça'Mandütc was
an j-vucablc step (Dossier item 37; 1465thrntg., pp.27-30].
238. The representative of theUriireKiirgdofai leadedfor agreementatnong
the members of the Security CounciIon fiirther steps. The United Kingdom
delcgation thought that the course adopted by the fienerd Assemblyin 1966
had been mistaken. In explairiing the positioor his Govcrnmcnt hc quotcd
from his starements in the Gcncral AssembIy inwhichhe had said,irtter alia,
that South Africa by repudiating its obligations had forfeiteits title to ad-
minister tliz Mandateand that ithad no longer the rightto carry thçsacrd

trustconferred iiponil.Hccommentedfavourably on the fact that tsponsors
ofthe draft resolutinn before ihe CmunciIhad abandoned their original in-
tentioii to includein the driifi rcsoIuiion Ianguagc from Chapter VII of thc
Chartcr (Dossier item 32; 1465thrntg.pp. 3 1-41).
239. The representativeof the iInifedArub Rrpublic, the Presidentof the
United Yations CounciI for Narnibia, not a memhr of thc Sccurity Council,
emphasizeclIhat the illcgal prcscnceof South Africain Namibia constituted a
foreign occupation of Namibia, invjoIationof the Charter,an actofaggrwsion
which the United Nations had the responsibilityto supprcssby al1 the rncans
provided tritby the Charter(Dossieritem 32; 1465thrntg.. p. 42).
240. Thc rcprcscntafive ofSpain had supported andcontinued trisupport
resolution 1145 (XXI) Iis delegationbeIievedthatilwas basic and fundamen-
ta1 for the tiiaintenanceofjiistinternational order and for the survivofthe

United KaLiunsihirt the resoIuiions othe principal organsof theOrganizatinn
bccomplied with (Dossier item 32; I465thmg, pp. 51-51).
241. The representativeof Sofombirr staled [bar the United Nations couId
not complacentlyignorc thc situation which was no longer a probleni between
Namibia and South Africa but a confrontation betweenthe Governmentof
South Africa and the aiithority of theUnited Nations.The draft resolutiwas
notstrong in ils conccptsand nat ctiiichein strong wnrds. Itwas welI, ho\+
ever, that ihc Security CounciIwith al1itsaütharityrecognizedand endorsrd
the termination of the Mandate that had permittedSourh Africa to be prcsent
inSouth West Arrica (Dossicr item 32; 1465thrntg.,pp.55-61].
242. Thc rcpresentative of Ckitrczreperttedwhat hadbeensaid bx his dele-
gationin 1947,i.e.that the powersmivcd from the League of Nations undcr
themandales systcrn were administrativepowers, not pawers of snvereigniy .

The adminisierhgState wasa trust=, not an owner. The Chinex delegation
unreservedlysupporledresolution2145 {XXI).He stressedin particularpara- graph 7 or resolutian 264(1969 inviijngal1Statcs to cacrt theiinfluence in
order toobrajn cornplianta by Soulh Africa with provisionsof the resolution
(Dossier item32; 1465th intg.,pp. 61-53).
243. The rcpresetitativeofHringury considered thc driift rcsolution unsatis-
factory on inany counls:it neverthclcssrepresentedniodest progress. IIview

ofthis, his delegaiion surportai the draft resolutionwhichenvisaged, in thc
eveni of f~~rthcron-cornplianceby South Arricawiih ihc wiliofihc Councii,
that rmIIyeffectivemeasurcs would have to bc taken (Dossier item32; 1455th
m tg.pp. 63-67).

244. 'Ihe Security Co~riiciin resolution 264 (1969) recrignized the terrni-
nation by tIieGeneraIAssembly of theSouth Afrimn Mandateover Nainibia,
and the assumptionby the ClencraiAssemhly of direct responsibilityforthe

Territory untit itindeptfidence. Itdeçlared the continued presence of Souih
Africa in Namibiaillegaland cdled upon thc Govcrnment ofSouth Africa to
withdrawimmediatelyits .$dministratioiifrrirnthe Territory.
245. Not only did thc individualmembers ofIhe SecurityCouncil reaifirni
thc:action takenhy the GcneralAssembly in tcrrninatinthe Mandate, butthe
reiiffirmatiowas enacted by the SecurityCouncil as a body. The fact rhattwo
permanentrncmbcrs of thtSecurityCouncil abstainedin thevotc did notorect
the validityof thedecision taken bythc ScçurityCoiincil. The question of the
eflcctor thevoluntaryabsientions of perinanentmembersoftheSecurityCriun-

cifin votesonmattcrs othcr than procedtiralones isdeaItwith in grcatcrdetail
elsewherein the prescntdociiment (socthc Anncx ttoihi: presendocument).
246. Moreciver, the abr.tentioriof the French and United Kingdoni dcIc-
gaiions in thc votcon what becameresolution 264 (1969)dcrnonstratcdmainly
the dissent of thesetwo delcgations from concrctc steps foreshadowed inthe
resoIutionand no: to thei;uhçtanlivdecisions as expresscdin operativepnra-
graphs 1-6thcrwf. Thc rcpresenrativeof France expressed at thatstagesome
doiibtonwhetherthe kapueofNations rvouldhaveIiadthe poKtu7tea rdeprive
South Africa unilaterallyaf its Mandate. He did not, because of ttiidoubt,
vote against the draft rcsrjluiion. The representatiOF the Lnited Kingdoni

cxprcsscd theview that th#cours edriptedhy the Gcncral Assernblyin 1966
had been mistaken.This view did ncitIeadhim tovote againstresuIiirion264
(1969).

247. On 24 Jury 1969 itn crimmunication addressed tothe Presidcnt of the

Security C~auncilthe rcprtscntlitjveof the Stareswhich weremembers ~fthe
Lnitcd Nations CounciI for Namibia requsted that an urgcnt rneetirigof the
kurity Council be convenedin order thattheSecurityCouncil may considcr
"the situation resulting fralrntlie wholly ne~atireactionof South AfricrtIO
Surity CounciI resoIuticin264 (1969), and from thc mcrtsureç which it is
continuing to Iake indefianceof the autlioritof theSecurityCounciI and the
GeneralAsscmbly" (Dossieritem 82; S/9359). WRITTENST~TE~~E~Tor; TEIES~CKETARY~~ENFRAI. 179

Aubpriun ofScrcririfCuzrnci~Rfsoiution 269 (1969)

252. The SacurityCouricil, at its 1497thmeeting, adopted ar resoluri269
(1969)(Dossicr ilçrn108) the draft resolutionproposcd in document SI8384
and Add. 1.Therewerc '1 votesin filvournone against,and 4 abstentions,
namely Finland, France, ~heUnitedKingdoin and the Lniled States (Dossier
item 38; 1497thmtg., pp. 12-15).

Sutnninryof Yiew.7E.~pr~ssedin ihe Defiare

253. The repraentative ofCoioinhiustatcd thai the meetingof the Security
CounciI was the naturaI(onsequence of rewlution 264 (1969), particularlof
operariveparagraph 8 thtrcuf, by which the Council had decidcd that, inthe
event offailureon the part of Sourh Africa to cumply with the provisions of
resolution 264(1969), theSecurity Cvuncilwould meet irnrndiatelytcideter-
mine the necessarystepsor rncasuresinaccordancewiththerelevantprovisions
of the Charter (Dossier item 33: 1492nd mtg., p.12). The representativeof
ZumBiclstatedthat hisdelegationwas perturbedbythe fact thar, although Ihe
South AfricanCiovernrner.twas iiolongerthe dejrirgovernment withaüthority
to administcr Naniibia,it:,tcontinued tomake thcwvrkofthe EnitedNations
impossibleby refusing to Iethe UnitcdNationsCounciIforNarnibiadischarge
ifs duries. The represcnt:itivof Zarnbia stated that developmcnts made it
imperaiivethat theSecurityCounciIabandonits IastiIlusionsand admit thst
mare effectiverneasureswrre nccdd io solvethe problem of Namibiaonceand

for al[, ihat is, the applicaofoChaprerVII ofthe Charter (Dossieritem33;
1492nd rntg.pp. 14-18).
254. At the 1493rdmet:ting,rcferring to thi.epIyfromtheGovernmen tof
South Arrica cnntained in Annex I of the Report of the Sccrctary-Gcneral
(Dossier item 78; S392@+) ,he representittivc of Afgeristatedihrit Soulh
Africa was now contesring the juridicalbasisof the decisionsofthc Cnuncil.
1Ieassertedthat South Afiica'sactionswerea flagrantviolationof Article25of
the Charter.Atnong the i?roposaIshe made for action by the Council he in-
cludedthe proposal that ,-.demandmustbe addrewedto South Africa tolave
the Territorywithin a giwn tirne-lirnit.He alssuggestod thatan inviratifin
should be addressedto al1Stüies to denySouth Africaany nght to spcak on
hehalf of Narnibia(Dossi,:ritem34; 1493rdmtg. ,p.7, 8-10),
255. The representaiivcof iVEpaIpointc out tha~the Unitcd Nations in its

dealings with South Afrir:a, ovemore than two dccades, hadexhaustecl the
poxsibilitiesof persuasion.The aggriwcdparty inthe stiiation,creaiedby the
policy of the belligerencyof the Crovernrn efnSouth Africa was not just
anrithcrguvernmcnt ut-trw, but tlie whoie Unitcd Nations. Therc was, the
representativeofNepal st:ited, nodoubt whateverinthe minùsof hisdelegaiion
ihat thecontinuedoccupztion of Namibiaconstituied a threatto internalional
pcacc and sl~urity.In re.;ardio GeneralAwrnbIy rcsolufion2248(S-V). hr
said!bat it kid notbn supportcdbyfour permanentnicrnbersof the Security
Council (Dossier item 34; I493rdmtg., pp. 13-15, 16,17).
256. The representativ,:ofPukistoir statethat rwIutioir 264 (1969) had
constitütcd a major step forward inasrnuclias the ScciirityCoiincil had rec-
ogni7ed its responsibilityinthe questionvf Narnjbia.'Thccase of the inter-
natiuniiIcornrnunity-no: only of the people of Narnibia-againsi the Soutli
African Govemment ~or~stitutcda long Iist of acts in the nature of grave

transgressionsof intcrnaiicinalIaw, and hewent an to Iistfhese acts.South
Africa's replin documentSj92W rnadcitclear,beyond any shadow af doubt. i80 NAMIB[A (WGTII WESTAFRICA)

that South Africli would not alter its defianlattiiudc towards the rmolutions
of the Genr:raIAssenlblyand rhe Seçurity Council (Dossier item 34; 1493rd
rritg.pp. 21 to 26). , ,
257. The rcpresentativeof ltrdit'anon-mcmhr of thc Sccuriry Council,

recalledthat in 1967 (General AssernbIyresotution 2248 (S-V), sec. VI) rhe
GenneriA ilsambly hüddccidcdthat South West AFrica shouid beenabled tu bc
independentby June 1968. Witt1 referen~rt:othcstatcmcntsmade by theSouth
African Fo-xign Minister and the South AfricanI'rirneMiiiister (S/9204), the
rcprcscntü~ivc of Indiüsaid thatthe SecurityCouncil was faced witha situation
in which rimember Stace had defiantlyrefuscd io fuIfilits obligation undcr
Article 25 crfthe Charter. Inregard to futureaction whichthe CoünciI muid
indertakg, ihe reprcscniative of lndia men rioned a decision prohibi tingal1

dealings with South Africain so furas thcy rclütcd ta Nami bia; a ban on the
sale of arni:to Sou-t Africa ;the claiming by the legallyappointcdadminister-
ing authoriryof the revenue due ta itt"rornthe miningand other enterprixs in
Namibia ; theclainiing by the Unitcd Nations of indernni ties and rcparations
Frnni Soiith Arrica on account of tliedeprivations'and disposscssions of the
Nümibian riopulaiion (Dossieritem 34; 1493rdrntg. pli27, 31 to 33).
258. The rcpresentaiivcof C/zi/eaIso a non-meniber,pIeaded for rernedial
action by tlie SecurityCouncil (Dossiei item 34; 1493r dntg., p36).

