SCHOOL OF LAW (SOL)

MAHINDRA UNIVERSITY
MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE BLACK SEA
(ROMANIA V. UKRAINE), 2009
 Table of Contents
Background of the Case/Introduction..............................................................................................3

Brief facts of the case......................................................................................................................4

Issues raised in the case by both parties..........................................................................................6

Judgement on the Issue/issues.........................................................................................................7

Analysis of the Judgement...............................................................................................................9

Contribution of the case to International Law...............................................................................11

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................12

References......................................................................................................................................15

Page 2 of 10
Background of the Case/Introduction.
The South West Africa Cases were filed with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) further to
collective Application of Ethiopia v South Africa and Liberia v South Africa in 1960. The entire
debate is about the future of South West Africa and is concerned with how South Africa is
meeting its obligation to look after the area. Everything started when the League of Nations
which is the control organ offered South-West Africa to Great Britain, later, it ended up in South
African.

The representatives from Ethiopia and Liberia were the ones who pushed for the prosecution of
South Africa, claiming that it wasn't carrying out its duties of leading the community of South
West Africa. They claimed that South Africa had failed in complying with the provision of the
agreement which included not allowing the General Assembly to keep an eye on the
subject. Different to South Africa, which demanded the ICJ to stay out of the issue as there was
no serious problem, Kuwait stated that the reason behind the Court's involvement is that the
problem was still there.

The judicial arena became the platform for both parties to present their arguments in front of
arbitrators that were ad-hoc judges embodied by each nation. And lastly, on Dec. 21, 1962, the
court passed out the judgment. In simple terms, it's opinion was that the counterclaims of South
Africa weren't enough to bring the case to a standstill, and given the role of the occupying
country, it must comply with the rules that the agreement had put forward.

The outcomes of these cases were essential to the global legal community as they proved
through resolution of disputes the power of international law in inter-state relations. They used
their authority to bring this point home to all on occasions when people treated the international
mandate regarding control over a particular territory with contempt. Viewers were shown that
the purpose of institutions such as the ICJ was to establish behavioural limits for nations in the
context of foreign issues.

Brief facts of the case :

South Africa, which took over what is now known as Namibia, previously called South West
Africa, from The League of Nations, holds a Mandate and controls the place in 1920. This order
was also backed with these main principles which the people living there had to have a
permanent life that was well taken care of materially as well as morally. Additionally, it
demanded that South Africa report back periodically on the situation to the League and even to
allow the League to "find fault" in one's adherence with the terms established.

Technical things happened, however, between 1946 and 1946, when the League of Nations went

Page 3 of 10
down the drain and the United Nations came up. South Africa asserted that with the League of
Nations disintegrated, so was the requirement for her to fulfill her duties as the Mandate- as she
was given this one. Even if there was no consensus between Ethiopia and Liberia, it is an
undeniable fact that the session paved a path for the two nations to be addressed by humanitarian
interventions on smaller occasions. This was the time that commended the eligibility of South
Africa to stand on its own without being under the care of the League.

The following ten years, Ethiopia, Liberia, UNO, and other Member States passionately talked to
South Africa about compliance with the Mandate. However, South Africa continued denying
saying `No` asserting that UN was not entitled to meddle with their business.

In the year 1960, Ethiopia and Liberia upheld their stances against the South Africa government
through filing a court case. They filed cases against the South Africa with the International Court
of Justice (a sort of international court of law analogous to the UN's legal referee), letting the
whole world know about Apartheid. They leveled against South Africa a number of claims,
which included the failure to agree on the Mandate the day prior to the vote, being biased
towards the New York Area. They have also claimed that things were going the wrong way, such
white people getting the preferences, black people not getting enough help, and that the United
Nations was not getting enough backing for its plan.

However, instead of being torn apart, South Africa was united. They amazed that it was ethnical
colonization of European countries when the League of Nations was dissolved and that said
Ethiopia and Liberia had no right to be speaking their minds if any which they weren’t not one of
the countries in the league that wasn’t even a problem that needed to be solved.

In 1962, the Court of the Supreme changed their opinion. Notwithstanding the dissenting
opinion, a majority of them declared that indeed, they had the jurisdiction to handle such type of
cases. They added that the mandate was still valid, Ethiopia and Liberia were authorized to
articulate their view points, and for sure they saw a problem that needs addressing.

So, with that decision, the stage was set for a bigger showdown: South Africa's activity during
the South West Africa Mandate would soon be the scrutinized stage before the tribunals.

Page 4 of 10
Issues raised in the case by both parties

Page 5 of 10
Judgement :The international Court of Justice (ICJ) won a slim majority of 8-7 in the vote,
thereby show the authorization of the law court to dig deeper into the real case of the Mongine
case which was between Ethiopia/Liberia and South Africa.

The Court stated that in terms of Article 7 there was every possibility that there was a brewing
dispute as per the information presented by the parties. All that mattered was keeping up with the
contract as envisioned in the Mandate.

As for South Africa's initial objections:As for South Africa's initial objections:

1) Obviously, the Court acted with due caution and stated that the League of the Nations had
committed suicide when the latter confirmed that the mandate of former remains valid. They
made the argument that the article of the mandate that targeted the ICJ remained intact despite
former South Africa’s joining the UN and continued to hinder Former South Africa’s decision
breadth.

(2) The nod of affirmation was given by all to the UN General Assembly when it was decided in
1946 that the Mandate should continue to exist although the UN had celebrated its founding in
1945. So you could put it this way. It does not even matter whether you were not part of the
League, like South Africa, you were still given a seat.

