UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: U Thant ~" c:r"~ · Date: 29 JUDe 1962 Acting Secretary-General 1' - '~ ~
F I LE NO.: ------THROUGH:
FROM: C. A. Stavropoulos ;1 Legal Counsel () suBJECT: Self-determination
1. Some tim8 ago you requested me to investigate the question of self-determination in relation to Western New Guinea, and to prepare some observations thereon !'or Ambassador Bunker. I now attach two copies of a brief note on the question, together with an annex reviewing the history of self-determination at greater length, which I hope may be of some aasistance to you and to Ambassador Bunker. 2. Our study has revealed that the subject of self determination is a complex one, presenting ~ facets. HoweTer, at least since President Wilson enunciated the principle of self-determination in 1918, there appears to emerge a strong presumption in favour of self-determination in situations such as that of Western New Guinea on the basis of the wiahe• of the peoples of the territory concerned, irrespective of the legal stands or interests of other parties to the question. While other factors aay also be taken into account, there seems to be a growing practice of recognizing that the wishes of the local population should be paramount, and should thus be ascertained before a final disposition is made of an7 particular territory. •
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES
NOTE ON THE QU~STION OF SELF-Dh~ERMINKfiON
IN ID~LATION TO WESTERN J.J"""Ev.J GUINEA
Introduction
1. The proposals made by Ambassador Bunker for a settlement of the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlends over Western New Guinea :provide that the territory will be given "the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice" and that there will be "adequate guarantees for safeguarding the interests, including the right of self-determination, of the Papuans." The Secretary-General of the
United Nations and United Nations personnel are to assist and participate in the arrangements giving practical effect to this proposal.
2. The present paper contains some observations on self-determination which may be of interest in elaboratine upon the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. In this respect consideration is first given to the problem of self- determination in general, and questions which have arisen as to its nature, the extent of its application, and its relationship to the principles of domestic jurisdiction, sovereignty and ter:l'itorial equality. Secondly, a summary is given of United Nations participation in the implementation of self-determination by way of plebiscite or election, and mention is made of issues arising in this connexion, such as the nature of the questions to be l'ut to a population and the proper authorities to f ormulate such questions. In the third place, the paper sets out some observations on the application of self-determination in relation to Western New Guinea and the par ticular problems presented t hereby. The paper has thus been arranged under the following headings:
I. Self-determination in e;eneral - 2-
A. Origin of the principle or right of' self-determination
B. Self-determination as a legal right or politic&l principle
C. Extent of the application of self-determination
II. United Nations participation in the exercise of self-determination
A. Procedures employed by the United nations
B. li'ormulation of the questions to be put to the population
III. Self-determination in Western New Guinea
A. The problems involved
B. Conclusions regarding :procedures for the implementation of self-determination
3. Parts I and II of this :paper are in summary form and have been prepared
on the basis of a more extensive historical review of self-determination and of
United Nations practice in this regard. This more extensive review is contained, for purposes of reference, in annex A to the present :paper.
I. Self-deter.!!1nation in general
A. Origin of the principle or right of self-determination
4. The role of self-detennination of peoples, specifically enunciated in
Articles 1(2) and 55 of the Charter of the United Nations, has become an increasingly important factor in international affairs in recent years. Its pre-World lar I history is primarily only of academic interest in the present context. It suffices to note that as a r olitical doctrine it had its origin in the French lievolution and the :principles of popular sovereignty on which it was based. in connexion with the cession or annexation of a number of territories immediately following the French Revolution and again in mid-nineteenth century Europe. - 3-
5. In its modern develop ants the principle of self-determination is normally attributed to President 'iloodrow Wilson who in his ''Four Principles" speech in elaboration of his Fourteen Points used the term "self-determination" and declared that well-defined national aspirations should be accorded the utntost satisfaction consistent with the peace of rope.J/ The principle of self-dete~ination played an i mportant, but not in all cases a decisive, role in the preparation of the
Peace Treaties which followed World War I and the andates system of the League of
Nations implicitly extended the principle for the first time to colonial territories.
6. It was, however, in the United Nations Charter that "respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" is first proclaimed in a binding instrument of nearly universal application.
