V. An Argument to Expand the Traditional Sources of International Law— with Special Reference to the Facts of the South West Africa Cases

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.


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.


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

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document