General Assembly

1955 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 502-512
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
South West ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The Government ◽  
Alternate Procedure ◽  
Union Government

Report of the Committee on South West Africa: The report of the Committee on South West Africa to the tenth session of the General Assembly stated that the Committee had again invited the government of the Union of South Africa to confer with it, but that the Union government had refused the invitation, stating that it still maintained that the mandate in respect of South West Africa had lapsed and that the government had no other international commitments as a result of the demise of the League of Nations. Provisional rules of procedure for the Committee had been adopted on February 11, 1954; at its meeting on June 1, 1955, the Committee, having received no comment from South Africa, decided that these provisional rules of procedure should become its rules of procedure. In 1955, the Union government had again refused to submit an annual report in regard to the Territory of South West Africa to the Committee; therefore, the Committee decided to apply the alternate procedure contained in its rules of procedure with respect to examination of reports.

General Assembly

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 604-610
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Commitments ◽  
South West ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The Government ◽  
Alternate Procedure ◽  
Union Government

Report of the Committee on South West Africa: The report of the Committee on South West Africa to the eleventh session of the General Assembly stated that the Committee had again extended to the government of the Union of South Africa the invitation it had sent in 1954 and 1955 to participate in the Committee's work, but that the Union government had refused the invitation, stating that it had not changed its former position; it still considered the mandate in respect of South West Africa as lapsed and it had no other international commitments in regard to that territory. In view of this unchanged attitude of the Union government, the Committee had continued to apply the alternate procedure contained in its rules of procedure with respect to the examination of reports adopted on February 11, 1954.

South West Africa and the “Terrorist Trial”

1970 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-41
Author(s):  
John Dugard
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The South ◽  
Recent Trial ◽  
South West ◽  
West Africans ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
The Government

The recent trial in Pretoria of thirty-seven South West Africans on charges of “participation in terroristic activities” focused international attention yet again on the mandated territory of South West Africa. The trial, conviction and sentencing of the accused evoked protest and condemnation from the United Nations on the ground that, as a result of General Assembly Resolution 2145 (XXI), South Africa had lost jurisdiction over the territory and hence the competence to try the accused at all. On December 16, 1967, while the trial was in progress, the General Assembly, by 110 votes to two (Portugal and South Africa), condemned the “illegal arrest, deportation, and trial” of the accused, and on the eve of the judgment in the case on January 25, 1968, the Security Council in a unanimous resolution called upon the Government of South Africa “to discontinue forthwith this illegal trial and to release and repatriate the South West Africans concerned,” a call which was converted into a “demand” by a further unanimous resolution on March 14, 1968, after many of the accused had been sentenced to long periods of imprisonment. The South African Government, however, arguing that Resolution 2145 (XXI) was invalid and that it was fully competent in law to prosecute the accused for offenses committed in South West Africa, declined to accept these “calls” and “demands.”

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.

United States Policy Toward South Africa

1975 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Donald B. Easum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Southern Africa ◽  
South West ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Southern Rhodesia ◽  
The Government

The decolonization process set in motion by the spectacular change of government in Lisbon in April 1974 produced a geopolitical earthquake across all of southern Africa. Its repercussions were deeply felt in the Republic of South Africa, where the government was forced to undertake a fundamental reassessment of South African relations with Mozambique, with Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and with Namibia (South West Africa).

Secretariat

1968 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 595-601 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Outer Space ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
South West ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Made In

In his Introduction to the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 16 June 1966–15 June 1967 Secretary-General U Thant observed that during the period under review the international political situation had deteriorated considerably. The war in Vietnam had progressively intensified, there had been renewed warfare in the Middle East in June 1967, and the situation in Cyprus had not improved. Only limited progress had been made in such areas as disarmament, outer space, economic and social development, decolonization, and human rights. Frustrations in respect of South Africa, South West Africa, and Rhodesia continued, although in the cases of South West Africa and Rhodesia the General Assembly and the Security Council, respectively, had taken certain steps which might help in time to improve the situation

The Revocation of the Mandate for South West Africa

1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dugard
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Well Being ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
South West ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

After twenty years of frustrated attempts to bring South Africa to accept her international obligations in respect of South West Africa, the United Nations General Assembly resolved on October 27, 1966, to terminate South Africa’s right to administer the Territory. In this resolution the Assembly declared that South Africa has failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of the administration of the Mandated Territory and to ensure the moral and material well-being and security of the indigenous inhabitants of South “West Africa, and has, in fact, disavowed the Mandate.

The Legal Status and Functioning of the United Nations Council for Namibia

1989 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-208
Author(s):  
Karin Arts
Keyword(s):  
West Africa ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
South West ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The United Nations

In 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations revoked the Mandate over South West Africa (Namibia) and thus terminated South Africa's right to administer the territory. It furthermore placed Namibia under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. Administration of the territory was delegated by the General Assembly to a subsidiary organ, the UnitedNations Council for Namibia (UNCN). The author briefly describes the establishment, the structure, the functions and the powers of the Council. Special attention will be paid to questions concerning the legal status of the UNCN. Finally the major activities of the Council will be reviewed and appraised

Self-Determination during the Cold War: UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960), the Prohibition of Partition, and the Establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory (1965)

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 419-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Kattan
Keyword(s):  
Indian Ocean ◽  
West Africa ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
South West ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Un General Assembly

This article uses the history of partition to assess when self-determination became a rule of customary international law prohibiting partition as a method of decolonization. In so doing it revisits the partitions of Indochina, Korea, India, Palestine, Cyprus, South Africa, and South West Africa, and explains that UN practice underwent a transformation when the UN General Assembly opposed the United Kingdom’s partition proposals for Cyprus in 1958. Two years later, the UN General Assembly condemned any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country in Resolution 1514 (1960). The illegality of partition under customary international law was raised during the second phase of the South West Africa Cases (1960–1966) in respect of South Africa’s homelands policy, but the International Court of Justice (ICJ) infamously did not address the merits of those cases. The illegality of partition was also raised in the arbitration between the United Kingdom and Mauritius over the establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965. Like the ICJ in the South West Africa Cases, the Arbitral Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to address the legality of the British excision of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, even though the legality of the excision was argued at length between counsels for Mauritius and the United Kingdom in their oral pleadings and written statements. However, in their joint dissenting opinion, Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum and Judge James Kateka expressed their opinion that self-determination had developed before 1965, and that consequently the partition was unlawful. This paper agrees that selfdetermination prohibited the partition of Mauritius to establish the British Indian Ocean Territory, a new colony, in 1965 although self-determination probably did not emerge as a rule of customary international law until the adoption of the human rights covenants in 1966, after the excision of the Chagos Archipelago in 1965, but before the passage of the Mauritius Independence Act in 1968.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document