B. Self-determination as a legal right _gr political principle
7. By reason of its origins, it is clear tl~t self-determination was initially conceived of as a political principle rather t han a legal right. lr'hether it has in modern times become a "right", rather than a "principle", has been discussed in the
General Assembly. It has been referred to as a "right" in many Assembly resolutions.
)j Point 5 of President Wilson's Fourteen Points reads as follows: "A free, open minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims based upon a strict observance of the principle that in detennining all such gue stions of sovereiBnty the interests of the uopulatjons conce~ed must have equal weight with the ecuitable c~aims of_j;p~ yovernment whose title is to be detei"I!lined ." President Wilson elaborated upon this !JOint in several subsec1uent speeches. In his ''Four Principles" speech of ll February 1918, he stated, as one such principle, "that all well-defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them without introducing ne or per ~tuating ol~ elements of discord or antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe and conseauently of the World". Similarly in his ''Four Ends" speech of 4 July 1918, President Wilson laid down, as one such end, "the settlement of every question, v1hether of territory or sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship, upon the basis of the free acc~ta~ce of that set~lem~nt by the people i mmediately concerned, ~~ not upon the as~s of the mater~al ~nterest or advantage of any other nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own or exterior influence or mastery." (Underlining added) - 4-
Also in t he context of a discussion of human r i llt s in t he Third Committee of the
• General Assembly a majority e r essly rejected the idea that it was only a pr inci ple.
The declaration on the granting of indep endence to colonial countries and peoples
(resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960): "Declares that ••• all peo:ples have t he
right to self-determination; by virtue of that richt t hey freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural devel pment ."
8. On the other hand the General Assembly, at least until recently, has
hesitated to invoke self-determination as a right in most of t he ~)ecific oases t hat
have come before it, althoutsh it has encouraged negotiations eventu lly leading to a
sol ution based on self-determination. In some cases, notably Palestine, other
factors have been given ereater weight.
9· In assessing the nature of sel f-determination it must be noted that this is
a f i eld in v;hich ereat and r apid developments are still in progress, and conclusions
at t his time based on positive international law mie;ht be premature. It is
undoubtedly a fact t hat through most of' its history self-determination has been a political principle rather than a legal right. Nevertheless, its importance as a
political principle has developed so quickly and so strone;ly that it may be cogently
argued that it is at least on the threshold of positive international l aw as a l egal
right.
C. Extent of the application of self-determination
10. The question of the extent of' the application of self-determination has
arisen in connexion with three different situations. In the f'irst place in the late
18th and mid-19th centuries pl ebisci tes were used extensi vely to consult the
populations in areas being transferred from one State to another. In fact on the - 5 -
evidence presented by Sarah Wambaueh in her 'r1[ono apll on Plebiscites" it might be considered that rior to the outbreak of the It'ra.nco-Gennan War in 1870 self-determination in t h e context of cession and annexation was well on t he way to becoming a rinoiple of int ernational law. However, this trend was then decisively reversed and in spite of resort to it ~ain after orld War I it would be diff'icult to conclude that a principle of positive international law requires its application in such situations.
On the other hand it is certainly a powerful political and moral consideration.
11. The second situation is its rec ent a.pplicc.tion to coloni al non-self-governing territory situations. Here, as noted above, recent developt:lents have not only shown the f'orce of self-determination as a :political and moral :principle, but have carr ied it to the threshold of international law. In non-self-~overning territor,y situations the principle of self-determination has definitely been eiven 9ref'erence over the principle of domestic jurisdiction in Article 2(7) of the Charter. (In the view of the Netherlands, as e)Cl)lained in paragraph 24 below, the ~ estern new Guinea qu estion involves a non-self-governine territory situation).
12. In the third situation, th~t of national minorities or other groups within the recognized metropolitan boundaries of a State, the principle has had considerably less strength as a political principle :md even less standing as a legal r i ght. It has been theoretically recognized in some constitutions and has played a.n i m ortant role in unsettled situations Vlhere boundaries are undergoing changes. However, the principle of domestic jurisdiction is rr.ore likely to be given precedence in such situations unless a denial of human riehts becomes so serious and flagrant as to bring it within the scope of internationel concern. "The Dech.ration on the granting of inde end.ence to colonial countries and peoples" includes a r;rovision that ".Arcy- attempt •
6
aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial
integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and princi~les of the
Charter of the United r~ations." (In the view of Indoneaia, as explained in
paragraph 25 below, est Irian is part of its territo17 and thus self-determination
could only arise in the context just discussed).
