§ 44. Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision the International Court of Justice has reached on the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 3rd December, 1955, regarding the right of the committee on South West Africa to grant oral hearings to petitioners from that territory; and what official statement of policy was made by the legal representative of Her Majesty's Government on this matter at the hearings of the International Court.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Dodds-Parker)In an Advisory Opinion of 1st June, the Court gave an affirmative answer to the question whether the grant of oral hearings to petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa, which had been established by the General Assembly, would be consistent with the Advisory Opinion of the Court of 11th July, 1950. At the oral hearings of the International Court of Justice in March this year, the Attorney-General submitted legal arguments on this question, which were summarised in my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), on 28th June.
§ Mr. BrockwayIs the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us were shocked that the Attorney-General, speaking for Britain, should have opposed oral evidence on behalf of the population of South West Africa?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerMight I, for the benefit of the House, briefly give what I said last week?
Her Majesty's Government accepted the Advisory Opinion given by the International Court in 1950. This held that the degree of supervision exercised by the United Nations in respect of South West Africa should not exceed that which applied under the League of Nations Mandates System. Under that system there was no provision for the oral hearing of 984 petitions; therefore the view of Her Majesty's Government has been that it would be contrary to the 1950 Opinion for the South West Africa Committee to grant such oral hearings; but this view will be examined between now and the next session of the General Assembly in the light of the Opinion of the Court given on 1st June, 1956."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1956; Vol. 555, c. 69.]
§ 48. Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the ruling of the International Court that the United Nations Organisation has the legal right and also the duty to supervise the administration of the mandated territory of South-West Africa; and what instructions he has given on this matter to the representative of Her Majesty's Government on the Trusteeship Council.
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerThe International Court gave an Advisory Opinion in 1950 to the effect that the supervisory functions exercised by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations had devolved on the United Nations and that the degree of United Nations supervision should not exceed that which applied under the Mandates system. The affairs of South-West Africa, which is not a Trust Territory, are not dealt with by the Trusteeship Council, and no instructions on this matter have been sent to the United Kingdom Representative on the Council.
§ Mr. RankinMay we take it from the answers which the Minister has already given that the Government are not rejecting outright the rulings of the International Court? If that is the case, can he say when we may have some answer as to the attitude of the Government?
§ Mr. Dodds-ParkerThis matter is, of course, under consideration, as I said; but it is not the custom to give any indication of the instructions sent to Her Majesty's representatives on these organisations.