International Court of Justice

1964 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-603
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
The South ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa

South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa): By an order of February 5, 1963, the President of the International Court of Justice fixed September 30, 1963, as the time limit for the filing of the South African countermemorial in the South West Africa cases. At the request of the government of South Africa, the Court in its order of September 18, 1963, extended this time limit to January 10, 1964. By its order of January 20, 1964, the International Court noted that the South African countermemorial had been filed, and it fixed as time limits June 20, 1964, for the filing of the replies of Ethiopia and Liberia; and November 20, 1964, for the filing of the rejoinder by South Africa

The South-West Africa Case, the New Nations, and International Law

1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-380
Author(s):  
Sol Picciotto
Keyword(s):  
West Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
The South ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Proper Analysis

The judgment of the International Court of Justice of 18 July 1966 in the South-West Africa case throws revealing light on the role of that Court in the international community. A proper analysis of this case may also help to dispel some of the mystification about international law and the attitude of the new nations to it.

1968 Prize Award Essay The South West Africa Cases and the Jurisprudence of International Law

1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J. Pollock
Keyword(s):  
West Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
The South ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
Prize Award ◽  
South West Africa

The South West Africa Cases presented the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a choice not only between the parties to the suit but also between rival claims about the nature of international law itself. Perhaps every case presents the Court with a choice of some degree between jurisprudential foundations, but in the South West Africa Cases the choice is striking.

scholarly journals Public Interests in the International Court of Justice—A Comparison Between Nuclear Arms Race (2016) and South West Africa (1966)

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 68-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Venzke
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race ◽  
Nuclear Arms

In the present essay I compare the 2016 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Nuclear Arms Race (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom) with the Court's 1966 judgment in South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa). A series of similarities between the two judgments are obvious: They are two of the three cases in the history of the Court in which the judges were equally split and the President had to cast his tie-breaking vote. The critique of the judgments has been exceptionally strong, in 2016 as in 1966. The core of the critique, then as now, has practically been the same—the Court retreats into an excessive formalism that protects great powers.

Canada and Namibia

1980 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 314-323
Author(s):  
Livia Meret
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The Government ◽  
Legal Consequences

In 1971 The International Court of Justice in an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia concluded that the mandate for South-West Africa had been validly terminated by the General Assembly in Resolution 2145 (XXI) of October 27, 1966, and that “the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under an obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory.” Further, the Court said that:States Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa’s presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and, in particular, any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document