-' 259. The representativeor filniid also pointed out that South Africa not
oniy had igiiored the rtxjucsisof the Criuncil huthad chosento chalIengethe
very righl of ihe Council tomakethem. Xt obvious tohim that agreement
could~not trcreached in the Securiiy Couneil on a proposal to rwrt to en-
forcenient iictiun under%haptcr VTI. In tbis .situion the Security Council
could bestdischarge iis responsibilitia by pvuceedingon ihc basis ofthe wide
agrwrnent which 'nadexisied in the Coiincil'onthis issue (Dossieritem 35;
1494th mtg., pp: 6 and 7).- - .. .

260. 'Ihe representatjveof Srncra/ wxq cocoiivincedhai ttiere was no oiher
way of dcaling with this matter than to apply the provisions~ofChapter'VII
{Dossieriteii135;'14Y4thmtg.,j>.I3). . . > * ' ,. - .
261. According ro the representative of the USSR, everything was trüns-
parent1y clcar; Svuth Africa did not -wis6 to wilhdrüw from-Namillia and
would nor -heed the resolutions of ihc Gcncral,AsscrnbIyand the Securily
C'ouncil(Ilossier item 35: 1494th'mtg.,'p.16).
261. Thc rcprcsentativeof Huii~.arysaid that iynoringthe clcar-cut decision
or the world Organization and disregarding world public opinion, the South

AfricanGnvernrnenrhad dwlarcd politicatwaron the United Nations (Dossicr
item 36; 1495th rntg., p3).
763. The representativeof Parqgitay said that the rra1question before the
Council ivas to decidc on the scope of the new ineasures to be adopted in
accurdiincc with the spirit andtlie Ietterof resolution 264(1969) in order to
ensurethe coiiipleteirripfemcntalion of that tesalufion. His defegariwas no1
unaivace of the political rcalitieswliich indicatedthaat present at Icast, the
possibiIilies of action opento the Securily Cuuncil were necessarilylirnited

{Dossier item 35;14951 hiy., p.7).
2&. Tlie representativc of Cirinueinphasi~ed ttiatthere had bccn viriual
unanirnity *>fopinion that the mntinued i1IegaIoccupation or Namibia by
South hfnra -niust k brought co an cnd..lnthe prcscnt casc itmwasobvious
that thefuIIand whoIeheartcd subport of thoseWesterii powers ihat wert:ina
special posiiion to make significant contributionsto enForcement action \vas
not forthcoining.Insuchcircurnsianccs.thc Council, should itdccide tnapply WRLTTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECR~.T(TARY-GENFRAL 183

271. The invocation of Articlc25 ofthe Charter, the characterizaiionof the
continu& occupation of Kaniibia by South Africras constitutingan aggrcssivc
encroachmcnton theatithxity of the United Nations, and the settirof a time-
Iimit for the withdrawal nfthe South African adminisiration frorn thc Tcr-
ritory arc arnong the ncv, clernents which rcsoluiion 269 (1969) introduced,
heyond those which had been included inearlier SecurityCounciI and tieneral
Piçseinblyresolutions.

IX.PROCEE~IN LGF.AD~G TO SFCLRITC YOUNCIL RESOLUTIU 27K5 (1970)

272. On 26 Janutiv I9'!0 in a wrnrnuniu~i~ii addressed tothe Presidcntof
the Security Council.the representatives of 57 States h4ernbersof the United
Nations requested,with i-eferenceto paragraph 6 of Security CounciI rcso-

lution 269 (1969),that thc kurity Councilbe ccinvened, oiian urgent basis,
in order toexamine the k-.ilureof the GovernmcntorSouth Africa to comply
wÏih rhe Ietteand qpirior thatresoIution and in particulürivithilspiiragrriph
4 {DOSS~C itcm 92; S!96 16and Add. 1 -3).

273. 'l'hSecurity Couricil considered the quesiion ai iis 1527G-to 1529th
nirelings on 28, 29 and 30 January 1870 (Dossier itenis39 to 41 ;1527th to
1529th rntg~.).

Docunienrs &fore theSecrtritjCoioiinril

274. The documentsbchrc theSecurityCounciI in this crinnection includcd

a report suhmittd to the kuriiy Councii on 3 Oclober 1969bythesecretary-
Gcncral pursuiint to opcriitivc piiriipr9pof SecurityCouncil resoIiition169
(1969 ) hichhad reqi~estedtheSecretary-Gerieratlo Cnllow close1ythe inipls
mentation of thatresoluiion and io repart to lhr:Securitg CounciIas .won as
possible(Dossieritem88; 51946a 3nd Add. 1-7).Anncx I of the report repro-
duccdthe replydüted26 Seplember 1969 of tIieMinisterof ForeignAffairs of
the Kepublic of South Afrisa ro the Secretary-GcncmI'stelegrrrm of 12August
IY69conv~ying to tIiMiiiister of Foreign AiTairsthetcxtof SecurityCouncil
rcsoluiion269 (1969).An c:xtensivcannexure tothe Minisrer'sreplycontaincda

detailed descriptionof thi:administration, thç ewnoniy, scientificand tech-

: The Security Council,in paragraph6 or resolution769 (1969f, decidedthat in
thccvcnt oflaiIurc on thp;irof the SouthAfricen Gciuernment Iocoinplyivitlthe
provisions orIhc prcccding paragraph ofthe rcsciluiiothe SecurityCouncitwiIl
mcct immdiatcIyio dctcr,ninc upon cffcctivc rnrasureitaccordance with the
approp~iatcprotrisionof th: rclcvanchaptcrsofriieUnited Nations Charter.Para-
graph 5 of the restiIutioncallupon thcGoycrnnienlof South Africa to ivithdraw
itsadministrationrrom the lkrrirory imrncdjatclyand iany casebefore4 Octnber
1969.
The Securiry Counçil,in paragraph 4 tir~çolution269 {1969) r,cognized the
legitimacyof tlistruggle othepeople oCKamjbia againstthe ilIegalpresenceof thc
South African authoritics itheTerritory. WRITSES SIAIFMENTOF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 185

It liraagrecd that theAr!HucSub-Cornmitteewuiild consist of al1mernbcrs
of the Sixurity Council(Dossier item 40; 1528th mig.,para.7).
278. The representativeof Finland, introducing draft resoiolutionS/9620,
emphasizcd thai ihe texu.as a provisionalone.The crucialquestion conçerned
ihe use of coercivc measuresiinder Chapter VI1 of the Charter.The division
of opinio nn tbatquestinrisocnicdto b irreconci[ableatleastforthe present.
It wasof paramount itriportar~cte preserveand strcngthenthe authority and

efrectiveiiesoftheSecurit:~Council. neforeinvoking ihe provisionsofChapter
VII, th<:Securi- Chunci[ ;hould makc suretIiat its dwisions couldin fact be
carriedout sinilthatitswillcouIdbe made tuprevail.'I'hepurposc of Ihçdrafi
resolution was to explore rhe possibilities of practicaI ~wkion.Isought to
define the ara ofagreenii:ntbetwcen thc grcalrnajorityof members andpur-
posely avoided thvsc issueswliicl!tended to dividethe Council. The point of
dcpariure was thatsince tlic Mandate of South Africa hud been ternlinatedby
CIencraIAssernbIy resofutinn 2t45 (XXL), thccontiriucdpresenw of the South
African authoriticsin Yurnibia was illegal andconscquentlyal1acts takcn by
thc GuvetnmentofSouth.\Fria onbehalf of or mnc~rning Nainibia after the
termination of the Mandate were illegal and invalid. That fact musr havea

numberof implicationsfor any governrnent dealing inone way or anothcr with
thc Guvçrnrrient of South Africa. The pracrica1appIica;ltioor the injriiiction
addresed toüI1States to refrainfrom any dealingswith respectto Namibia
recognizing any right of tlie Govcrnment of SoutIiAfrica to acton khaif of
Naniihia hüd nut yetbeen suficiently investigatcdand thc sponçurs lherefore
proposed the appointmeni of a cornmitte that shouId study theseproblems
(Dossier item 39;1527th mg., psrüs. 17-45).

Allopfioiof :irt.ilri!y C.-oK/esohirion 276(1970j

279. Thc Sccuriiy Coun:il at ts 1529thmeetingon 30Januirp 1970adopted

as resoIution276 (1970) the draftresolution (S:'9620/Ilev. 1). Thcre wcre 13
votes in favour. none agiiinst, and twu abstentions, narnelyFrance and thc
United Kingdorn(Dossier item 41: 1529th mtg., para. 184).