II. United ~ations participation in the exercise of self-determination
A. Procedures employed by the United nations
13. Various stages may be ascertained inc· es where the United l ations a
participated in t he implementation of' self-detel'l!lint:.tion. ·l1he first, or preparatory
stage is pr eliminary to the actual conduct of a plebiscite or an election. Included
in t his stage a:ce the follo·.-nng ste1;s:
(a) It is ' etermined by the United Nations, throuc-h visits to the
territory, discussions with officic..1s and r)olitical leaders, the hearing
of petitioners, etc., whether conditions are approiJriate for the exercise
of self-determination. One such condition has been an atmosphere in
which there could be a i'r ee expression of opinion in the absence of
disturbances and presm..tres;
(b) By the same pr ocedures as in (a) a."bove the United Ne.tions
has sought the views of t he locd }!Opul6tion so as to permi t a :precise
formulation of the Cluestions t o be y:ut to them in the event of a
plebiscite in the second stage (this subject is discussed in detail in the
following section of the present note);
(c) The electoral law is examined by the United Nations to ascertc..in
its suitabili ty and impartiality. Universal adult suffrage has been - 7 -
required and literacy as not been considered a necessary ~ualification
as ballots bearing symbols of diff erent colours have been used.
14. In the second stage the actual elections or a plebiscite are held under
United Nations supervision or observance and a report is made on the results and the w~ in which the votine was conducted. Where an election to a national or constituent Assembly is held, rather than a plebiscite, the United Nations may observe any further ster•s t aken to ascertain the v1ishes of the population as to t eir f uture.
B. Forn1ulation of the ouestions to e nut to the popula~ion
15. There are t v:o issues of r~ articular i mp ortcmce which are closely related in connexion vlith the formulation of questions to be l)Ut to the :;:opulation. These ar
(1) llhat questions C'.:i.' e to ~j e :rmt to t he r opul c-:tion ond (2) w 0 is to f o rmu. l a · ~e these c_,_uestions or determine what they are to be? In trusteeship situ~tions the questions are normally decided by ~ he United nations in consultation with the administering authority End represente.tives of the population. The questions to be asked have usually been included in a reGol~tion of the General Assembly and then incorporated in a special electoral law. As far as possible they reflect the political demands of the major opposing groups in the population, although in some instances - as in the case of the Southern Cameroons under British administration - the political leaders could not agree upon the wording of the questions and the General Assembly itself made the final formulation. In every case only two alternatives have be81l put in the plebiscite. Otherwise the issues would be confused and a clear majority favouring a given course might not be established.. However, in some cases the choice has been between a positive course of action on the one hand and a del~ in the decision on the other. Where the population votes for del~, as in the case of -8-
the Borther.n Cameroons, a se~ond plebiscite is possible offering a choice on a
different set of alternatives.
16. With respect to altematives, the General Assembly has recognized, in general
terms, three basic ways for a non-self-governing territory to reach full measure of
self-government (resolution 154l(XV)). These area
(1) B:nergence as a sovereign independent State.
(2) Free association with an independent State.
(3) Integration with an independent State.
17. In resolution 742(VIII), entitled "Factora which should be taken into account
in deciding whether a territory is or is not a territory whose people have not yri
attained a full measure of self-government", the Assembly considered:
-.bat the manner in which Territories referred to in Chapter XI of the CJI&rter can become fully self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence, although it is recognized that self-government can also be achieved by association with another State or group of States if this is done freely and on the basis of absolute equality'"
18. The List of Factors indicative of the attainment of independence or of other
separate systems of self-government attached to this resolution is divided into three
parts concerning (1) the attainment of independence (2) the attainment ot other separate
systems of self-government, and (3) the free association of a territory on e~al basis with the metropolitan or other country as an integral part of that country or in az:cy
other form. In the general considerations in the second part (fadDrs indicative of
the attainment of other separate systems of self-government) the following is included:
"Freedom of choice. Freedom of choosing on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibiaities, including illdep endence".
