Abstract
As we have seen, the findings by the International Court of Justice, as part of the 1950 Advisory Opinion, that South West Africa still had the international status of a mandated territory and that the UN General Assembly was the competent body to assume the supervisory functions previously performed by the Council of the League of Nations in respect of administration of the territory, were favourable to the UN. However, the same was not true about the court’s view that South Africa was not legally obliged to place the territory under the International Trusteeship System of the UN. This ruling and South Africa’s persistent rejection of the supervisory competence of the General Assembly, posed problems for the UN. On the one hand, it could not effectively supervise the administration of South West Africa without the cooperation of the mandatory; on the other hand, the territory would not be placed under the trusteeship system if South Africa did not so wish, and it did not. Under these circumstances, the future of South West Africa hung in balance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
A.J. Van Wyk, ‘The S.W.A. Issue at the U.N.’, Africa Institute Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 9, 1966, p. 202;
J.P. Van S. Bruwer, South West Africa: The Disputed Land (Cave Town: Nasionale Boekhandel BPK, 1966), pp. 115–16.
A dispute erupted at the UN over whether the Committee should apply the two-thirds rule, as provided for by Article 18, paragraph 2, of the UN Charter, or the unanimity one in making decisions and over whether it should accept oral petitions. The problems stemmed from the proviso of the International Court of Justice, which was part of its 1950 Advisory Opinion, that the degree of supervision exercised by the General Assembly should not exceed that exercised by the League of Nations. The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League had followed the unanimity rule in reaching decisions and agreement of mandatories when discussing mandate affairs was essential for decisions. The PMC did not hear oral petitions. If the Committee on South West Africa adopted the decision making procedures of the PMC, then South Africa would have veto powers. Some members of the UN, including South Africa, argued that the adoption of the two-thirds rule and admission of oral petitions by the Committee on South West Africa would mean exceeding the degree of supervision exercised by the League. These issues were submitted to the Court for its Advisory Opinion. It upheld the procedures. The Court’s decisions on voting procedures and on petitions were announced on 7 June 1955 and on 1 June 1956, respectively. See ‘Tribes Petition the United Nations’, and ‘Nationalists Claim End of Mandate’, Africa Digest, Vol. II, No. 5 September–October 1954, pp. 9–10; ‘Debate in the UN’ and ‘United Party on Mandate’, Africa Digest, Vol. II, No. 6, December 1954, pp. 6–7; ‘International Courts’ Opinion’, Africa Digest, Vol. III, No. 2, July–August 1955, p. 15; ‘International Court Confirms Oral Petitions Can Be Received’, and ‘Mr. Strijdom Says South West Can Be Incorporated’, Africa Digest, Vol. IV, No. 1, July–August 1956, pp. 31–2; and M. Hidayatullah, The South-West Africa Case (London: Asia Publishing House, 1967), pp. 18–19.
Ronald B. Ballinger, South West Africa: The Case Against the Union (Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations, 1961), pp. 49–52.
Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, South West Africa Cases: Report of the Committee and Background Materials (New Delhi: Secretariat, Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, 1968), pp. 51–53; ICJ, S. W.A.: The Court’s Judgement, pp. 17–18.
A. Ukiomogbe Obozuwa, The Namibian Question: Legal and Political Aspects (Benin City: Ethiope Publishing Corp., 1973), p. 115.
South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) Dept. of Information and Publicity, To Be Born a Nation: The Liberation Struggle for Namibia (London: Zed Press, 1981), p. 177.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1996 Laurent C. W. Kaela
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaela, L.C.W. (1996). Negotiation and Supervision. In: The Question of Namibia. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24996-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-24996-1_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-24998-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-24996-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)