280. 'ThefolIowingparagraphsconrain refercnccs to stüternentmade in the
course of the discussionirithc Swurity Council which rnay 'neconsidercdas
reflectiny thviews of inei-nberStatesun the quetions now-al isst~e.
281. The statemenrmade by the representativcuf fibrid in introducing
drafr resolurionS19h2Oat (he 1527thmeetingof theSecurityCouncil is refcrrcd

to inparagraph 278 above.
182. The representativeofZaml~iu criminentedon the coinmunicationfrom
rhc Soiith African Foieijgi Minister, wliichwas annexed to the repartof the
Secretary-Gcneral indocument S/946a3 nd Add. 1-2 (Dosuicritem88). He also
obseri.edthatover the pas!few years Western countriesaiidtheWwtcrn niajor
Powcrs in particularhad adopted an incrixisingly iiegaliveattitude towards
issuesconccrningSvutherrlAfrica. He conlpued Ihisçituationwilh thestand of
certainEuropeün Govemments which advocated theexpulsio ofnGreece from
lhc Council of Europe, and asked whcther oppressionwas objectionable only
tvhen thevicrirnswcrcof I!uropan stock. Fact-finùing was rnorcellèctivethan
fault-finding.and lie expressedthehope rhairhe draftresolutioi~would cnable

the CounciI to ntove forv:ar idthc warch for a solution to thisdangcrous
probIcm (Dossier iletn 39; 1527thmtg., paras45-71). the CounciI had alled upcinSouth Africa towithdraw itsadministration from
Namibia immediately and in any case kfm 4 Octuber 1969. IIawever,that
datc had passed, as Iiaal!;othat ofJune 1968,set by the GcneraI AssetnbIy in
resoIution 2248 (S-V) callirig for the decolonizativof the Territory.South
Africa had not taken the kasr steps to fulfilitsineIuçtable ohIigations.The
most important problem!lieSEcurityCouncilhad ta facewas ihe standof the
memberStates that rcfused to takeintu accounl ihe resolutionsof thc main
bodies of thc Uriited Nations, thus hurling the gravcst of alchallenges that
thc world organitarion ha1.to confront, siiiŒ they afiècfethcOrgani-aiion's
very reason forexistcncc. 'TheSpailishdelegaiion wouldhave preferred a draft

resolution mort: sommen:;urate with the principlesfhat had been vioIated
(Dossier item40; 1528thrtitg., paras.135-143).
789. The repre.wntativc of Po/airdcornrnented that SouthAfrica's volumi-
nous reply to resolutioi~259 (1969) had trieto dilutethe ncgativeanswe rf
South Africa ina maze of "Iegal" argunicnt; but thessence nfthat rcply was
stila practicaj, curt "No"to thc categoric injunctions of the Security Council
contained initsrcsulutiot269 <1969 )ust asithad been to Gcneral Assemhly
resolution 2145 (XXT) an3çiibsequent rwIutions. The CounciI ws façing
not a mere act of passivenonampliance with itsdecision, but an aggresivc
action ofa Stateairnedat corisolidatingits annexatioof another country. The
representativor Poland statcdthatthe texf ofthe draFtresolutionaqsübrnittcd
atthe 1528thmeeting had hrought itnprovenients to the originallext.In spite
of ~ertainshortcomings oiihe draftresoluiion,hc was ready tosupport it{Dos-

sier item 41; 1529thmtg.,paras.4-27).
290. The representativeof ihc UtiirrdKiwdom stated it was unnecessaryto
repxatin detail his Govcniment's position which was suffIcientlywelknown:
enjoyrncnt of realself-detcrmination and indcpzndence by the peopleof South
West Africa; forfeirure by South Africa'ofthe rightoadrninister the Mandate;
repumance at aspects of the South Africanadministratioii such as the Ièr-
rorism Actand trials under that legislatiAt.the same timt, the UnitedKing-
Jum hadconsistcntly drawn attentiontu~hepraçlicalcansideratiuns and to the
need for the United Nations toact onIy within its capabilities. South Africa
was in faccontrollit~the'rerritory. The actioiheUnitcdKingdom could take
waslirnited;it wasno1ab11 :ocontcmplate action which wouId rapidlytum in-
to econornic warfare agairisiSoutli AfricaAs the basis ofthe new &art reso-
liition (SJ952O!Rcv.1) layin the eulier rewIutionson which the United King-

dom had already abstaimdin the past,hc could notsupport the draft resoiution.
I'arrigraph5 of the draft rcsolutiseerned to ignoresvme of thecircumstanm
to which hc had rererred. l'hAdlfoc Siib-Corninitteepropmed in paragraph 6
of the draft resolution shîiuld noIE lirnitd to making reconirnendationsfor
Chapter VI1action (Dossicr item 41 ;1529th mtg., paras. 28-33).
291. The rcpresentative ofChim recaIled that his delegarionhad votcd for
resolution 2145 WXI) alid expresscd his profound regret that the United
Nations hadken prevcntcd from exercisingits funciions in Nainibia.Therewas
na significantdiflereiicO;opinion on the fact Iliatlieadamantly unco-opera-
[iveattitiide on the part of SthAfrica warrant ctrong censurc bythe world
cornmunity, birtdifferenccsdid ariçeas tohow the Secunty Council could txst
discharge ilsresponsibilitl.. Further stuand expIoration mighrbe uscful He
ihereforewelcorned -thepr->posa1to set upan Ad Hoc Cotnmittoc (Dossieritem
41 ;1529Ih rntg., paras. 4-50).
292. Thc xprrsentative of Colombierstated that ontynieagreresults had beeir

achievedafterproIonged etyortsin the maiter of Narnibia. 'tï-~cfrortshad nrit
howeverbeen sterile. Colr~mbjawould support the draft resolution because itwished to leaveno stone untümed to wrry out al1efforts that mightdirectly or
indirectly Iead toa settlemmt of rhe situation in Namibia CDossicritem 41;
1529rh mlp.,paras. 51-56).
293..Th< rep~sentative of Frunccrecalled that hisGoverninent viewed the
poIicy follorvedbythe South African Government in South West Afrjca with
tIicsaine siiv~ritasihc rcprcscntstivcs of thccountrics of that continent.As
stated carIier,however, France had reached difierentconclusio abosut thc
mertsuresici be taken locause the aiithoritics of South Afrito crase ignoring
the ubliga:üiionsundcrtakcn inthe Mandate Agreement of 17 Lkcember 1920.
He poinredout that the South African Foreign Mjnister'sletter staied ihciihc
poIicy ofcreatingautonomous areaswould be continued dcspite thecondemna-

tions of ihitpolicy.It was ta befcared that the successiveresoIutions adopted
over a period of years liad not fuIIachieved iheirobjectives. Onc ~nightcvcn
wonder whetherthe posilions takcn by the GcneralAssernblyand the Security
Cvuncil hüd not scrvcd as a pretext forthe Government of South Africa to try
To justifytheregrasive legislalionithad opplied siriw 1967.Althriuyh thc tcat
before the Councii was pIaccd in a legalframework about which the French
deIegation had alwaysexpresçed reservarionsand which ittherefore could not
support. it welctimod with synipathy thc spiritof moderation that the United
Nations, tktrough a rcrilistic appraisalof the situation, couIdcontribueffec-
tively to thesolution of the very dificiiIt problem of which the CounçiI was
seized(Dossier iicm 4 1; 1529th mtg., paras.57-69).
294. Ths reprawntati ofeItrrliua non-metnber of the Security CounciI,

exprcssedthe view tha tthe CounciI mct ~indcrthe shadow of South Afrim's
continued dl-francc.He ssid that by itsrefusa1 to fulfil its obligations mder
Arricle 25 of theCharter,South AfricaIladforfeited aIIrights and priviIeges of
mcmbership ofthe Organization. He suggestcd thatrheSwurity Councildecide:
tÎrstIy, ihat mcmbcr States shouId take effeciive sstepto prevent the flriw oF
arms and other rniIitoryliardwareto Soutli Africa; secondIy, thal al1States
muçi rake siritable measures to s~op fresh investment in Kamibia by thcir
iiationalsor privatc cornpünics registered under their Iaws asIong as South
Africa continuedits illesa1occupation of Nainibia; thiidty,toaskal1States tn
ensure thai theircornpanies and natianals operating inNarnibipaaid ihe taxes
and kvies for such operations not tn the South African régime but to the
United Nations Council for Namibiu; fourthly, Iorequestnienikr Statesto

discontinue recognition of twvel dociiments issuebythe SoiithAfricanGovern-
ment in50 Faras thcy pertained to the citi~ens of Namibia, and to tapositive
steps to cxtend recognition to trnveland visa docu~ncn:nt ssued on behaIf of
the ljnited Nations; fifthlyUnited Nations Menibers shouIdbeasked to givc
fui] IegaI effoct to the United Nations' termination of South Africa's
Mandate by aatpossibIe muns (Dvssicr itcm 41; 1529th rniy.paras. 75-84).
295. The delegatiun of11;icaragitstated atthe1527thmeetingthat the deci-
sions or ihc Sccurity CounciI had to be unreservedlyacceptedand cnmplied
with. Since the SecuriiyCounciI aci~vi in acconlancc with the puipows and
principlescifrhc Charter,it might be understood thar its extraordinrirpowers
under the Chartcr constituted obligations rather than rights and that thc~e-
fore the SccurityCouncil did not have ttbsvlutt suvereigntyItdid enjoy sover-
cign rights in lhe investigationof any.dispute or üny other sitiiation which

mighi lead to international frictioor give riseto a dispute (13oçsier item 39;
1527th mtg., paras. 88,89) A.i ihc 1529th mcciing thc dclegationofNicaragua
agrced witli the piirpvrtof draft remlution Si9620/Rcv. 1.The reprexnrative
of Nicaragua added that his delestion had slightobjections pariicularly to
what was %id in paragraph 1 of thc Jraft rcsolutionin which the CounciI WH1 II'£&ST.1I'EMESTOPTt16 SECRETARY-GEKF.RAL 189

pronounces ilselon the validityof thenieasuresadoptedby Soiith Africa since
the terntinationof theM:.ndate, covcring bot11politicaIand rncrelyadniinis-
trativcactsIn the opinionof rhedeIegatioriof Nicaragua.the consequenccs of
the illegal acrivities-ofSoütli Africashoulddciçrrnined in the lighrof both
domesticand intcrniitionülIaw hythe courts of Namibiaancc ihc:rule oflaw
had been cstablishedcher*:,or by judges or arbitersselectedhy the parties
affwkd by the illegacls ofSouth Africa.Howeverthe Nicaragtiandelegatian
wauld not object ta theseaspects ofthe form ofthe draft resoIutionsinceit
agreedwiih ils substance(Dossicr item41; I529~n hitg.paras.86,871.
296. I'he rcpresentativeof Pd-isirrnappealed tu the Coiincil tn adopt a

strictIybusiness-likç appruacto the problern.The CounciIhad alreadydis-
poçedof thc Icgalissuesinvlilvccihequestionof Narnibia; noriewsrudies\rrcre
nmded beyond Ihe oneswlich Iiadaireadyken made. 'I'hcrime had cornenow
forsuitableaction. TheAsi;in-Africanmcrnbw StatesIradproposed actionunder
ChapterVI1 oftlreCharte]'. ivcn theeconornicand poiverrealita ietionby
thc Asian-AfrimnStates alone wuId hardlm yakcany changein thesituation.
The responsibi wlasthcrcfareon the othcc mernberStates, particularlythe
permanentmenibers of th.Sacurity Council, to corne forwardwith concrete
proposaisof thcirown.Tb: permanentmembersshouldconstiltmch other and
reporttheiragreedconclusio o theSecurityCouncil(Dossier itcm 41; 1529th
rntg.,paras. 121-124).
291. The representarjveof Syia referredcriticaIIto the Ilow of arrns to
South Africa which had bd to the increasingobdura~y of the South African
rkgirne;healso stated thattherc had ken CO-operation in ihe malter of the

