^{Page 586 note 1} Cape Times (Capetown), 18 09 1920.Google Scholar

^{Page 586 note 2} For the text of the resolution of the Assembly, see League of Nations Document C. 489.M. 214, 1934, p.50.

^{Page 587 note 1} League of Nations Permanent Mandate Commission Minutes (Geneva, 1928).Google Scholar

^{Page 587 note 2} League of Nations Offitial Journal (Geneva, 1946), Supplement 194, 21st Ordinary Session, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{Page 587 note 3} 21st Ordinary Session, Report of the 1st Committee, pp. 5–6.

^{Page 588 note 1} Resolution II (I) of 9 February 1946. Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Belgium expressed their readiness, while France vacillated.

^{Page 588 note 2} South Africa stated that 208,850 Natives favoured annexation, 33,520 were opposed, and 56,790 were not consulted. In 1960 the population consisted of 428,000 Africans, 73,150 Europeans, and 24,000 people of mixed blood.

^{Page 588 note 3} Resolution 65 (I) of i December 1946.

^{Page 589 note 1} United Nations Document, 1946, A/334.

^{Page 590 note 1} International Court of Justice, Reports, 1956, p. 23. Hereafter referred to as I.C.J. Reports.

^{Page 590 note 2} South-West Africa Cases, I.C.J. Reports, Oral Proceedings, 1962, p. 259.Google Scholar

^{Page 590 note 3} U.N. Document A/3625.

^{Page 591 note 1} See also United Nations Yearbook (New York, 1957), pp. 307–9.Google Scholar

^{Page 591 note 2} Cf. Gross, E. A., ‘The South-West Africa Cases: what happened’, in Foreign Affairs (New York), 10 1966.Google Scholar

^{Page 592 note 1} ‘The system of recruitment of African workers operating in South-West Africa today is unique in its organised and efficient application of conditions that are akin to slavery. Workers are recruited, under contract, in the Tribal Areas by the South African Government- sponsored South-West African Native Labour Association (S.W.A.N.L.A.), which classifies the male population into working categories A, B and C, suitable respectively for work in the mines, on land and on the farms of the Europeans. These letters are reproduced on the clothes of the workers, which they have to provide for themselves…Once under contract, the worker may not leave the area of employment and may not cancel the contract. No African trade unions are recognised, the workers are excluded from all systems of collective bargaining and strikes are a criminal offence’. ‘Apartheid in South Africa and South-West Africa’, quoted in African Weekly Review (London), 6 01 1968.Google Scholar

^{Page 592 note 2} I.C.J. Reports, 1966. See also the dissenting judgment ofJudges Spender and Fitzmaurice in ibid. 1962, pp. 549–50; and on the South-West Africa Cases: Falk, R. A., ‘The South-West Africa Cases: an appraisal’, in International Organization (Boston), XXI, 1967, p.7Google ScholarRao, P. C., ‘South-West Africa Cases: inconsistent judgement from the I.C.J.’, in Indian Journal of International Law (New Delhi), VI, 1966Google Scholar; Higgins, Rosalyn, ‘The I.C.J. and South-West Africa’, in International Affairs (London), LXII, 1966Google Scholar; Inman, Harry, Hynning, C. J., and Carey, J., ‘The World Court's Decision on South-West Africa’, in International Lawyer I, 1966Google Scholar; Dugard, C. J. R., ‘The South-West Africa Cases’, in South African Law Journal (Johannesburg), 1966Google Scholar; and Khan, and Kaur, , ‘The Deadlock over South-West Africa’, in Indian Journal of International Law, VIII, 1968, p. 179Google Scholar; and L. C. Green, ‘The United Nations, SouthWest Africa and the World Court’, ibid. VII, 1967, p. 491.

^{Page 593 note 1} Resolution 2145 (XXI) of the General Assembly, 1966. The resolution was opposed by South Africa and Portugal, while Britain, France, and Malawi abstained.

^{Page 593 note 2} The members of the committee were Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Finland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, U.S.S.R., U.A.R., and U.S.A.

^{Page 593 note 3} Report of the ad hoc Committee for South-West Africa, U.N. Document A/6640 of 7 April 1967, p. 49.

^{Page 593 note 4} South West Africa Survey (Pretoria, 1967).Google Scholar

^{Page 593 note 5} U.N. General Assembly Resolutions 2325 (XXII), 2403 (XXII), and 2465 (XXII).

