(ETHIOPIA v.

SOUTH AFRICA)
(SOUTH WEST AFRICA CASES)

Course: BBA-LLB
ID Number: Sl22ulbb033
Submitting to: Balakista Reddy Vundhyala; Vivek Sehrawat
Subject: Public International Law

2023-2024

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I extend my heartfelt appreciation to our esteemed Public International Law professor, Vivek
Sehrawat, for his invaluable guidance and support throughout the process of selecting and
reviewing the case law analysis (Ethiopia vs. South Africa – South West Africa Cases).

I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed to this research
endeavor. Firstly, I am grateful to our Dean, Sir Balakista Reddy Vundhyala, and Mahindra
University, School of Law for providing us with this enriching opportunity to learn and grow.
This experience has imparted invaluable life lessons and instilled in us qualities such as
patience, consistency, resilience, collaborative spirit, and above all, a deep-seated thirst for
knowledge.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No Contents Page. No

 Background of the case

 Case facts
2 05

 Issues
3 06

 Judgement
4 08

 Analysis of judgment
5 09

 Contributions of the case to IL

 Conclusion
7 12

3
 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

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 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.

4
 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 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 fulfil 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 levelled 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.

5
 ISSUES RAISED

 Whether the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had jurisdiction to hear the case:
Citing the fact that the dissolution of League of Nations implied that the powers of the
court had been terminated, South Africa further stated that the applicants lacked
standing to bring cases against members of the League.

 Whether the agreement granting South Africa control over South West Africa
(Namibia) remained valid: South Africa disputed the agreement in the International
Court of Justice once the former authority had been dissolved.

6
 JUDGEMENT ON THE ISSUES

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 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.

The case of South West Africa, which involved Ethiopia and Liberia defending against the
South Africa´s claims, was a more complicated legal dispute on the League of Nations Mandate
for South Africa and South Africa´s obligation under it. The disputes of Ethiopia and Liberia,
the former League of Nations members, revolved around the Mandate which they claimed to be
in lesson, and thus South Africa did not live its duties. South Africa lodged preliminary
objections under the procedural part of international law, arguing the Court has no jurisdiction
and none of the applicants should be considered as those with standing.

The judges conducted a detailed consideration of the South African claims and paved their way
through to the final outcome which was the recognition of its own jurisdiction. On the subject
of the Mandate's binding nature, the Court ruled that it was a separate and distinct international
treaty to the League, thus sustaining itself even after the dissolution of the League. Moreover, it
was ruled that since South Africa was bound to submit itself to the earlier Mandate Court which
proceeded the permanent Court of International Justice adopted under the League of Nations,
namely the ICJ from the UN membership, the Court had jurisdiction over South Africa.

It may naturally be inquired to what extent Charter of the League provided authority to invoke
the court's right for judicial intervention. Proceeding from the interpretations of Art. 7 of the
Mandate the Charter of the League is able to change setting according to the conditions.
Relying upon the basic principle that the State in charge of a mandate has the right to duty its
territories without any interference, the Court revealed that Member States, who did not reject
the idea of continued mandates after the League's dissight, were also entitled to consider
disputes that would occur in the mandated areas as falling within the Court jurisdiction. Thus,
the Tribunal additionally concluded, that given the nature of the complaint as well as the
substance of it, the issue raised was in full concordance with paragraph 7 as well. Lastly the
court after a thorough look into previous meetings of the representatives and the present
impossibly of the parties to agree on fundamental aims had missed the purpose of the
negotiations and declared them having reached the deadlock.

The moments of the Court ruling brought about many key outcomes. It indicated that the
consent to the continued observance of the Mandate and the unshakable nature of South Africa's
commitments to it were given. Additionally, it laid a groundwork for this principle to be
practiced even after the League's disbandment by the UN taking up the responsibility of the
mandated territories, which started with the UN inheriting this responsibility. Thereupon, the
court established a legal way for the annulment of SA's actions in South West Africa and
7
presented a chance for the government to offer accountability. Despite the fact that the
particular case was still being treated further, this 1962 judgement as to an extent had a crucial
role in building a foundation for the developments which are to come. This eventually led to the
country’s independence in 1990.

8
 ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

Conceive a legal battle in which there is no battle with swords, but the war is in words and the
quest is across arguments. In the same twilight manner, in the South West Africa judgment, in
which Ethiopia and Liberia took legal action over the South African control over a territory
called South West Africa (now called Namibia), the question was also about the illegality of
South African rule. Those countries thought that the province that South Africa was taking care
of wasn't managed and looked after well.

The Republic of South Africa had fired at the court, claiming that the court, in fact, had no right
to determine the conflict. They reported the arrangement/agreement as giving them the mandate
over the territory of South West Africa (previously called "Mandate") had long been outlived as
that organization which created it, the League of Nations, had no longer existed. They opined
that League's restrictive admission policy which lumped Ethiopia as well as Liberia together
with the countries not being members of it could impede the dispute settlement process.