delivcryofarms ktwecn fiouthAfria and Israeland ilicversa (Dossier itcni
41;1529thrntg., paras. 127-135).
298. The rcpresentativeofBitrutdicomrnented that thetrend in the Council
to shirkits responsibilitiseçnie now to be turning intoa rra!poiitical doc-
irine thatcould well bc tht:doctrinof theostriçh.Througb thenew rcsoIution
the Security Council interidedto rcmovean);ambiguity and to take up the
chailcnge firesurncthc cxcrciseof itsrightsand rehübilitateiiself by rehabili-
tating mankind(Dossier item41; 1579th rntg.paras. 148, 149).
299. The rcprcsentaiiveofthe UnitedSrures,inexpiaininyhispositive vote
on ihc Jraft resolution, comrnentedon paragraph 5 which called upon a11
States,parricularlythose which had mnomic and other in terestsin Nciinibia,
to refrainfram any dealin;:5withthc Goveriiment uf South.4fricriwhich fiese
inconsisttntwitho~rativc.paragraph 2 ofthe draftrcsolution.He calledaricn-
!ion tothe fact that thecri<erionestablishedin paragra5 was consisicnt with

paragraph2, ~hiçh hadthceffet of rmfirining the illegalityorSouth Africa's
continued occupationof Nxnibia. Such acriterionwouldobvioiislynot exclude
such acts asproteststo th=South AfricanGovcrnnlent concerningituactions
in the Territory,nor would the Uniied States delegation takç it toprwlude
actions nimed at the prorection of citizens of United Nations Membcrs or
tlierightsof Namihiansth~:msclvesw, hich rnighgt enccessitated by the con-
rinuedillegal conlrol exmi-wd by SoutliAfrica(Dossier itcm 41; 1529thrntg.,
paras. 155, 156).

300. SacurityCounciI resolution276 (1970)wasadopted by 3votw to nonc,
with 2 abstcn~ions.Finland and the United States,which had ahstained inthe
yote on resohtion 769(J!)69), voted in favour of remlution 276 (1970).The

delegaiionsof Franceand the unitcd Kingdoin express& at thcmeetingswhichledio theadoplion of rcsolution276 (1970t)hepositionslhey hadalso tnken on
earlier wcasions which had beeiifavourablc tothe support of the self-deter-
mitiatioriof Nariiibiaandcipposcdto the pojiqofthe creationbySouth Africa
of auiunornuus areas in Namibia. The represenrative ofthc United Kingdom
again coiifirrnedtheattitudofhisGovcrnnienttnwards the ivholeprobltinand
his Goverriment'sconcurrencein the proposition IhatSolith Arrica hüd for-
fcitod thçright toadniinisrerthe Mandate.
301. In tlie present coritext,opcratiparagraph 2, dcclarii~çtlie continucd
presence ofthe South African riuthoritieinNamibia io beillegal,and thecal[
upon al1States to refrainfroin anydcdings with tireGovernment of Soiith
Africaiiicr)nsistetwith ihipropositionare of particiiIarrelevanceBy rcsolu-

tion 276 (IQ70t)he Council also took the irnporlant decision to cstablishthe
Ad Hoc Siib-Conimitiee.
302. It shorilbe noted that rcwlution 276 (1970) wasnot oiily recalltdand
reaffirmed, res.peçtivclinthe preaiiibleor rcsolutions 283 (1970) and 284
(I970) but thatit is referredtoin operative paragraph 1 of resoluiion 284
(19701,which wntains the rcqucst of the Security CounciI for an advisory
op~nion on the legal consequencesforStatesof ihccmtinued preiencT of South
Africa inN ami bia.no!a:irhstuirdiSec~ir'itCo~rricresoluriotz276(IY70 )

Reqwst for a :Meetinguj'h Securiiy Coiincii

303. On 72 JuIy 1970in ü communication addresseclto the Prcsidcntof the
Security Council the repfesentativsor Burundi. Finland, Nepal, SierraLeone
and Zarnbia, the c&sponsors of SecurityCouiicil resolution 275 (1970) of
30 Jaiiuary 1970 ,tyucstcd that a meeting of the SocurityCouncilbccon-
ventidlo rcsumeconsideiatioii of the q~~cstioof hkmibia (Dossier item 102;
S19886).
304, Thc rcprcscntativesstated in rheircommunicütion that in rcsolution
276 (1970) thcSeciiritConncil had dcçidcd. among fithermatters, toestablish
an Ad Hoc SukC:omrnirteeof the Council 'to study,in consultation with the
SecretaryA3eneral.ways and nieans by which the rdcvant resolu~ions of the
SwuriIy Council,including resolution 276 119701 could beeffectivelyimple-
mented in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Charter. The

recomrnenciiitiunsof theAd Hor Sub-Cornmittecwere io bç submitted ta the
Security Csuncil.
305.Th$:representativesaIsorcferrcd intheircoiiimunicationto the Securiiy
Council'sf urihcrdocision, innmrativeparagraph9 of resolution 276 (19701,fa
resuniecorisiderationofihequesiionof Namibiaassoonas therecommendations
of theAd I-locSubCornmiI tec weremadeai7ailabIeT . heAd Ilor:SnbCommit-
tee hadno-& submitted its reportto theSecurityCoiinci[.

306. The SecurityCouncilconsideredthe qucstion ai ils1550th meeting on
29 July 19'10<l)ossier item8).

Thc Ali Hoc Sub-Cornmittee was composed of al1 members of the Seçurity
Cvunci t.Kcporr f #Re Ad Hoc Sub- Conimirtee

307. The documents bcfr~rc thc SccurityCouncil inthisconneciion included
the report, dated 7 July 1970,ofthe Ad Hoc Sub-Coinniirreeof the Council
(Dossi etrnl101; Si9863, Corr. 1and Add. I/Rev. 1)Chaptcr I of thc rcport
referred tothe termsof rcfircncr of the SubCominittee; Chapter IIcoi~tained
a review of ttiworkof theSub-Cornmitle; Chapter III sel outthe recomnien-
dations of the Sub-Cornmittee.
308. Annexes 1, II and III to thc report set out tlte replies receirredby the

Sub-Coinm itee froni goï~ernineitts,inter-~overnnie ta1 organi~ations and
United Nations bodiw iri response to inquirics from thc Sub-Committce.
Additional repliefrom go-fcrnmcntsarecontained in docunrent S/9863jAdd.
IIRev. 1.
309. The procoeding ofs the Ad Hoc Sub-Comrnittcc arc containcd in
document.. S]AC. 17/SR. 1-17 (Dossicr itenis1 to7, and 12to 21). Attention is
drawn to ihe statementsmade by membersor Ihe Ad Hoc Sub-Cornmittee ar
its 17thmeeting,expressin;< certain reservations.Th- stütcmcntsarc also set
our inAnnex IV of the report ofthe Sub-Corninittee.

3t0. A draft resoiution sponsored by the delegations of BitrrrhdiEïnfmd,
!V~p,alS,ierruLeone and Z~nihiu was subniittcd to the Swurity Counçil al its
1550tm heeting on 29 July 1970{Dossier item 103; S/9891),
31i. Thedraît resolutiori,which was latcradopted by the Securi ty CounciI
as resoIution283 (1970),rctlcctedthefollowing recommendationsof thcAdHoc
Suk(:amrnittee of the Coiincil: rocommendations 1, 2, 3,4 !a),ch) (c) and
(rij, 6,7, Y((1and (f~), IOand 1 I'.11also refected thelasttwo paragraphsof

ChapterIII of the Sub-Cornrnittee's report.

(ii)Drrdi resuluiiair S!PS!JL,

312. A di-aftresolutiosponsored by thedelegatianof finland was also sub-
niitted to the SecurityCoiincilat its 1550thrricetiron 19 July 1970 in docu-
ment SJ9892. Thc draft rcsolution, which was lütu adoptcd by rhe Security
Council as resolution 284 (1970 Dossier ireniIl), was bawd on reconirncn-
dation 5 of tlie Ad Ifuc Sub-Committcc, narnçly the possibility of requesting
an advisory opinion from thc Iniernatioi~ülCourt of Jusricc on theIegalcon-
sequences forStates of the coiitinued presenceof South Africa inNami bia:.

Kcconinicndation 8 of1ticAd Hor Sub-Cornmitteercferred tothe possihiliry of
the Swurity Counçil rçüffirniinircal1 upon al1Statesto waw foiilhivitii tsale
and shipmenl ciarms, cirnni~.ni~i. ilitarvehiclesand materialfor the ~nanufac-
ture[ifürms and amrnunitioriio Soulh AfricaOn 23 July 1910tlie Secur~Councjl
consideredtlie questioof tacecoiifliinStiuih Africa resultifrom thc policiw OF
aparriirid andadoptcd rcsoiuiion f1370)in which ircaffirrncilcnrliermolutiun
on thearms embargo, condc~nnedirsviolaliotis, andcalrcduponStatcsto strengthtn
it. [Jt wibe notcd that rhesixth prcambularparagraphof rcsolution 283 (1930)
rcafitms lescilution 28(IY7O).]
Kesoluiion 284 (1970) oi the Securiry Councisdeait with isectionXI ol tlie
present docunient. 313. Th: Security Co~incilaIitst550tli meeting on 29July 1970,adaptcd the
draftreçoil.ttiSi9891 as remlution 283 (1870)(Dossieritem 1 IO)T.here were
13votw in favour and noneagaiiist,with 2 abstentions(Frdncc and the Enited
Kingdotn) (Dos5ier item 8; 1550t htg.,para. 155).

