§ 14. Mr. Elwyn Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government propose to call upon the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to carry out his duty of notifying Her Majesty's Government of their right under Article 63(1) of the Statute of the International 13 Court of Justice to intervene in the proceedings in the cases relating to South-West Africa now pending before the Court.
§ Mr. MathewAs my right hon. Friend said in answering a Question by the hon. Gentleman on 27th of January, Her Majesty's Government were notified of these proceedings under Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court. Her Majesty's Government do not see any reason to take any further step in relation to the proceedings.
§ Mr. Elwyn JonesHave not Her Majesty's Government direct responsibility regarding South-West Africa in two respects: firstly, as one of the four principal allied Powers which created the mandate, and, secondly, because the late King George V received the mandate on behalf of South Africa in 1920? Accordingly, are not the British Government entitled in the circumstances to intervene in the important proceedings now taking place to obtain from the International Court a decision on the vital question whether the application of apartheid to South-West Africa is contrary to the terms of the mandate? That being so, is it not now the Government's duty to request the Registrar to notify the Government under Section 62 and to intervene in these matters?
§ Mr. MathewThe last part of the hon. and learned Member's supplementary question is really academic, because Her Majesty's Government would not in any event have wished to intervene in the proceedings. As for this country being a party to the mandate, if the mandate can be said to have had parties, they would, presumably, be on the one hand the League of Nations, represented by its Council, and on the other hand the mandatory Power, that is to say, the Government of South Africa. That was apparently the view of the International Court in its judgment of 21st December, 1962. The position in regard to his late Majesty King George V is that the mandate was accepted by His Britannic Majesty for and on behalf of the Union of South Africa and not for and on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom. His Majesty was acting as Head of State of South Africa, which was a fully independent member of the Commonwealth at that time.
§ Mr. Elwyn JonesIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this question is by no means academic? There is a considerable legal opinion that takes the view that enforcement of apartheid is flagrantly contrary to the terms of the mandate, and there is also a good deal of legal opinion completely in conflict with the advice the hon. Gentleman has been giving
§ Mr. MathewThe hon. and learned Gentleman is good at asking leading questions. I have stated the position and given the best legal advice I have.
§ Mr. Elwyn JonesThere is no need for the hon. Gentleman to add impertinence to ignorance.