Page 194 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

as a matter of convenience. There was little or no real (2) that States Members of the United Nations were under obliga-
connection between the ships and these states. If the tion to recognize the illegality of South Africa's presence in
&urt followed the trend of its reasoning in the Nottebohm Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning
case and looked for a real connection or community of in- Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and in particular any
dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recog-
terests it might have ruled against Liberia and Panama.
nition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to,
However, it based its decision on its interpretation of the such presence and administration;
intent of the drafters of Article 28 (a) of the convention. It (3) that it was incumbent upon States which were not Members of
held that the intent of the drafters was that registered ton- the United Nations to give assistance, within the scope of sub-
paragraph (2) above, in the action which had been taken by the
nage was to be the criterion. Therefore, Liberia and
United Nations with regard to Namibia. 163
'Piinama should have been elected to the Maritime Safety
Committee. The Application for Review of Judgment [sic] No. 158 of
the United Nations Administrative Tribunal Opinion
The Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17,
(1972-1973). 164 Mr. Mohamed Fasla, an official of the
paragraph 2, of the Charter) Opinion (1961-1962). 160 United Nations on a fixed-term contract, was not rehired
This advisory opinion involved legal issues of fundamen- at the end of his contract. He appealed this decision to the
tal importance to the United Nations. The United Nations United Nations Administrative Tribunal which found
is a collective security organization. One of its primary against him. Mr. Fasla requested the Tribunal, which it
purposes is to keep the peace. It has put three forces into did in 1972, to seek an advisory opinion from the Court to
the field, the Unified Command in Korea, the United Na- determine whether the Tribunal had failed to exercise
tions Emergency Force in Gaza, and the United Nations proper jurisdiction or had committed a fundamental error
force in the Congo. Several members refused to pay their in procedure. The Court found proper exercise of jurisdic-
allotted share of the costs for the latter two operations for
various reasons. Some thought that a United Nations tion and no fundamental error in procedure. 165
member was only compelled to pay "regular costs" and The Western Sahara Opinion (1974-1975). 166 In 1974
not "special assessments." Others, including the Soviet the United States General Assembly requested an opinion
Union, contended that since these actions were taken or from the Court on two questions:
implemented under the "Uniting for Peace" Resolution 1. Was Western Sahara at the time of colonization by
of the General Assembly they were contrary to the United Spain (1884) a territory belonging to no one (terra
Nations Charter which placed responsibility for the use of nullius)?
force solely in the Security Council. Therefore the General 2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, what
Assembly was without authority to pass such resolutions. were the legal ties between this temtory and the
The court held that these were legitimate assessments and Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian En-
all members are required to bear their share. tity? 167
The Legal ~onsequenbes for States of the Continued Pres- After refusing to find that the General Assembly was
ence of South Africa in Namibia (Southwest Afrca) not- attempting to accomplish by advisory opinion (for which
withstanding Security Council Resolution 276 Opinion no consent is required) what could not be done by a "con-
(1970-1971). 161 In 1970 the United Nations Security tentions" case (since Spain would not consent to the juris-
Council requested an advisory opinion of the Court on: diction of the Court), the Court found unanimously that
"What are the legal consequences for States of the con- Western Sahara was not a territory belonging to no one at
tinued presence of South Africa in Namibia, notwith- the time of Spanish Colonization, with regard to the sec-
ond question before the Court, the Court advised in the
standing Security Council resolution 276 (1970)?" 162
Resolution 276 had been adopted by the Security Council penultimate paragraph of its opinion:
in 1970 and declared that South Africa's continued pres- The materials and information presented to the Court show the exist-
ence in Namibia was illegal. After refusing to grant ence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance be-
challenges for cause against three members of the Court, tween the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territo-
ry of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, includ-
the Court was of the opinion: ing some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between
by 13 votes to 2, the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the temtory of
(1) that, the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia beii Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the
illegal South Africa was under obligation to withdraw its ad- materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of ter-
ministration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to ritorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the
its occupation of the Territory;
by 11 votes to 4,
163. Id. at 108.
164. [I9731 I.C.J. Rep. 166; reported in 68 Am. J. Intl L. 340
160. [I9621 I.C.J. Rep. 151; digested in 56 Am. J. Int7 L. 1053 (1 974).
(1 962). 165. See [1972-19731 I.C.J.Y.B. 125.
161. [I9711 I.C.J. Rep. 16; reported in 66 Am. J. Int'l L. 145 166. [1975] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
(1972). 167. Questions Concerning Western Sahara, 10 Int7 Lawyer 199,
162. [1970-19711 1.C.J.Y.B 100. 199 (1976).