19. The corresponding section in the third part (factors indicative of the free -9-
association of a territor,r on equal basis with the metropolitan or other countr,y as
an integral part of that countr,r or in any other form) is:
"Freedom of ohoice. The freedom of the population of a Non-Self-Governing Territory which has associated itself with the metropolitan country as an integral part of that country or in my other form to modify this status through the expression of their will by democratic means." 20. Principle IX attached to General Assembly resolution 1541(XV), concerning "Principles which should guide members in determining whether or not an obligation
exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73(e) of the Charter",
states with regard to self-government through integration: "Integration should have come about in the following circumstances:
"(a) ·:rhe integrating territory should have attained an advanced eta e of self-government with free political institutions, so that its peoples would have -the capacity to make a r espons j.ble choice through inf ormed and democratic :r;:• rocesses;
"(b) The integration should be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the terrHory's }HWJ.;les actine with fuJ.l knowl ed e of the chan in their st ... tus, their wishes havin ~ been e )resseJ. t hrough i nformed Emd democratic processes, imparti~lly conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, wnen it deems it necessary, supervi se these processes." 21. The General Assembly has tended to look upon independence as the normal and preferred method of att~ining self-government. ith the exception of iestern Swnoa ple"J iscites have not normully been r e r;uired r1hen a t r ...:.st terr~tory becomes independent.
The United Nations has been content to satisfy itself that the Government of the newly independent State is truly representative of the population. Likewise with r esp ect to non- self-governing territories t he General Assembly has given much closer scrutiny to si tuat i ons where self-government i s achieved t hrough som e means other t han i ndependence as in the case of Puerto Rico, Greenland, etc. - 10-
22. In some oases, however, the choice of alternatives included in a plebiscite has not included independence. Togoland and the Cameroons under :British administration are examples. In these cases the ultimate choices were union with one or the other the of/two neighbouring States. One factor resulting in this limitation was the opinion that from an economic point of view it would be difficult for the territories to exist as independent entities. More important, however, would appear to be the fact that there was no significant demand for independence among the various political groups which on the whole urged union with one or the other of the neighbouring States. There have been other instances where the field of choice has been limited or negated by factors other than the wishes of the population. In a reverse case the Greek majorit7 on Cyprus gave up their insistance on union with Greece in a compromise settlEDent acceptable to all interested parties by which Cyprus became an independent State. In the A.aland Islands dispute in which the islanders favoured becoming a part of Sweden, the Council of the League of Nations recommended that they remain under the sovereigDty of Finland but that they should be granted autonomy with international guarantees. The
Council noted "geographical, ethnical, political, economic, and military considerationa11 in reaching its decision. It would appear that it considered factors effecting the peace to be paramount. The League of Nations and the United Nations also passed over the wishes of the majority of the population in Palestine in order to implement the provisions of the :Balfour Declaration.
III. Self-determination in Western New Guinea
A.. The problaDS involved.
23. One of the most difficult issues in the current negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands with respect to Western New Guinea involves the question ot self- determination for the peoples of that territor.y. The problem of determining whether - 11-
and in what way, self-determination applies to the Western New Guinea situation a-ieee
from the different positions of the parties with respect to the status of the territor;y.
24. The Netherlands considers Western New Guinea a non-self-governing territor;y
for which it is responsible in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter of the United
Nations. It submits reports under paragraph 73(e) voluntarily including inforaation
on the political development of the population. It contends that the Papuans must
exercise a right of self-determination before a change in the status of the territor;y
can take place.
25. Indonesia on the other hand considers that self-determination was exercised for the entire area of the Netherlands East Indies when Indonesia became independent
and that West Irian is an integral part of the territory of Indonesia. It is under
stood that it is prepared to offer a choice to Papuans with respect to forms of association or integration in Indonesia but does not consider that the principle of self-determination can be invoked to disrupt its national unit,- by cutting off a part ot its territory.
26. Ambassador Bunker's proposals are specifically designed to leave aside the difficult legal issue of present sovereignty and refer merely to the transfer of administrative authority.