While the court had different opinions than of south Africa, however, it would agree with all of
its arguments. They said the agreement still could be enforced like a treaty, although the League
was already gone. Besides, they stated that while Ethiopia and Liberia were not "members" on
the basis of the internal rules of the League to be considered as actual members anymore, some
countries had agreed to keep the principles of the League alive, thus, both of these nations had
the right to bring the case to the Tribunal.

Notwithstanding, South Africa contended that it would be unnecessary to bring the case even if
the court could hear it because discussion between October and December 2018 they have tried
to talk with Ethiopia and Liberia, still it didn't work. Besides, a court also commented on this
argument. The court's opinion seemed to contradict both sides. They said that if there must be
disagreement about the meaning of the agreement, then continuing negotiations would not likely
be productive.

Hence, the court pleaded that it will have to hear the case itself. This win was momentous as it
gave them the unique opportunity to level the field and present their case to the court, rather than
have the judgment pass in favour of South Africa and them win just for the sake of the
precedent.

The impact of this case can be felt till today. This was an evidence the fact that the UN could
also be the guarantor of agreements they negotiated even after the League of Nations was
dissolved. It also recognized that other countries could enter into any given country and ensure
that nations fulfilled their duties, particularly, towards limited territories with the basic of their
people. The course of the specific case continued with additional legal disputes, appearing before
a higher court among others, but allowed for the future developments which took place useful for
the independence of Namibia which did manifest itself finally in 1990.

9
 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE CASE TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The complicated South West Africa cases proved to be of great importance in world law,
mostly in relation to the carrying of over such cases and the international participation
principle.

Enduring Validity of International Agreements:

The Geneva Treaty had stressed the point that the agreements of international level their
existence can be hold accountable even when the organization that created them is done with its
mandate. It constituted the very foundation upon which an international community could be
based, thereby assuring the democratic objections that the liquidation of the League of Nations
did not imply the nullification of all its conventions.

Continued International Oversight:

The judgment was a logical consequence of the expanding principle of enlarged international
oversight and monitoring activity even into the previously League of Nations mandated
territories, which had meanwhile lost its international standing. Established this basis of the law
that United Nations to be formally given a supervisory role functioning as the successor of the
league, and on the other hand, parties responsible for this obligation should adhere to these
mandates.

Standing for Former League Members:

The Mandate's provision proscribing a party any further "another member" of the league
extended the range of eligibility of a party to challenge treaty violations. However, contrary to
South Africa’s perspective, the Court ruled that the case does not belong solely to those
members, because the nations who have signed to maintain the Companies’ commitments have
just as much right to take legal action. This made the world more governments-friendly: nations
became answerable to all the actors involved in this undertaking.

Establishing Legal Pathways for Accountability:

Cancer broke out in many ways including in a 1962 verdict that, though it didn’t focus on the
particulars of the case, still became a legal way to fight South Africa's rule over South for South
West Africa. This incident facilitated litigation and the total amount of responsibility launched
against South Africa was a result of its acts of hostility.

Precedent for Decolonization:

Notwithstanding the fact that the Southwest Africa case was resolved altogether differently on
appeal, the Court's first finding solidified the integrity of the Mandate and the corresponding
view that construction of an appropriate plan of action needed to be enforced. This case, unlike
the others, was the initial anchor stone for the wider decolonization movement that originated
10
from Africa and that crossed the borders of the continent.

Besides it was/ being that the South West Africa cases were complicated and/ or had involved
abounding legal arguments, their effects on international law have been great in the
meantime. They laid the foundations for apply laws that address issues concerning the nature
and continuity of international agreements, repatriation, the supervision of dependencies and the
overall de-colonization of the world.

11
 CONCLUSION

The South West Africa cases involving, Ethiopia and Liberia versus South Africa was a
complicated legal struggle, in which the two AS being the same, subjects concerned control
and moral obligations of the South West Africa (now Namibia). The key issues were whether
South Africa honestly still had to follow the plea imploring it to get rid of the Mandate (the
special grant of authority it still had) and also whether the court had the right to even hear the
case. Owing to South Africa discrediting the deal as antiquated with court having no
jurisdiction, the court eventually underlined in favour of Ethiopia and Liberia. They progress
the words that the deal was still applicable and instrumental, despite it had been signed
themselves (the organization which was the League of Nations) had already disappeared. In
addition to this, they reasoned that as one of the successor states of South Africa which had
been originally signatory to the League of Nations and thus was obliged to subject itself to
the UN authority, South Africa had no right to stand against the court. The consequences of
this judgement were far-reaching, setting the precedent for the future legitimacy of
international agreements, asserting free territorial international control upon by former
mandated territories' territories, and moreover opening the door to the accountability of South
Africa for its actions, which undoubtedly played in crucial role on the ultimate Namibia
independence in 1990.

12