^{Page 593 note 6} Letter of 28 February 1969 to the Security Council; S/9032.

^{Page 594 note 1} U.N. Security Council Resolutions 264 and 269.

^{Page 594 note 2} See Sloan, F. B., ‘The Binding Force of a “Recommendation” of the General Assembly of the United Nations’, in British rearbook of International Law (London, 1948), p. 3Google ScholarVallat, F. A., ‘The Competence of the United Nations General Assembly’, in Recueil des cours (Paris, 1959), p. 211Google Scholar; Lande, G. R., ‘The Changing Effectiveness of the Resolution of the General Assembly’, in Falk, R. A. and Mendlovitz, S. H. (eds), The United Nations, (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; and Asamoah, O. Y., The Legal Sign1cance of the Declarations of the United Nations (The Hague, 1966).Google Scholar

^{Page 594 note 3} See also Racial Affairs: integration or separate development? (Stellenbosch, 1952).Google Scholar

^{Page 595 note 1} Union of South Africa: Fact Paper No. 91 (Cape Town), 04 1961, p. 14.Google Scholar

^{Page 595 note 2} For a summary of the Odendaal Report, see Mason, P., ‘Separate Development and South-West Africa: some aspects of the Odendaal Report’, in Race (London), V, 1964, pp. 83–97Google Scholar; and U.N. Secretariat Working Paper (New York), 109/L. 108 of 8 April 1964.

^{Page 595 note 3} In 1960 the figures were 424,047:23,965:73,464. See Odendaal Report, Tables A, B, and C, pp. 109 and III.

^{Page 595 note 4} D'Amato, A. A., ‘The Bantustan Proposals for South-West Africa’, in The Journal of Modern African Studies (Cambridge), IV, 2, 10 1966, pp. 177–92.Google Scholar

^{Page 596 note 1} Parliamentary Debates, Senate (Pretoria), 1951, cols. 2893–4.Google Scholar

^{Page 596 note 2} Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly (Pretoria), 1965, col. 5481.Google Scholar

^{Page 596 note 3} Ibid. 1958, col. 3805.

^{Page 596 note 4} Lelyveld, J., ‘Apartheid wins New Mandate’, in New Tork Times, 3 April 1966.Google Scholar

^{Page 596 note 5} Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission, 1925, p. 154.

^{Page 597 note 1} Ibid. 1924, p. 177.

^{Page 597 note 2} See also Wright, Q., Mandates under the League of Nations (Chicago, 1930), p. 521Google Scholar; and Hales, J. C., ‘Some Legal Aspects of the Mandates System’, in Transactions of the Grotius Society (New York and London), XXIII, 1938, pp. 85–126.Google Scholar

^{Page 597 note 3} I.C.J. Reports, 1950, p. 182.Google Scholar

^{Page 597 note 4} Ibid. 1955, p. 99.

^{Page 597 note 5} Ibid. 1966, p. 467.

^{Page 597 note 6} Ibid. pp. 491–2, per Judge Mbanefo.

^{Page 598 note 1} See McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties (Oxford, 1961), p. 553.Google Scholar

^{Page 598 note 2} I.C.J. Reports, 1955, p. 105Google Scholar. See also the ‘Mosul Case’, in Permanent Court of International Justice Reports, 1925, series B, no. 22 at 32.

^{Page 598 note 3} See also Dugard, J., ‘The Revocation of the Mandate for South-West Africa’, in American Journal of International Law (Washington), LXII, 1968, p. 78.Google Scholar

^{Page 598 note 4} I.C.J. Reports, 1966, p. 18.Google Scholar

^{Page 598 note 5} Judges Jessup and Koretsky, the other dissenting Judges, found that the Court should have pronounced on the compatibility of the policy of apartheid with the principles of the mandate.

^{Page 598 note 6} I.C.J. Reports, 1966, p. 314.Google Scholar

^{Page 599 note 1} Ibid.