314. Th12following paragraphs mnrain rcfcrcnccs to stntemeiitsmade in tlie

discussion:; of thc Swurity Council pertaininto resolution 283(1970).
315. Introducing driift resolutiunSj9891 the r~presentat of Beuruiidsaid
thar a confiagraLionofunforeseeabIe dimensions was inpreparatiutiin southern
Africa. Thc tcxt proposxi by ~hesponsors had, Iresaid, certain weaknesses
deriving froiiia situatithnt was weIlknown. Thedraft resolution was inspircd
by rht mainiines of the repartof the Ad Hoc Sub-Cornmittee. The unanimoa~
adoption cbthe draft rwluiion would be the IogicaI crowningof the cornmon
cndeavou (r ossieritem 8; 1550thmtg., paras. 20, 31, 32).
316.-Thereprrsentative of Finhildsaid thatthe various steps proposed in ilie
draft resblution flowi dircctlyironi the key provisions of SecrirityCounciI
resolulion 276 (1370). 'I'hesedeclared that the çonlinued prewnce ofSouth
Africü in Namibiü was iilegaandcalled upon a11Statcs io refrainfrom any

dealings \vih South Africirinconsisteni ivith this. Tlie draft rcsoIutiontrans-
lated ihost:declarations into practical ternis.set out a cornprehemive pro-
gramme or acfion which, once jthad been carricd out, would substantially
increaqeinternational prmurc on Soulh Aîrica with regard to Namibia. He
addcd thaithe draftresolutioiifellfashort of the wishes of sonieof the rnern-
bers of rhc SecurityCoiinci[and that,of murse, ihis could notbe the end of
United Nations efforts to dischargc its rcsponsibility towards Narnibia and its
pwpIe. Those effortsiiiiiçbe sEn as a continuvusproms of ever-increasing
internatiorialpressure.The two draft resoliitio(Le.,those which subsequently
becarne resolutions283 (1970) and 284(1970)) forrnedtogether a programme of
action which rcprcscniedsignificantprogrc3 in the Council'elforts to helthe
neo~le of Namibia tu achievc self-deterniinarion and indc~cndcnce to which
ihei, like al1atherpeopIes, werc entitlcd(Dossieriteii8; i550th mtg., paras.

36.37. 431.
31.7:T6c represcntativeoC SierrrlLeone,Nt!paf and Cotombiasupported tlie
draft resalutinnforthereason that it rnightleadinsomervay tnwards a solution
or thcsitriaiionandbecaus ierepresenteda rnodjcum of progres. The represcn-
tativeofNepal addcd that rhe drdt resolution crintaincd many positive and
novel features Iacking in prcvious .rcsoIutionsIn addition to providing for
coniplete non-recognition by Stats of the authority of Sourh Africa ovcr
Namibia and termination of al1 existinç relations with South Africa in so
far as thnw relations pertaind to the international Terri torythe kiirity
Council, underthe draft resolution, would caIIupon Srates not onIy ta ensurc
that their rtational companieceaçedallpresent or futurecomrncrcial, industrial
and conce!;sionaIenterpriscs in Namibia butalsvto withhoId protecrion olany
such investmentsagainst claims of a futureIawfirlgovernment af Namibia.

Those provisions werelargelybas4 upon the stem that had bmi takenrecently
by the C;o*;ernmentof the Unitcd Stütcs.The provisions fora dcraiIcd study of
aIIbilnter;land rnultilateratreatiesto which South Africa was a party and
which rniyht beconsidered to appIy10 the 'I'erritory of Narnibia wereincludcd
so fhat the resuItsof the studymighi assist States-ifindeed açsistance were needed-in theirnplemcntarionof Unitcd Nations resolutions on Nami bia.An-
other novel anc iignifiantfeatureof thejoint draft resolutjowas that underit
'theSocurityC:ouncilwould rerluesi theUnited Nations CounciI TorNamibia io
make ovaiiable to tlie Security Council ilstudy atidproposais regardin not
onIy passportsand visasf c Natnibians for traveIabroad, but also rcyulations
gnveming the travelto h'ainibia ofthe citizensofother Stcitcs.The represcnfa-
iive ofSyriudidnot belitth:thescope of thc measurescontemplatedin thedraft

rcsoluiion,but beIievcd th:it nothiiig shoof drasriçmeasuresin the fortnof
effective sanctions provideci by the Charter uloulddeter thc Government OF
South Africa from itsthrusrinro the political and hutnaiirightsof the Africans
and the terriloriai integrity of iheir lands {Dossieritcm 8; 1mtg.,para. 44
to 98).
318. Thc represenia~ivc of Znmbia st.aiedthat the Ad Hoc Sub-Comniittw
couId not have obtained hetter results under ihe dificult circunistancesin
whichit operated.'rhercpç-rLiistcdanumberof meawres which werewithin the
reach of evcry Guveriimeiit 10 take in ordcr to apply pressure on the Saut h
Afrjcan Governmcni to bring an end 10 its illegril occupation of Naniibia,
The refusa1 of South Africa to comply with StsCurityCouncil and General
Asçemblyresolutionspertainir~g tathewithdrawal of that country fromNarnibia

was probably the mvst çeiiouu thrcat ever wsed to thevery existence or the
United Nations as an effective instrument for the maintenance of international
peaceand securityWhiIe, -3fcourse, the racial and colonial policies pursued in
southcrn Africa by Soufh~bfrica,Rhodesia and Portugal wereas objcctionablr
as those pursiied by SouthAfrica in Naniibia, one wriuld havc hoped thüt it
wouId be possible to secuse a greater amount of support for nreasures to he
rakento freeNrt~nibia byceasonof Ihe United Nations direct responsibiIiifor
Namihia. The freeing of TLmibia was the direct respnnsibility of the United
Nations and ofal1memkr States;itwas not soIcly an Africanconcern(Dossier
item 8; 1550thrntg., paras. 101, 102, 103).
319. Therepresentative of Spin emphasized chatthere had bccn a brcach of
international Iawasaresulior thepresenceof SouihAfrica iitNarnibia and as a

result of faiIurto cornplywitha =ries of resoIutions, incIudingrcsoIution 269
(1969) of the Security Council calling for the irnmediatewithdriiwalof South
Africa from thar Tcrriiory More 4 Oktober 1969. If there wereadded to that
illega1situation the façt 1ha.tfhcGovernmenro.fSoulh Africa had bccn practis-
ingin the Territorythe unanj~nouslycondcmnd policy ofoprilieid, it would bc
founù that in addition to a violationof international Iaw. therehad been a
violation ofmoral laivand of theprinciplesof the Charter.Inthe opinion ofthe
Spanisli delegarion,the joint draf~resolurion was a pnsitivc stcpof obvioiis
importance in thc directiaiilaid downinresoiutions urbbth the CieneraAxqeni- a
bIyandtheSecurityCounciI.The Spanishdelegation, uohiIesttpportingthedraft
rcsoluiion,entcred a reseriratioto operative paragraph7 nf the joint draft

resolution forit fclt lhajirridicsa pelkying itwüs unnwsary (Dossier item
8; 1550th rntg. paras.113,114.115).
320. The representativc of the USSR said thatinasmuch as South Africa
rcFusd ro Ieave Naniibia .xhat waç needed was to achieve a cesrarionby ihe
Western Powers of politicai, rniIitary and economic assistancro South Arrica
becauseit was a country wliiçhvioIated the Charter of the Unitcd Nations. The
Soviet Union hsd repeatedly stressedthe need for active measuresto he iaken
hy thc Security Councii aridthc Genenl Assernhlywhich would indeed exert
pressure on South Africa aiidforceitto complywith the decisionsof the Cniled
Nations on thcquestion O:*Namibia, and pavc thc way for a settlernentof thc
Kamibian problem in 1he iiitcrwtof thepeople of Namibia. The Soviet delega- stcpswhichit intended to ktketo dism~iraçe investtnenthy itscitizensin Nami-
bia and ta deny creditguarantees and othcr assjstüncr: for irade with that
Territory. #Iis delegation:vas gr~tified to notethat the economic mcasiires
which Siatcswere cal~edupon t6 rakein opzrative paraçraphs 4 rhrouçh 7 of
tlie resojutiocontaincd in document S/9891 wcrc consistent with and in fact,
he believed, reflectethe pnlicy already eriuticiatedand being impleinented by
hjsGovcrnmcnt. In hjs delegatiori'view, suchsteps conçtitureda nleaningful

contribution to tlie CounciI'sefforts tn deaI effectively ivith thc problcnr of
Namibia. In regard ta parrigraph 2,the UnitedStates Gnvernmentcontinued
tnmaintain thar Mcrnbcr Cioverrrrnentsn~ust be free totakeappropriate action
10pratect their own citizersand to assistthe pmple of Kainibia. The United
States rcpr15cntative also maintaincd ceriuin reservaiionsniade on earlier
occasions (Dossicr itcm 8; 1550th mtg., par& 163-168).
373. The representative of Fi.an<:cixplaining his abstention inthc votc on
thejoint riraftrwoIurion Sp891, rcpcal~d theviewsexpressed by the French
delegation an thecürlicr rcsolutiuns: disapprovat of the extension of a discri-

minatory and repressive pdicy to a Territory with internationa1 status; this
policy to ix çontrary to thespirit of ihc Mandate whichdidnot corne to anend
with the disappcarancc uf tlie Lcague of Nations:doubi about the power of thc
UnitedNations ~nilateratl!~ todepriveSourh Africa of the Mandate. II wouId
seempreferable in rhis dific:uand cornplexmatter, and in viewofthe fact ihat
the soundness ofthe icga Iosition Iiadna:beeiiunqucstionabIycstablished,not
[O engage the authority oftlie Uniled Nations ina courseofaction whichin the
püst had proved Iikelyto lad to an impussr:(Dossier item 8; 1550th mtg.,
paras, 175, 176, 177, 181).
324. The representativeof thc Uded Kihfidon~who hsd aiso übsiaineù iithe

vote, statedthat his dclega~ion'sbasicposition uri boththe legd and the prac-
tical aspects afthe question had not changed: the undispurcdright IOself-detcr-
ininaiion or ilie people of Narnibia; ditficuItieabout the ivüy in which the
CounciI had souyht to help the pcople of Nan~ibia to exercise that right;
practical considerations had tu be faced; rhc United Nations needed tri act
within iis capabilities(I>oscieritein 1550th nitg.,paras. 186-189).

315.For estabIishing th,: tegal conucqucncw for States of the cantinued

presence of South Africn in Narnibia.SecurityCouneil rcsolution283 (1970) is
of piirlicular yelevarice.In the Security Council reafïtrmedirsrewlutions 264
(1969 and 775 <1970) by which the wntinued presence of South Afriw in
Namibia had ben declarcd iflcgaland hy which ithadcüIledupon the Govcrn-
ment of'South Africa to withdraw its adniinistration frorn the Tcrritory. 'I'he
Security CounçiInord the continued fksgriintrefusal of Soirth Africato comply
with the decisions of the CbunciI deinandiiig the withdrawalofSotith Africü
frorn theTerritory. The Security Co~tnciIha$therefcireestahlishd as für asthe
consequcnccs for Soiith Afvica are conccmcd thiitSoulh Africa hasconimirted

and crinrinites to carnniitan interiiatioirally wrongfilact for which it has
incurred and continuec,to incur international responsibility.
326. As far as Ihe IegalconsequcnccsfurSiates other ihan South Africrr are
concerned,the resoIution.c~intainsdecisions in-thefieIdof,dipIomatic, consuIar
and othtr relations (operative paras. 1-31ilcalIsupon al1 States to takc mea-
sures in regxrdto dealingsvrithrespccttocommercial or iiidustrialenterprisor
concessions in nFürnib(i 'üqxmtive paras. 4-7 and 111,il iniriatesaction in
regai-dto hilateral and multilateral treaties (opcrativc paras. 8 a91 and cx-pressesits interestin actions of the United NationsCouncilfor Narnibiain
regard ropassportsand visas(operativepara. 10).It calls for reportsby States
on measuresthey have taken ?O giveefkt to theprovisions of the resolution,
and rc+strrblishe~sheAd Ifvc Sub-Ccirnmittcc(opcrativc paras. 13-16).

