Trusteeship Council

Author(s):  
Ralph Wilde

The Trusteeship Council, a UN principal organ, is responsible for the Trusteeship System, an institutionalized form of colonial administration broadly following the League of Nations Mandates arrangements. This system came to be repudiated, alongside other forms of colonialism, by the external self-determination entitlement that emerged in international law after the creation of the UN in 1945. The present chapter details the concept of ‘trust’ in international policy; the central features of the Mandates and Trusteeship arrangements; the territories covered; the objectives and duration of the arrangements; the structure of administration and supervision; the historical controversy over South West Africa/Namibia; the self-determination entitlement; the revival of trusteeship; reform proposals; the new Peacebuilding Commission; and the continuing use of the Trusteeship Council chamber.

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 419-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Kattan

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-170
Author(s):  
VICTOR KATTAN

AbstractThis article argues that theSouth West Africa Caseswere brought to an ignominious end because the cases were about self-determination as much as they were about apartheid. For liberals like Judge Sir Percy Spender, the President of the Court, political systems based on majority rule looked suspiciously like authoritarian regimes modelled on the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It is submitted that, given the controversy surrounding self-determination in international law, Sir Percy wanted to avoid addressing the merits of the cases. Self-determination was the proverbial ‘elephant in the court room’ that Sir Percy wanted to avoid at all costs. This article builds upon earlier archival research on theSouth West Africa Casesby taking a closer look at Sir Percy's role in the cases and his views on self-determination. It is argued that what ‘killed’ the cases was Sir Percy's belief that Ethiopia and Liberia were seeking to ‘legalize’ self-determination with a view to further uniting the Afro-Asian bloc at the United Nations with the Soviet Union against the West.


Author(s):  
S. Slonim

The roots of the South West Africa dispute relate back to the events that took place at the end of World War I and led to the creation of the League of Nations mandates system. More particularly, the conflict between the United Nations and South Africa cannot be understood except by tracing the manner in which South West Africa became a part of that system. The “great compromise” hammered out by President Wilson and the Dominion ministers at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 produced a three-tiered system of mandates which reflected in a sliding scale a varied balancing of national and international interests. The result of the compromise was a divergency of interpretation that has endured to this day and in considerable measure has fostered and sustained the dispute in its present-day dimensions.


1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-380
Author(s):  
Sol Picciotto

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.


1984 ◽  
Vol 9 (66) ◽  
pp. 365-366

El 12 de marzo de 1984, la República de Sudáfrica, Estado Parte en los Convenios de Ginebra, depositó ante el Gobierno suizo la siguiente comunicación, fechada el 24 de febrero de 1984:Accession to the aforementioned Geneva Conventions and Protocols is governed by an identically worded article which stipulates that « From the date of its coming into force, it shall be open to any Power in whose name the present Convention has not been signed, to accede to this Convention ».Since South West Africa/Namibia cannot, in terms of international law, be regarded as such a Power and since neither it nor the UN Council for Namibia is able to assume the obligations imposed upon such Power by the four Geneva Conventions, the South African Government rejects the so-called instruments of accession of the UN Council for Namibia to the four Geneva Conventions and its two Additional Protocols as having no legal effect.


1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucretia L. Ilsley

The former German colonies occupied by the Dominions in 1914 were entrusted to them, as mandatories under the League of Nations, at the Peace Conference of 1919. Of these territories, administered as C mandates since December, 1920, three are located in the South Seas. Western Samoa, now a mandate1 of New Zealand, is the larger part of a small group of islands; New Guinea, a mandate of Australia, consists of the northwestern portion of the large island of New Guinea and numerous smaller islands; while Nauru, a British Empire mandate administered by Australia, is a tiny phosphate island. The fourth Dominion mandate, South-West Africa, is a large and somewhat arid territory adjoining the Union of South Africa, which acts as mandatory.


1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J. Pollock

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.


1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 184-187 ◽  

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. Union of South Africa and Liberia v. Union of South Africa): On November 4, 1960, applications were filed in the Registry of the Court by Ethiopia and Liberia, instituting separate proceedings against the Union of South Africa. Both applications concerned the mandate for South West Africa and the duties and performance of the Union, as mandatory, thereunder. The applicants alleged that the Union, acting through official bodies created by it to administer the territory, had violated, and was continuing to violate, Article 2 of the mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations by: 1) arbitrary and unreasonable legislation; 2) the suppression of rights and liberties essential to the orderly evolution of the inhabitants toward self-government; 3) the failure to render annual reports concerning the territory to the General Assembly of the UN; and 4) the exercise of administrative and legislative powers inconsistent with the international status of the territory. The applications contended that the Union of South Africa had thereby modified substantially the terms of the mandate without the consent of the UN, and sought declarations by the Court in accordance with their allegations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document