South Africa: The Return to the Gold Standard—Diamond Production and Marketing—The South West Africa Mandate

1925 ◽  
Vol 15 (59) ◽  
pp. 592-616
1987 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Crowder

Ever since the establishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910, Jan Smuts, one of its principal architects, had visions of transforming it into a ‘Greater South Africa’,. The South Africa Act of 1909 which established the Union provided for the eventual incorporation of other African Territories. It madespecific reference to Southern Rhodesia and the neighbouring British dependencies of Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and Swaziland, Known collectively as a High Commission Terretories because, pending transfer to the Union, they were admitted by the British High Commissioner to South Africa.


1970 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-41
Author(s):  
John Dugard

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.”


1964 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-603

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


1966 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernest A. Gross

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document