27. It is not the purpose of this paper to attempt to decide complicated lesal and factual issues involved in the difference of opinion concerning sovereignty over
Western New Guinea and the application of self-determination. However, it ~ be remarked on the first point that, if it were to be considered as a strictly legal question, divorced from its political aspects, a reasonable solution would appear to be submission of the question of de jure status to the International Court of Justice or to arbitration. On the second point it may be relevant to recall that, although the - 12- resolution in question failed to gain the necessary two-thirds majority for adoption, a majority of members (53) of the General Assembly recently voted in favour of a draft resolution (A/L.J68) on Western New Guinea which would inter~ have set up a Commission to study the possibilities of an international s,ystem of administration ot the territory tor an interim period and which would have recognized the applicability ot the principle of self-determination in the last resort (A/PV.l066, pp. 87-90). 28. In view of the problems just referred to, the conclusions set out in the following section of this paper are based on the assumption that the parties will agree that there is to be "self-determination". They have been arrived at as guides to the exercise of self-determination in the light of United Nations practice referred to in
Part II of this paper. B. Conclusions regarding procedures for the implementation of self-determination. 29· In the light of what has been said earlier in this note it would appear that self-determination is to-d~ a powerful political and moral consideration which either has become, or is close to becoming, a legal right in the Western !few Guinea situation as understood by the Netherlands. While it does not have the same degree of force in that situation as understood by Indonesia it might still be deemed to be not only eventually applicable as a political and moral principle but also appropriate in view of the dispute over the status of the territor,y. Furthermore, as indicated above, the United Nations has experience in implementing self-determination which might be of service to the two Governments in reaching some final agreement.
30. In determining what questions are to be put to the population of the territory it will be necessary to take into account that the primar,y, but not the exclusiv~tactor in the past has been the preliminary views of the people themselves. This, however, ......
J
- 13-
assumes the existence of a politically articulate population which understands the issues and has formed points of view. Until the population has reached that stage in its political development it is doubtful that it would be in a position to make
a choice in any event. other factors which have been considered in the past in limiting the field of choice are economic, geographical, political and security consideratioDBof both an internal and international character. 31. With respect to who should decide what questions should be put, it is noted that in trusteeship situations this decision has in the last analysis been made by the General Assembly. In most non-self-governing situations the United Nations has not assumed that role but the matter has been solved by negotiation between the parties
concerned. In the present case in the first instance it would presumably be for Indonesia and the Netherlands to agree on the questions to put. If possible their
decision should leave room for preliminar,y consultation with the various groups and factions of the population concerning the ultimate alternatives when the exercise of self-determination becomes feasible. If Indonesia and the Netherlands cannot agree on the questions, it might be possible that they could agree that the United llations General Assembly should make this decision. In such event it might be further agreed
that the Assembly would also make the decision as to the time when self-determination
is to be exercised. If this procedure were agreed it would be expected that the General Assembly, following its precedents and practice, would consult all interested parties, including representatives of the different groups among the population of the territor,, before reaching its decision.
29 June 1962 Hifn'ORICAL REVIEW AND SURVEY OF UIITED NATIOllS ....
TA.13Llil OF CONTENTS
Paragraph No. Paee No.
I. History before the First World ar .••.••••.•••••••••• 1 4 1 II. orld iiar I - VTilson' s Fourteen Points .•••••••••••• ·•• 5 - 9 2
III. The Aal~nd Islands Disnute ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10- 15 4 (Council of the Le86;e of Nations)
IV. 'rhe United Nat ions ...... • ...... 10
A. The Cl1arter...... 16 - 20 10
B. Resolutions of the General Assembly concerning ••• 21- 42 11 self-determination generally
C. Specific cases dealt with by the United Na:tions •• 25 involving the QUestion of self-determination
( 1) Pc:.lestine...... 44 - 47 25
(2) South West Africa •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 48-49 2?
( 3) Kashmir...... • • . . • ...... • 50 - 56 28
(4) orocco, Tunisi~ and Al geria .•••••••••••••••• 5?- 61 30 (5) Libya, Somalia , Erit rea •.•••••••••••••••••••• 62 - 65 32
(6) Korea .••..••••••••••••••.•...•••••••...... 66- 67 34
( 7 ) Cyprus ...... • . • ...... • . • ...... 68 - 73 3t.1.