327. L3:e Security council resolution 283 <1970),resolution 784 (1970)
{Dossier item II) gucs back tu thc prodings and recommendatinns ofthe
Ad Hoc Siib-Cornmittee of the Security Council established in pursuancc of
resolution 276 (1970). Resolotion 284 (1970) is spwifiufIy the outçume of

rcccimrncndatiun 5 ofthc Ad Hoc Sub-Cornniifteewhich related ro"the pos-
sibilitofrequesting,in accordancewith Article96 (1)of ihc Chartcr, anAdvi-
soryOpinion frorntheInternationalCoiirtof Justiceon 'thelegalconscqueiices
forStatcs ufthe ccontinuedpresenceaf South Africain Namibia norwithstand-
ing SecurityCounciI resoIrition276 (1970)'" (Dossier item9) .hç recornmen-
dations of the SubCornmittee, induding rcconirnendation 5,were considered
at hc1550trh nccting oftheSeciiritCmuncilon 24 July IY70 (Dossieritem 8).
The dnft resolution {Dossieritem 10; Si98921which kamc rcsolution284
(1970) wassponsoredin the SecurityCouncil by therepresentativcof FinIand
(Dossier itcm 8; 1550thnitg.,para.38).
378. Operat iveparagraph 1 ofthe draftresolutionincIudixlthe wordjng of
the qiiestionon which the aùvisory opinion of the InternationalCourt of
Jiisticc is sought in words identical with recomniendation5 of the Ad Hoc

Sub-Coninittee, except thata conima \\,ainscr~eclbeiwcen"inh'arriibia"arid
"nntwithsranding" as containeidn draft rcsolutionS1989t and in resoIiition
284 (1970)as adoptcd thc qucstionreads asfollows:
"What are the IegaI consequencesfur Statesof thecontinued prexncc
ofSouth Africa in Kamibia, notwithstandingSecurity Council resol tun

276(197O)l''
379. Kesoliition 284 (1970) was adopted by 12 votes tonone with 3 absten-
tions (Pulrtnd, USSR, United Kingdam) after the Council, in aseparate vote,
had decidcdto retainthe words "ricitwiihsiandingSlrurity Councilresolurion
276 (1970)" by 11voles in favour tonone, with 4 abstentions(Fraitce,Poland,
USSRandthc United Kingdom)(Dossier item 8: 1550thnllg.paras.156 ta1W.

330. The presen t sectionof thisrevicwr&rs iirst1y to staternentsmade in
the cours ef the proceedings of thc nd Hoc Sub-Committcc and thercafter
to ihcstütcnientsof ihe rnemkrs of the SecuritCoiincilar its 155(#hmeeting.

Proceeilit~ginthe Ad Hoc Suh-Coinnrittee

331. The represeiitativofFi~~Iwir l, the ihirrnwiing or iheAr/ IfucSub-
Cornmittee on 27 Febri~ary1970, stated,iihen dealing with the recommen-
dations to bcrnadc by the Suh-Cornmittee ta the Security(-:ouncilihat tlie
Council rriightaiso ask the International Court of Justicc for an advisary
opinion 011the legalconsequencesfor member Statesof the continiid illegal
presence of SouthAfrica in Naniibia.-l'heFinnish delegatinnbeIievcd that thc
Council might bewell advised to wk for siiclan opinion froiii the highest
intcrnatioiial authorony law {Dossicr itemi 3rdmtg.. ACAC.17ISR.3,p. 8).

332. The rcpracntativc of FMlmidelahnratedhis recrirnrnendationin regard
toa rcquesrfor an itdviso~opinion atthetm,eIfh meetingof the Ad Hoc Sub- Comniittee on 10 June 1570. At thai meeting tlrereprcsenrativeaf Finland
notedthefact thattheCourt hadnnt beenseizud of any issue regarding'lami-
biasincethe 1966Judgment of the Couri inthe SourhWest Africu case{sSecwnd
Phaw) and the adoption ol' GcncralAssemblyremlution 2L45 {XXI). Thc rc-
presentativcorPinland explain hat itwas not thepurpose of hisdelegaiion's
suggestionto calt inlo qur:çrioor to subjectio the ruljng or opinioonf the

Court the basicdecisions taken by the GeneraI AssembIyand the Sccurity
Council on the terminatioiiof the Mandate.He pointedout that the teriniira-
tiw of the Mandatc wauail irrcvucablestep hywhichthcUnited Nations had
assumcd direct responsibilityfor the future of Naiiiibia.Consequenily, the
presenceof SoiirhAfricairrNarnibjaafter theterminationof the Mandate rvas
illegal. ln anyFurthcrricbnconcerning Naniibia, the Sccurty Council would
have to buitdon the totalityofthejurisprudence ofthe United Nations mn-
iainedin the relevant rcsc~lutiunof the GeneraIAswrnbly andthe Security
Counci 1.The represcntativcofFintand observed thatan advisvryopinion would
ccrtainlybe veryuseful forthe definition injuridicaltermsof thcconsequcnccs
which thecontiniiedillegalpracnce of South Africa in Namihia had for other
States. It would niakc it ~iossibltodis@ doubts, parlicuIarlon questions

relaijng todjploinatjcand consiilar reIations, wliich could bc interpreted as
iinplyingthe recognition c-fthc üuthorityof South Africa over Namibia and
concerning the amcndmmt or rcvisiun of bilateraland multilareraitreaties
bctwçcn ffiedifferenStatc:sand South Africa in sofar as fhese treaticscon-
tained provisions applicahlcto Na~nibia. To the extent these agreementsor
treafiesdid notcontainprovisionscxpIiciilyprovidingthattheywereapplicable
to Namibia, the questionof the applicabiiittu theTerritorqwrauld haveto bc
exnminedon the basis of ~he relevant provisions of inrernarior~allaw. The
represmtativeof Finland vienton to saythat an advisory opinion wouldmake
it possibl10defiiimore vreciselytherightsUTKami bians,both thrisresidcnt
in Naniibia and ihose residcntabruad. It would prove the insqualityof the

arbitraryand repressivr: !Couth hfrican laws concerning npczrfheid.The re-
presentativçof Finland re2.din ihicrintextparagraphs33 and 34 of theJudp
ment oftheInternationalCourt ofJusticeof 5 FebruaryI Y70 in the[natterof
the Barcelona -l'raction,I.ightand Poiver Company Lirnited,whiçh hd a
karing on ~xriaiiiaspects or the Narnibian question (Barc~h?nnTracrion
L&ht utrd Powrr CompatzjjLi~nired,iC.1. Reports 1970 p.. 32)Hcniaderefer-
enm tu rheparaçraphs of theJudgnlentreferring COobligationsof a State CO-
wardsthe intcrniitionaloinrniinityasa whde inrcgard to which,in viewofthe
iniportanceof rhe rightsirivolvd, oIIStatescould bc htid to hiivea legal in-
tercst in iheirprotection.In the view of lhe reprwentativc ef FinIand. an
advisos. opiriionof theCourt wouldestablishclcarlyfor al[that South Africa

had been deprivcd of its :\?andütfur South West Africa kause of having
violate is terrnsbecausr:ofhaving actcd contrary tu its inkrnarionalobli-
gations, the internationalsiaius of the Tcrritciry. internationalIaw andthe
fundamenta[righu of'the inhubitantsof the TerriioryAs regardsthe formu-
lationof therequcst to bcaddressed bytheCouncil to thc Court,the represen-
tativc ofFinland said ir vias simple, direct.Iimited scopc andsuficientIy
gei~cralto permit the Court to pronounce itsel(Dossier item 4; 12thmtg.,
pp. 2 to5).
333. The representativeof Syfi0 belicvcd thatan advisory opinion wouid
facilitürethe mobili~:itionof public opinioon the subjectof Naniibia.The
representativenf Coio~nbinstatedthat hisfirstreaciion to thc Finnish proposal

wascntircly positive. Rypioposinfitothe Council to ask foranather advisory
opinioon f theCourt, theddHoc Sub-CoininitteewouId çive toitswork a higtijuridicallevel,without intheIeastinterferingwilh thcprcvious decisions of ihc
Council ar.d of the General Assembly and withoutdelayingtheiriiriplcmcnta-
tion. l'he~ipresentativorFrancc alsospoke in favour of askinfgoran advisor).
opinion (Il~ossieritem4; 1Zth m tg., pp. 5-7).
334. Thc representative of lhe United Srarcs supported rvithsatisfaction
the Finnisl~suggestion in rcgiard to the request for an advisory opinion. A

new advisciryopinion wouldwitliout doubtfacililaic a constructive efort with
a vicw to :ioIvingthe difficult problm.Tnc representativeor Spuirzalso sup-
ported the Finnish sugges~ion.Hc suggested that in therequcsrto beaddressed
to the Coiirl thewords "legal consequencesfor States of thecontinued pres-
ence.. .",etc.,he replaced bythe words "the internationalIcysiconsequenceq
of the con.:inud prescncc ..."+etc.The reprwentativeof Fit~l~iistated th1
ht woüld give full attention to thesugg:ycstioofthe representao lfivpeain.
[Tiappears that noactionon tht:Spanishrepresentative'ssuggtxtion was taken.]
(Dossier item 5, 13th mtg.,pp. 3 and 4.)
335. Thc representative of 3ur111iciuestion4 the value of asking the In-

ternational Court or Jiisticc foa IegnIopinion. How cuuId countries which
did not abide by u Gcncral Assembly resoIution be expccted to abide by ari
opinion of the Court? The representaiivcof SierreLcotiewelconied the Finnish
proposal tliatthe InternationaI Court of Justishould ix askcdfor an ndvisory
opinion on the Narnibiansituation.tIoweiter,hewondcred whetherthe present
cornpositicrnof rheCourtaugured wcll for afavourableopinion. Many coun-
tries, he said, were scepticrilin vofwthe Court's 1955dwision {Dossier item
6; 14th Intg., pp. 5 and 6).
336. Thc deIegationof the USSR had dvubtsas to the advisahilit);of request-
ing thc InternationalC'oiirof Jtisiicto give an advisoryopinion on thc Icgal
consequeiices of South Africa's continued presenw in Narnibia. Its doubb