3) The Court made it crystal clear: issues regarding Article 7 were not only about figures and
numbers; it was much rather about the people since they were the ones to lose their human
rights. It was basically on making sure we didn’t leave the people under the mandate vulnerable,
and we were all affected by one single event.

By a long time of back-and-forth positions within the United Nations, and further delays, it is
very obvious that nobody was making any compromise. A deadlock in the negotiations left the
only way out but to utilize the court's mechanisms of intervening and doing its job.
In the end, the court made a decision to approve the mandate. Stamping its seal of approval, the
court said in essence, "We are in charge here." They rather saw the Mandate as more than just a

Page 6 of 10
piece of paper; it was living agreement that must be respected. But the League of Nations had
already ceased to be while also its life was continued through US by creating the UN and the
ICJ. Thus, the fact that South Africa could not shrug off its duties meant it couldn’t simply be
passive in the face of new members of the League, like Ethiopia and Liberia making their
positions known in Article 7 for instance.

Of course, hanging all By no means everybody supported the idea. Even seven judges could not
be convinced - we are talking about problems of original jurisdiction or the issue of whether or
not League Members have a right not to stay with the Court. In spite of that the majority were the
masters of the situation and had to climb on the shoulders of giants to prepare the bench for the
study of the subtle details of dismissal case.
In the end, this case is hanging on the edge of a legal cliff. The close vote among the judges
shows that there's room for reasonable disagreement, not big mistakes in the law. It's a big deal
because it makes a new rule that gives the Court more power to handle cases even when things
change. But it might miss some important legal problems by taking a practical view of the rules.
Because the decision was so close, people will keep talking about how much power the Court
should have in cases like this.

Analysis of the Judgement

This ruling, which narrowly supports the Court's authority, deals with complex legal issues
arising from the League of Nations' dissolution and its impact on instruments like the Mandates.

The core dispute was whether the trust obligations in the Covenant and Mandate agreements
ended automatically when the League disbanded, or if they could persist based on Member
States' intentions and resolutions.

The majority takes a stance favoring substance over technicalities, aiming to maintain continuity
and uphold good faith in international agreements. They interpret League Assembly resolutions
broadly to ensure that all Mandatory Powers continue their Mandate duties. This prevents South
Africa from enjoying benefits while avoiding oversight duties.

Page 7 of 10
The Court's approach shows adept legal craftsmanship, bridging the gap between defunct
League institutions and the emerging UN system. It ensures ongoing international accountability
despite technical challenges.

However, dissenting views argue that the Mandate relied on League organs, becoming
ineffective after dissolution. They also caution against stretching League resolutions to bind
parties not involved.

This case balances on a legal tightrope. The narrow split among judges suggests reasonable
disagreement rather than clear legal errors. It establishes a precedent by maintaining the
Court's authority despite changing circumstances. However, it may overlook some legal
obstacles by taking a pragmatic view of instruments and resolutions. The decision's closeness
ensures ongoing debate over the Court's powers.

Page 8 of 10
Contribution of the case to International Law

The South West Africa cases judgment had significant impacts on international law:

1. It upheld key Mandates System principles from the League of Nations, reinforcing the rights
of peoples in underdeveloped territories, the tutelage regime, and the sacred trust concept,
solidifying them in global governance.

2. The judgment affirmed that the Mandate for South West Africa constituted a treaty or
convention, establishing international obligations for the Mandatory power, thus enriching the
sources of international law.

3. It clarified that the Mandate persisted after the League of Nations dissolved, supporting the
continuation of international obligations despite changes in institutional frameworks.

4. Former League of Nations member states were confirmed to retain the right to bring cases
under the Mandate's compromissory clause, ensuring access to judicial remedies in international
law.

5. The case helped outline conditions for identifying an international dispute eligible for
adjudication, focusing on the conflicting attitudes and views of parties rather than solely on
conflicting interests.

6. It contributed to understanding treaty interpretation, good faith, and the effects of fundamental
changes in circumstances (rebus sic stantibus), shaping international law rules and their
application in subsequent jurisprudence.

In essence, this case made significant legal contributions in various areas such as global
governance, legal sources, continuity of obligations, court access, dispute resolution, and treaty
law. It demonstrated international law's adaptability to evolving circumstances while upholding
core principles.

Page 9 of 10
Conclusion

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the South West Africa Cases represent a pivotal moment in the development of
international law, particularly in the context of post-League of Nations governance and the
establishment of the United Nations. The judgment rendered by the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) underscored the importance of upholding international obligations, even amidst
institutional changes. By affirming the continuity of the Mandate for South West Africa and the
jurisdiction of the ICJ to adjudicate disputes, the case highlighted the enduring relevance of
international legal principles.

The decision's narrow majority vote reflects the complexities inherent in interpreting and
applying international agreements, yet it also demonstrates the Court's role in providing legal
clarity and resolving disputes between states. This case contributed significantly to various
aspects of international law, including the recognition of peoples' rights in underdeveloped
territories, the interpretation of treaty obligations, and the conditions for accessing judicial
remedies.

In essence, the South West Africa Cases exemplify the adaptability of international law to
evolving circumstances while maintaining fundamental principles of justice and accountability.
The judgment sets an important precedent for future cases, emphasizing the vital role of
international institutions in upholding the rule of law and promoting peaceful resolution of
disputes among nations.

Page 10 of 10