( 8 ) Tibet ...... 74 36
(9) Puerto Rico, Greenland, Netherlands Antilles. ?5 - ?? 3? and Surinam, Alaska and Hawai i
(10) Sp&nish and Portueuese Ter ritories ••••••••••• ?8 38
(11 ) Southern Rhodesia •••••••••••••••••• •••••••••• ?9 38
(12) Angola...... 80 - Sl 38
(13) Indonesia ••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••• 82 - 102 40 - 2-
Paragrauh 1~ o . Page No .
D. Trust Territories •...... •.. ~ ················ 51 (1) Toffoland under British Awninistration •.•.••• 106 - llO 52
( 2) ·Togoland under l!'rench Administration .••••••• lll 53
( 3) ·rhe Camerouns under :J?rench .Administration ••• ll2 54
(4) The Camerouns under British Adrni.nistration •• ll3 - 121 54 ( 5) Somal ilW'ld • .•.....•.....••.•...••.•..••••••• 122 57
( 6) Tar1gaeyika • ••.•••••.••.•••••••••••••..•••••• 123 57 (7) Western Samoa •••..•.•..•••••••.••.•.•...•••• 124 - 125 57
( 8) Ruan.da-UI"Wl.di • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 126 - 131 58 UNITED NATIONS ~a), NATIONS UNIES ~
DRAFT SELF-DETERMINATION
I. History before the First World War.
1. The concept of self-determination found early mention in the writings
of Grotius(l), Pufendorf( 2), and Vattel(3), but as a political doctrine its
history(4)is said to begin with the French Revolution and the principles of
popular sovereignty on which it was based. Plebiscites were used in the
early period of the revolution in the annexations of Avignon, Savoy Nice
(1791-3) and other territories. This practice quickly fell into disuse and
the dynastic principle that the land belonged to the sovereign was restored
at the Congress of Vienna.
2. The doctrine of national self-determination and the use of plebiscites
was revived and enjoyed popularity in the period from 1848 to 1870. During
this period plebiscites were used extensively in the national movement for a
united Italy. At one time or another all the European powers participated
in some form of appeal to national self-determination. To give only a few
examples, the plebiscite was adopted by the Congress of Paris for the settlement of the question of Moldavia and Wallachia; followed by Great Britain in 1863
in the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece; and inserted (although never
implemented) in 1866 in the Treaty of Prague between Prussia and Austria with
respect to Northern Schleswig.
3. If this trend had continued it may be that the principle of self-
De jure belli ac pacis, lib. 2, cop. 6, sec. 5 (1625) Book 8, Ch. 5, No. 9 (1672) ~~) lib. 1, Ch. 21, No. 263-64 ~4) For an Historical Survey s ee Sarah Vlambaugh, A Monograph on Plebiscites, pp. l-33 (1920) and Plebiscites Since the Vlorld War, Vol. I, pp . 3-46 (1933) ,
- 2-
determination, as it relo.ted to cesdon of' territory, would have established
itself as a r)art of customary international h.w. (S) However, with the annexation
of Schleswig in 1867 without regard to the provisions of the treaty of Prague
and the annexation of Alsau Lorraine in 1371 this trend was decisively reversed,
and did not become again an important factor in international af'f;-:l.irs until the
First world ar.
4. There was however, conside:;.·a:.~le discussion in this period particularly
between French end German writers. 'rhe French for the most part insisted that
the doctrine of self-determination was established by natural right and international
usage. The German \vriters took the opposite position opposing the doctrine of
self-detern1ination as contrary to the right of the body politic over any of its
parts, as being dangerous to the State by implying the right of secession, and as
entrusting to the hazards of universal suffrage a question af fecting future generations.
It was also claimed that plebiscites were in fact only used to ratify a fait aooomuli.
Italian writers generally supported the French point of view while En~lish \vriters
for the most part either ienored the doctrine or considered that it had no stcnding in law. (6) At no time during these earlier periods was a right of self-determination discussed in the context of colonial ~eoples.