were bascdon thecritical view it tvvkofthc1966 Judgment of theCourt. The
proposal tcrquest an aùvisory opinion from theCourt cvuld not, in the view
of the USSR, be rcystrdcd as an effectiventeasurewhich would heIp to drive
South Africa out of Kamibia(Dossicr itcrn7; 17ih rntg.. p. 4: Dossieriiem9;
Sj9863iAdd. IjRev. 1. Annex IV, p. 7).
337. The c~prcscntati\~eof the Clnired Kingdom referred to reservations
expressedtürlie and pointed out ihat the United Kingdom deIegation had
abstained front voting on the SccurityCnuncil resolutions,part~cularlyresoIu-
tion 276 (1970).The United Kingdom Governinent would be willing to accept
theproposal that an advisory opinion should he sought, provjded the Court

wTas not deliarredfrom considering the issue as awholc, including the com-
petençe of the General Assembly to assign to theLnited Natiotis responsi-
biIity for rhe adiiiinistration of SoiWest Africa, the Iegal statiis of which
was centralta thewholc issue (Dossier item 7; 17thnitg.p. 5;Dossicr item 9;
Si9863jAJd.IjRcy. 1, Annex IV, p.4).
338. The Ad Hoc Sub-Cornniittoe took note of the rmrvations txpreswd
by vürious delegations,ofwhich those of theUniicd Kingdoni and the LSSR
related, intdia, to the recommendationwhich cventuallyled to theadoption
ofSwi~rityCounciI resolution 284 (19701.Thc Ad Hoc Suh-Coriitnitteedecided
thut thc stnternents conraining thcse resenrations woiild appar bvth in the
SurnrnaryKecordsand in the report of the Sub-Cummittoe.Tbey were there-

fore inclutledin Annex IV of thc report.Note having been taken of these
rcscrvatioristheAd Hoc Sub-Cornmittee adoptedils Jrait rcport to thc Sccu-
rity Councii (Dossicitem 7; 17thmg.,p. 7).
339. On the conclusion of ihc work of the Ad Hoc Suh-C:omrnittee, the
reprcxntative of Fitiiriasaid that his deIqatiotwas pacticularlypleüscd that WRITTEN ST,4 I-kL?hN 1'OF THSECKETARY-GENERAL 199

ils srigpesriorefüringtu th:request for an advisoryopinion hüd bwn accepied
and incliided in the recominendatiorisof tlie AdHoc SubConirnitree,Inthat
connection hcernphasizcdagain thatthe pttrposeol requcsting an adviwry

opinion was not to cal1intbj questinnthe basic decisionstaken by ~heGemral
Assembly and the Security Council teriniriatingthe Mandateof South Africa
over Namibia, nor tu dclay.or prejudice ihe work OF the Securityt'ouncil on
otber aspects of the quesrionof Namibia. '1-heFinnish delegalion klicved,
Iiowever,that recourse to thc IniernatiunolCourt of Justice couid becoine a
turningpoint in rhçwork and makc ii possible toapproaçhthequestionfrom
a ncw angle (Dossier item'7;17th rntg.,p. 81.

340.When rhe represenrativcuT fitfcrtiintrodriceddraftresoliitionS/8892
(IJossicritem IO) ,c rcpcafe tliemain arguments whiçh he had already made
in the Ad Hoc Sub-Cornin itee:the valueOF the advisoryopinion in dcfining
and spelling out in Icgal rcrmsthe inrpliciitionfur Statt~ of tlte continued
presence of South Africa iiNaniihia; thevalue in dcfiningmoreprecisely the
rights of Namihians in tIliway perhapssome measure of added protwiiun
cuuld be accorded triNaniibians ~i;hoc;basic hurnai~rightswere bcing sup-
press4 throughthc applici!tion ofrepre5siveSouth African legislarion;under-
lining the façt that South Africa had forfeited its Mandate; tu cxposc thc

Ftlscfronr of lcgalitywhicli South African a~thoriricsaiicrnptedto present 10
the ivorld.The reprcscntative of Finland also stated thatthc siepof terminat-
ing South Africa's Malidarc was irrcvmable (Dossier iteni 8; 1550th mlg.,
paras.39,40, 41, 43.)
341. The representarive.nfSierrcltroue snid that sonie delegalions rnrer-
tiiincdgcnuinc rnisgiviriy>i.'ithregard Io thdraft resolutionwhich rought to
reopen the question of N.lmihia at the leveI of thc lntcrnatjonalCourt of
.lusticeThe delegazionof Sierra Leone could undei-staiidthe bais of their
doubts about [ht:wisdotn of this stcp. However, in theIightofan ariiclc pub-

lished by Sir MuhammadZafrulla Khan, the Prcsidcnt of ihç International
Chrt of Jusrice, in thetiP!iZluiith/Chroniclcof JUIF1970, abour the Court,
iricludingits advisorywori:, hc bcIievedrhar ihe SecurityC:ouncilshvuld nul
bc discouragcd from prucsding furthcr on thc rnüiirr of Namibia to thc
InternationalCourtof Justice(Dossier iteiii 8; 1550thmtg.. para. 51).
342. The representativerifNepal said ihat invotjng in favour of draftreso-
ItirionSj9892, it would be1iidelegation'sundcrstündinyihat theInternatiunal
Court would Iimit thewop: of ils advisory opinion strictIto the question put
to itand not reviewor examinethelegaliryor validity of the resolutionsadop-
ted by boIh the General AjsenibIyand thc Swurity Couricil. I Ie cmpharized

that thcscope ofthe qitcstionputto theCourt was restrictcd.Rwourse 10 thc
Coiirt ~night resiilin the provision uf highest Ievelguidance and asistaiice
for many law-abidingStatc:swhichsincereIywishcd tu irnpIementthe United
Nations resolutinnson the subjçct (Dossier hein 8; 1550t h ig..para. 81).
343. The represeiitativet,fSyria said thüt,üs tte sawitfram the drsft reso-
Iution, theInternationalCc~ur tfJusticewas notaskcd torule on the statusof
Yami biaas such; rather itwttsrcqutsted to elicithe scope of the legal means
at the disposa[ of Slaies nhich might ereçt a waIIof IqaI opposition to tlie
occupationof Namibia bythe Government of Soitth Africü.Accordingtu the

Syrian delegation'sunderstanding,the draft sought to add a valuable elernent
to the range of aciions thstcould be iaken by Sraies in fulfilrneni of their200 NAMIBLA(SOUTH WEST ARICA)

obligation!: under the Chrtcr and rhe resolutions of the S~urity Council
{Dossieritem 8; 1550th mtg., para.96).
344. The reprcsentativeofZunibia statedthat hisdelegation would vote in
favourof theFinnishdmft resoLütion.In comjng to this decision hjsdelegalion

had had tctakeinto accuünt that the request totheChurt might beoffensive to
African public opinion ;that thcrc rcrnaind somç Lingering uncertaintyabout
the outconie ofthe opinio ;that the legai drüftinofthe qiiestionwas specific
enough ta eticita dear opinion froni the Court which wriuIdbe puIiticaIIy
acceptable; that thcre was somc conccm thüi tht:Court iiiight raisein its
opinion doubts about GeneralAsseinhlyresolutions 2L45 (XXI) and 2248(S-V).
The delegation of Bmbia had takenal1these considerations into account and
had dccidr:d to support thc draft rcsolulionon the clearunderstanding thaf
Narni bia-.asa politicalproblem requiringa politid solution (Dossier item 8;
1550th mtg., para. 108).
345. Th: reprwentativc of Spain said that thc problcin of Kamibia had

confronted the United Nationswith one of the most seriolis questions the
Organi7asationhad ever faced, thatwas, the behaviaur afone of itsMembcrs
in rcspcctof f~jlir o wnipl y with thcrcsolutionsofone of theOrgiinizaiion's
bodies. The Spanislideleet ion felt that iu7astliereforemost appropriate to
request a rtilinfrom the International Court of Justicfor thiswould make it
possibIefor theUnited Nations to heaware of thcjntcmationii1 Iegawnsequen-
ces of a failureto cornply with resolutionr; ofa Unitcd Nations body-iri
particularresoIutions 264 (1969).259 (1969)and 716 {t970).He said thar he
supportcd the Finnish proprisalin thccxpcctation ihiitihis would contrihute
to the achievement of the objectiv~ the UnitedNations had set for itselon
fhisqueslion, Le.,the defenceof the interets and rightsofthe Namibians and

rcspcct for the dccisions ofthe Organization in discharging ils special res-
ponsihility towards ilieTerritory of Nami bia (Dossier item 8; 15501 hitg.,
paras. 116-1Il).
346. 'Thereprmentativeof the USSR repeated in thc SEcurityCouncil his
delega~ion' sericiusdoubts with regar d0the requestfor an advisoryopinion.
This appr~iach couId not bc regarded asan efïcçiiuemeasureand wouId creare
faIseiIIusionsas to thepossibilitof a snlurion ofthe problem by IegaImeans
ratherthari by seriouspoliticaaction bythe Security Council (Dossier iietn 8;
1550th mtg., para. 132).
347. The representative nf Pola& undersiorid thc intentionsof the Finnish

delestion and its desireto bring out al1fertturesof the situation in Naniibin.
The Polish delegationhad no objection to addressinga request ta the Inter-
national Court of Justice, although had not forgottcnthe ruling handcddown
in July I9fiS.The representative of Poland stressed, however,that ihe essentiaI
elemenr frt rchievement of the United Nations objectitlesin Nainibia was
poiiticalactionin the broadestsense of the terrn(Dossicr item 8;1550th rntg.,
para. 145).
348. The representative or Birrunrlisaid it woulnor k correct to minimi7~
ihe doubtuand apprchensions in Africa and othcr circ.1abroad which wuld
bc attrjbutedto disappointment feltasa resultof the1966 Judginent. However,
the represtntative bclicvcd that a unanirnous adoprion of this measure by the

burity CounciI woiild stimulatethe delihrations of thcjudgesat The Haguc.
It rvoutdbe premature to prejudgeor tryto foresee,with any degree of maths
matical accuracy, thetiirn thatthe ùeliberation of tCourt might lake.There
was alwiiysa hope that an impartial judgment, which would t> iiconforrnity
withthe inabenable righisofthe Namibian people, u,orildservetoharrnonitz he
poqition of the Court with the position taken by rhe General Assernbly iti Annex concentingtheEffect of \'oluuntAbstentions
byPermanentMcmbcrsof HreSccurityCanncil '

1.The Security Council has not treateda voluntaryabstention by a pr-
maneni rnernber asa negativc votcprcvcnting thc adoption ofa nofi-pro-
dural decision=. Sinccthr estabfishnientof the United Nations permanent
membershave abstainedvt~Iuntarilyin the voting upon a part urthewhole of
105 resolutionsorthe SecurityCouncil. Chinahas sbstaine volunlarilysomc