^{Page 599 note 2} But see the view of a South African jurist Dugard, C. J. R., ‘The Legal Effect of United Nations Resolutions on Apartheid’, in South African Law Journal, LXXXIII, 1966, p. 44.Google Scholar

^{Page 600 note 1} The confidence and determination of South Africa have been expressed as follows: ‘in the light of the decision of the…Court…that no judicial control over a delinquent mandatory was envisaged by the mandates system, and the patent inability of the international community to impose its wishes on the sole remaining mandatory State, it is naive to insist that external sovereignty, if it is vested in some other body, is of much practical significance.’ Dugard, C. J. R., ‘South-West Africa and the Supremacy of the South African Parliament’, in S.A.L.J, LXXXVI, 1969, pp. 194 and 204.Google Scholar

^{Page 600 note 2} Reservations to the Genocide Convention, in I.C.J. Reports, 1951, p. 23Google Scholar. In the S.S. Wimbledon, series A, no. I, the Court recognised the legal interest of the applicants in enforcing the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles relating to the Kid Canal, even though they adduced no evidence of financial prejudice. See also Mavromatis Jerusalem Concessions (Merits), 1925, series A, no. 5; and Rosenne, , The Law and Practice of the International Court of Justice (Leyden, 1965), pp. 519–20.Google Scholar

^{Page 600 note 3} The 1962 judgment in fact spelt this out clearly: ‘The manifest scope and purport of the provisions of this Article [7 of the Mandate] indicate that the Members of the League were understood to have a legal right or interest in the observance by the Mandatory to its obligations both toward the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory, and toward the League of Nations and its Members’. I.C.J. Reports, 1962, p. 343.Google Scholar

^{Page 601 note 1} In the Corfu Channel (Merits) case, I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 4Google Scholar, the Court held that Albania was liable for the destruction of British warships and lives through the failure to notify the presence of mines. It held that the obligation to notify was based ‘on certain general principles’, inter alia, ‘elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in peace than in war’ (ibid. p. 22).

^{Page 601 note 2} For possible ways of revising the 1966 judgment, see Reisman, W., ‘An Analysis of the Grounds of Nullity in the Decision of 18 July 1966 and Methods of Revision’, in Virginia Journal of International Law (Charlottesville), VII, 1966Google Scholar. See further J. F. Crawford, ‘South-West Africa: mandate termination in historical perspective’, and Friedmann, W. G., ‘The Jurisprudential Implications of the South-West Africa Case’, in Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (New York), VI, 1967Google Scholar; also Calvocoressi, P., ‘South-West Africa’, in African Affairs (London), LXVI, 1966, pp. 223–32Google Scholar; W. R. Louis, ‘South-West Africa, Origins of the Sacred Trust’, ibid. LXVI, 1967, pp. 20–39; and Flemming, B., ‘South-West Africa Cases’, in Canaduzn Tearbook of International Law (Vancouver), 1967.Google Scholar

^{Page 601 note 3} I.C.J. Reports, 1966, p. 59Google Scholar. It acknowledged the fact, however, that the Peace Conference had ruled out the annexation of a mandated territory either by the principal allied and associated powers or by any country affiliated to them (ibid. p. 24).

^{Page 601 note 4} For the value of advisory opinions, see Rosenne, op. cit. p. 747. The 1950 opinion was accepted by the Assembly in Resolution gA (v) of 13 December 1950 and, whatever may be its binding effect, it is ‘the law recognised by the United Nations. It continues to be so although the Government of South Africa has declined to accept it as binding upon it and although it has acted in disregard of the international obligations as declared by the Court in that Opinion.’ Judge Lauterpacht in the Admissibility of Hearings of Petitions, in I.C.J. Reports, 1956, p. 23Google Scholar. But see Dugard, C. J. R., ‘The South-West Africa Cases’, in South Africa Law Journal, 1966, p. 460.Google Scholar

^{Page 602 note 1} Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1928, no. XIX; and Green, , International Law Through the Cases (London, 1951), pp. 350–69.Google Scholar

^{Page 602 note 2} See further on ‘intertemporal law’, Jessup, P. C., ‘The Palmas Island Case’, in American Journal of International Law, 1928, p. 740Google Scholar; de Visscher, C., Problèmes d'interprétation judiciaire en droit international public (Paris, 1966), p. 166Google Scholar; Friedmann, W. G., Vie Changing Structure of International Law (London, 1964), pp. 130–1Google Scholar; Nervo, Padilla in I.C.J. Reports, 1966, p. 467Google Scholar; and ‘Nationality Decree of Tunis and Morocco’, in P.C.I.J. Reports, 1923, series B, no. 4.

^{Page 602 note 3} Resolutions 134 of I April 1960, 181 of 7 August 1963, and 191 of 18 June 1964.