II. World War I - I'J'ilson's Fourteen Points.
5. The origin of the r~rinci:ple of self-determination in its modern development is usually attributed to President \ ilson's Fourteen Points. Strictly
(5) See \ ambaugh, onograph (opicit) ~.1 ( 6) l•'or e summary of the op~n~ons of various viTi t ers see ilambaugh, ~onograph (bpicit) pp. 22-33. • •
- 3 -
speaking, although the Fourteen Points enunciated by . ilson in his address
before the American Congress on 8 January 1918 accented the rights of
nationalities and interests of populations, they did not formulate the
principle of self-determination. This was expressly contained in the
elaboration of the Fourteen Points made in latter addresses and particularly
in the "Four Principles" speech in Congress on 11 Feb:ruary 1918P) In this
latter speech he said: '~Jational aspirations must be respected; peoples
m~y now be dominated and governed only by their consent. Self-dete=mination
is not a mere phrase. It is an imperative principle of action, which
statesmen will henceforth ignore at their peril." His Fourth Principle was:
'~hat all well-defined national aspirations sh~ll be accorded the utmost satisfaction that can be accorded them without introducing new or perpetuating antagonism that would be likely in time to break the peace of Europe and consequently the world."
6. This enunciation of the principle of self-determination had been
foreshadowed in ~ilson's speeches as early as 27 May 1916 before the entry of
the United States into the war. 7. The principle of self-determination was also proclaimed by the Soviet
Government in November and December 1917 irr~ediately after its establishment. The "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia" of 2 liovember 1917
recognized the equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia, including
the right of complete separation and the establishment of free independent states~S)
(7) Encyclopedia Britannica, 1947 ed., Vol. 9, pp. 565-566. (8) Taracouzio, The 3oviet Union and International Law (1935) p.29. The constitution of the USSR contains a provision stating the right of each republic to withdraw from the Union. •
- 4-
8. The Covenant of the League of Nations did not expr·essly refer to
the :principle of self-determination. Ho\·rever, Article 22 which established
the Mandates System, and particularly the provisions relating to the so-called
"A" l!ands.tes, is based sq_uarely on this principle. hloreover the principle,
though honoured freQuently in the breach, was a central factor in the
territorial settlements embodied in the Peace Treaties.(9) Plebiscites, it
is true, were resorted to in only a few cases - five plebiscites in the
Treaty of Versailles and one in the Treaty of Saint-Germain for example - but
with some notable exceptions, efforts were made to draw the new boundaries
along ethnic lines and to recognize the aspirations for independence of the
nationalities of Central 1urope.
9· The comments of Germany in objectine to the draft treaty presented
to its delegation are of particular interest in this regard: "In this war",
the German comr.!ents stated, "a new fundamental law has arisen which the
statesme.n of all belligerent peoples have again and ae,·ain acknowledged to be
their aim: the right of self-determination."
III. The Aaland lsland:l Dispute (Council of the League of l~ations).
10. One interesting discussion of the principle of self-determination the occurred in the course of the consideration of/Aaland Islands dispute between
Finland and Sweden by the Council of the League of Nations during its first
year.(lo) Sweden claimed that the Aaland Islands population should be allowed
(9) For a dis cussion of this point see 1ambaugh, Plebiscites Since the World War (1933). This exhaustive treatise also contains a detailed analysis of the plebiscites held in the period immediately following the war. (lO)See Collection of League of Nations documents on the subject in Sohn, Cases and Other Materials mn World Law (1950) pp. 87-120. ... •
- 5-
to determine immediately by plebiscite whether the Archipelago should remain
under Finnish sovereignty or be incorporated with the Kingdom of Sweden.
Finland r·ejoined that the Aaland Islands formed a part of the independent
and sovereign Republic of Finland and that the ~uestion arose out of a matter
which, by international law, was solely within its domestic jurisdiction. A
Commission of Jurists, composed of Professor lt,. Larnaude, (French), Professor
A. Struycken (Netherlands) and Professor Max Huber (Switzerland), was
appointed to consider the question of domes·tic jurisdiction and submitted its
report on 5 September 1920.
ll. The following extracts from this report may be noted:
"Although the principle of self-determination of peoples :::• lays an important part in modern political thought, especially since the Great War, it must be pointed out that there is no mention of it in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The recognition of this principle in a certain number of international treaties cannot be considered as sufficient to put it upon the same footing as a positive rule of the Law of Nations.