15 times, France 78:thc Soviet Union 148,ilie United Kiiigdom 31 and the
United States31.
2. Follorvingis the lisvf Securiv Council rewlutinns in thc votc onthe
ivhole orpartof which anr:or mort:permanent nlembersabstained:
Bfilf? Subj.?cr
29 April 1946 The Spanishquestion
191)ecerntx:r194-6 The Greek question
10Fcbruarj 1947 'IbeCireek question

13 Februar >9-47 Arrnarnetits:rqulalionand reductioii
17 Februaq 1947 TheCurfuChanne1 incidents
2 April 1947 Trusteeship ofstriitegaras
9 Apnl 1947 TlieCorfuClianneIincidents
18 Aprij 19~3 The Greek qucslion
1 A~igiis1947 I'he Indonmian question
25 August 1947 The Indonesiaiiquestion
25 August 1947 The Indonesianquestion
26 August 1947 The Indonesian qucstion
30 October 1947 The Iridonesiatiquestion
1 Novembcr 1947 The Indonesian rlueslion

17January 1948 The India-I'akistaqurrstion
20 January 1948 Tlie India-Pakistanquestion
28 Februav 1948 The Indonesianquestion
28 Febrtiary1948 The Indonesian quation
5 March 1948 ThePalestine question
1 April IS-8 The Palestinequestion
17 April194% The Palestine question
71 April 194-8 The India-Paki qu~asion
23 April 1948 ThePalatine question
22 May 1943 The Palestineqiiestion

79 May 1943 Thc Palcstincquçstion
3 June1943 The India-I'akistaquestion
22Junc 1948 AtoniicenerEy: internationacontrd
7 .luI194E The Palesli question
15 JuIy194E The Palestinequcstion
29 July 194E The Indonesian question
19 August 1338 Thc Püfcslineqüostion
4 Novemixr 1948 The Palestincquestion

See para. 245 nf the revicw.
Fora discussioof theSccurityCouncil'spractice trcatanvoluntaryabsren-
tionhy a permanent n~e~ntie.snor prci.çnling the ntiuption non-proceditrat
decisionincludirneferencetiIhe esirdeveltipmeni of this praseeConstantin
A. Stavropoulos.*'ThePractic- of VoluntrrryAbstentions by Permanent Memhers
of thc Socurity CoiinundciArticle 27, paragra3.ofthe Charterof rhe United
xations",61Aiiierican JournczloffntcrnaliLff8737 (1967).16November 1918 The l'destine qucstion
24 nacernber1948 The Indonesian question

28 Doccrnbcr1948 The Indonesian question
28 Damber 1948 The Indonesian qucstioii
29 December 1948 The Palestineqiiestion
18 Janustry1949 Thr: Indvncsian question
4 March 1949 Admissioo nf new Mcnibers tu the
UnitedNarions(Israel)
7 March1949 Trustcwhipofstrategic areas
27 JuIy 1949 InternationalCourt of Justice
(Uechtenstein)
Thc PaIcstinequestion
Admission ofnew Mcmbers to the
Unitcd Nations(Indoriesia)
I7 Novcrnbcr 1950 The I'alestinequcstion

30 March 1951 TheIndia-Pakislanquestion
8 May 1951 Thc Palestinequestion
18May 1951 The Palestinequestion
1 September1951 The PaIestinequestion
10Novernbr 1951 The India-l'akistanqucstion
23 Decemher 1952 The India-Pakistanquestion
24 Novetnber 1953 Thç PaIcsiincquestion
3 Dwrnber 1953 InternarionalCour1ofJustice(Japan)
3 Dwernber 1953 InternationalCourtofJustice
(San Marinu}
Admission of new Memben to the
United Nations (Albania, Jordan,
Ircland, PortugaIhngary, Italy,

Austria,Romania. BuIgaria,Finland.
Ceylon, Nepal, Libya,Cümbodia,
Laos,Spain)
24 January 1957 The Indian-Pakistaquestion
21 Fcbrtrary1957 The lndia-Pakistanqucstion
2 December 1957 The India-Pakisianquestion
11Jum 1858 Cornplaint byLebanon
14JUIF1960 The Congo question
9 August 1950 Thc Congo qucstian
21 Februar1 y961 'TheCongo question
11April 1961 The Palestinequestion
25 Oclober 1961 Admission of ncw hlernherstothe
UnitedNations (Mongolian People's

Republic)
Admission ofnew Mernbet?;to the
United Nations (Mriuritnnia)
24 Novernber lSfi1 The Congo question
9 April 1962 Thc Psilcsfincquestion
4 October 1962 Adniissionofnew Memkrs to the
United Nations (Algeria)
Rcports of ihc Secretary-Gcncral
concerningdeveIopmentsrelating10
YemenWKIITEN SlATEMEhT 01TIIESECRETARYGENERAL 205

DcI;~ Subjeci

31 July1963 Question reiatinIoterriiones under
Portugeseadministration
7 Augusl '1963 Questionrelütinptothcpolici- UT
npnrtheiof theGovernnlent of the
Republicof South Afrim
11 1)emrnb:r 1963 Questionrelatingto tcrritoriunder
Portugcsc administration
4 March 1964 The Cypms question
9 April 1964 CompIainl byYemen
4 June 1964 CompIaint concerniiiactsofaggres-

sionagainst lheterritoryand civilian
populaiionof Cambadia
9 June 19f4 Quesiion rclatintothe policieof
upurtfzeof thc Govcrnment of the
RcpiibliçofSouth Africa
18June 1944 Question reIaling to thepolicofs
upririlreof the Govzrnrnentof the
Republicor South Africa
9 August 1964 'I'hCyprus question
30 Decemkr 1964 Questionsconcernin tge Deniocratic
Republic oftheCongo
6 May 1WS Qucstion concerning thesituationin
Southern Rhodeçia

22 May 19t.S The situationin thc Dominian
Republic
5 Novem ber 1965 The India-Paki sutantion
12 h'uvemb-r 1855 Questio cnnccming thc siluiiliin
Southern Rhodesin
20 Novernber 1965 Questioiicnncerningthe situation in
SouthernRhodesia
23 Novernher 1965 Question relatito Territoriesunder
Portuyueseadministration
9 ApriI 19156 Qucstionconcerning the situatioin
SouthernKhodesia
14 Dctober 1966 Quaticjn coficerningthe Democratic
Republicof theCongo

16 Decembi:r 1966 Questionconcerning the situation in
SouthernR hodesia
21 May 1968 The situarionin thMiddle East
29 May 1968 The situationinSouçhern Rhodcsia
(assisrancioZambia, operativpara. 15)
19June 1968 Mcasurcs tosafeguard non-nucIear
weapon States Partiesto theNon-
ProliferatiTreaty
27 SepCerb:r 4958 The siruatiio nntheMiddIe East
20 March 1369 'I'hsituationiiNamibia
1ApriIIÇ.69 The situati0~in the Middle East
3 July1969 The siluation in thMiddle East
28 July196'1 Cornplaint byZarnbia

12August 1969 The situation in Namibia
15 Scptemhrr 1969 The situationin thMiddleEast
9 Decemb:r 1969 CompPaint bySenegal 22 Decemkr 1969 Cornplaintby Guinea

30January 1970 The situation in Namibia
19May 1970 The situation in the Middle East
23 Jury 1970 Questionof race confiictin South
Arrica n.siiltifrom ihc policies of
apnriheidof the Gavernment of Soiith
Africn
The situationin Namibia
The situation in Namihia
The situationin ihe MiddleEast
Cornplaint by Guinea

3. The practiu:of the SecuritCouncilcreatinf s voIuntiiryiibstcntionbya
permanent memher as not preventingthe adoptionofnnon-procedural decision
has bL%neildord by ric cpermanenm tember, and whileqiiestiond in 1949
hy some delegations,hasken acceptcdby thcGcncraIAsseni bIyandexpressjy

apprnvedby many meniberStates
4. Trcat:ngabstentions of permanenr menibers aspreventiny the adoptioii
of anon-pi-oceduradl ezision wouldrai% questionswith resjxct to,iiiteaii(1,
rhesdniission tnthe United Waiionsof 21 of its hlembers:Israel[remlution69
(1949)],Indonesia[resolution 86(1950)]A,lhania, JordanI, reland, Portiigal,
Hungary, ::taly. AustriaRornat~ia:Firiland, Ccylon, Ncpal, Libya, Carnbodia,
Laos, Spairilresolurin10Y(I95511, ongolia[resoIuion i66(196111 , auritania
[resoIution157 (I961 a)]dAlgeria[resoIution176 (1Y62)];the statuor Liech-
rensieinandSanMarino as parties to the StatirtetifthcIntcmiitjori;~lCouof
JusticeIrewIutian71(1949)and iesoIiifion1.0(1953 respectiwly]:thedispatch
ofariobservatioiigroup tuLebanon [resolution128 (95811;theinitialestabIish-
mentof theUnitcd NationsForce inthe Congo [rcuulution 143(1960)tlhe crea-
tion othe Ilniied NationFsorceinQpms [rcsolution185(9 I64)];the ~alidityof
the mandalory sanclicinimprised againstSouthern Rhodesia IresoIiition 231
(I966)]; the rneasuresto deguard non-nuclmr wciipon Stataî Partiesto the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferationof Nuclear Weapons [resolution255 (1958)].

5. The practic of thc SccuritCmunciI rreatinga voluntary abstentionby a
permanentnieniber as not prcventingthe adoption nf 3 non-proceduralde-
cisinn has occumd in conncction with decisioriOF theSCcu~IlyC~uncil iaken
inaccordarice with ChapterVI1oftheCharteras weIIasChaptcrs 1,VI1and XII.
011 three occasionsdwisions of the Security Council hasedexpresslyuponone
or more articlesof ChapterVI1 ureredeclarcdadoptcd not~lthsianding the
abstention of at Ieast #ne permanent mcmbcr [resolutio54(1948). resolution
221 (1966).resolution 232 (1966)I.
6. The riracticoftreatinga voluntaiy abstention bya permançntmcmkr
as not prtventing the adoption of non-procedural dc~isionshas not varied
with theen try intforce ofthe arnendrnentstothe Charter [GeneratAssernbly
resoIution 1991 (VXlIl)]cvcn tthoughcoritinütlticuf his practim thaoreti-
csIlyperiiiitthe adoption of a Cauncil dacision withail permanentmerilbers
abstaining.Sincethe eiitry to forcc of the Chartamendmen tson 3I Atigust
1965.the 5;ecuriryCouncil has adopted 25resolutiotiinthe voiiny upvn the

whulc or parts of whichat leastone permanent memberabsraincd.