Scribd
Upload
386 views1 page

Chapter 2, Page 50 ICJ 1971: Termination of Treaties Nimibia Case

The document summarizes the Namibia case heard by the International Court of Justice in 1971. It discusses how South Africa was mandated to administer South-West Africa (Namibia) after World War 1 but failed to submit reports on Namibia to the UN as required. After 13 years of unsuccessful negotiations, the UN General Assembly terminated South Africa's mandate. The ICJ ruled that the mandate constituted a treaty that could be terminated for material breach, which had occurred through South Africa's repudiation of the mandate and violation of provisions essential to its purpose and object.

Uploaded by

May Anasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
386 views1 page

Chapter 2, Page 50 ICJ 1971: Termination of Treaties Nimibia Case

The document summarizes the Namibia case heard by the International Court of Justice in 1971. It discusses how South Africa was mandated to administer South-West Africa (Namibia) after World War 1 but failed to submit reports on Namibia to the UN as required. After 13 years of unsuccessful negotiations, the UN General Assembly terminated South Africa's mandate. The ICJ ruled that the mandate constituted a treaty that could be terminated for material breach, which had occurred through South Africa's repudiation of the mandate and violation of provisions essential to its purpose and object.

Uploaded by

May Anasco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Termination of Treaties

Chapter 2, page 50
NIMIBIA CASE
ICJ 1971

FACTS: South Africa supervises South-West Africa (Namibia), by virtue of a Mandate System established
by the Covenant of the League of Nations. The latter was entrusted with the supervisory functions of the
mandate. Within the framework of the United Nations, an international trusteeship system was
established where mandated territories considered as not yet ready for independence would be
converted into trust territories under the United Nations international trusteeship system.

However, South Africa failed to submit special reports on Namibia and refused to accept the suggestion
of UN to a system of supervision which should not exceed that which applied under the Mandates
System. Negotiations were fruitless which extended over a period of thirteen years. Hence, UN finally
abandoned its efforts to reach agreement. The General Assembly of United Nations eventually adopted
Resolution 2145(XXI), whereby it decided that the Mandate was terminated and that South Africa had
no other right to administer the Territoy. Subsequently, the Security Council adopted various
resolutions including resolution 276 (1970) declaring the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia
illegal.

Issue: Whether the mandate is a treaty and the termination was justified by reason of a
material breach?
Ruling: Yes. The Court stated conclusively that the Mandate…in fact and in law, is an
international agreement having the character of a treaty or convention.
The rules laid down by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning termination of
a treaty relationship on account of breach may in many respects be considered as a codification
of existing customary law on the subject. In the light of these rules, only material breach of a
treaty justifies termination, such breach being defined as:
a. A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
b. The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of
the treaty. (Art. 60, par. 3)
General Assembly 2145 (XXI) determines that both forms of material breach had occurred in
this case. By stressing that South Africa has, in fact, disavowed the Mandate, the General
Assembly declared in fact that it had repudiated it. The resolution in question is therefore to
be viewed as the exercise of the right to terminate a relationship in case of a deliberate and
persistent violation of obligations which destroys the very object and purpose of that
relationship.

You might also like