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

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):  
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.


1989 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-208
Author(s):  
Karin Arts

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


1955 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 502-512

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.


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.


1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-190 ◽  

Resuming its 22nd session at United Nations Headquarters on April 24, 1968, the General Assembly held its 1643rd–1672nd plenary meetings drought June 12, 1968. The session was formally closed at the 1673rd plenary meeting, held on September 23, 1968. The Assembly agreed without objection to a procedure outlined by its President, Cornelia Manes cu (Rumania), under which the First (Political and Security) Committee would discuss the report submitted by the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENDC) concerning its negotiations on a nonproliferation treaty while the plenary considered the question of South West Africa. Also on the agenda was the situation in the Middle East.


2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-602
Author(s):  
Stephen Allen

In its Chagos Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed two questions posed in a request from the UN General Assembly. First, had Mauritius's decolonization been completed when it gained independence in 1968, after the excision of the Chagos Archipelago? Second, what were the legal consequences flowing from the United Kingdom's continued administration of the Archipelago? It was thought that the Court might shy away from giving an Opinion in this case as, arguably, it concerned a bilateral sovereignty dispute that the United Kingdom had not agreed to have resolved by judicial decision. However, as it turned out, the Court delivered surprisingly robust responses to the questions posed. The Opinion—and the numerous Separate Opinions that accompanied it—offer a thorough re-evaluation of the customary international law (CIL) concerning the right to self-determination in cases of decolonization.


1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

On April 6, 1955, during its thirty-fourth year, the International Court of Justice decided one case brought on December 17, 1951, by Liechtenstein against Guatemala—the Nottebohm Case—in favor of Guatemala. It also gave an Advisory Opinion to the General Assembly of the United Nations on June 7, 1955, on the Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document