"On the contrary, in the absence of express provisions in international treaties, the right of disposing of national territor,y is essentially an attribute of the sovereignty of ev8r,y state. Positive International Law does not recognize the right of national groupe, as such, to separate themselves from the State of which they form part by the simple expression of a wish, any more than it recognises the right of other States to claim such a separation. Generally speaking, the grant or r efusal of the right to a portion of its population of determining its own political fate by plebiscite or by some other method, is, exclusively, an attribute of the sovereignty of every State which is definitively constituted. A dispute between two States concerning such a question, under normal conditions therefore, bears upon a question which International Law leaves entirely to the domestic jurisdiction of one of the States concerned. Any other solution would amount to an infringement of sovereign rights of a State and would involve the risk of creati difficulties and a lack of stability which would not only be contrary to the ver,y idea embodied in the term "State", but would also endanger the interests of the international community. If this right is not possessed by a large or small section of a nation, neither can it be held by the State to which the National group wishes to be attached, nor by any other State." . . .. •
I' - 0 -
"It must, however, be observed that all tha.t has been said concerning the attributes of the sovereignty of a State, generally speaking, only applies to a nation which is definitively constituted as a sovereign State and an independent member of the international community, and so long as it continues to possess these characteristics. From the point of view of both domestic and international law, the formation, transformation and dismemberment of States as a result of revolutions and wars create situations of fact which, to a large extent, cannot be met by the application of the normal rules of positive law. This amounts to a statement that if the essential basis of these rules, that is to a~, territorial sovereignty, is lacking, either because the State is not yet fully formed or because it is undergoing transfor mation or dissolution, the situation is obscure and uncertain from a legal point of view, and will not become clear until the period of developn1ent is completed and a definite new situation, which is normal in respect to territorial sovereignty, has been established." ***** "Under such circumstances, the principle of self-dete11nination of peoples may be called into play. New aspirations of certain sections of a nation, which are sometimes based on old traditions or on a common language and civilisation, may come to the surface and produce effects which must be taken into account in the interests of the internal and external peace of nations.
'~he principle recognising the rights of peoples to determine their political fate may be applied in various ways; the most important of these are, on the one hand the formation of an independent State, and on the other hand the right of choice between two existing States. This principle, however, must be brought into line with that of the protection of minorities; both have a common object - to assure to some national Group the maintenance and free development of its social, ethnical or religious characteristics." *****
" ••• the Bolschevik manifesto of the 15th November, 1917, proclaiming the right of self-determination of all the peoples not of Russian race to decide their ovm future, led to an important alteration in the relations between Russia and Finland." *****
'~he Aaland Islands were undoubtedly part of Finland during the period of Russian rule. Must they, for this reason alone, be considered as definitely incorporated de jure ih the State of Finland which was formed as a resu~t of the events described above? ..
- 7-
'~he Commission finds it imposzible to admit this. The extent and nature of the political changes, which take place as facts and outside the domain of law, are necessarily limited by the results actually produced. These results alone form the basis of the new legal entity which is about to be formed, and it is they which will determine its essential characteristics. If one part of a State actually separates itself from that State, the separation is necessarily limited in its effect to the population of the territory which has taken part in the act of separation. 'i'hough the political projects leading to the separation ma.y be manifested in different ways in different parts of the territory, nevertheless these projects all have an equal value as a foundation for the new legal order, though of course only in so far as those \ihO adopt them are able to maj_ntain them. It may even be said that if a separation occurs from a political organism which is more or less autonomous, and which is itself de facto in process of political transformation, this organism cannot at the very moment when it transforms itself outside the domain of positive law invoke the principles of this law in order to force upon a national group a political status which the latter refuses to accept." ***** "For these reasons, Finland cannot claim that the future of the Aaland Islmds should be the same as hers simply because of the one fact that the Islands formerly formed part of the FiDniah political organisation in the Russian lbpire." ***** "In December, at about the time when Finland declared its independence, the .Aaland Islanders were preparing to take a plebiscite in favour of their reunion with Sweden. This plebiscite took place on 31st December; every man and woman of age was given the right to take part. More than 7,000 Aaland Islanders expressed the wish that the Islands should be reunited to the Kingdom of Sweden. On the 3rd February, 1918, a deputation was received by the King of Sweden and communicated the results of this plebiscite to him."
"In June, 1919, a new plebiscite v1as taken in the Islands. About 95 per cent. of the populat ion declared in favour of reunion with Sweden." • ..
- 8-
12. The Commission of Jurists subn1itted the following conclusions:
"(1) The dispute between Sweden and Finland does not refer to a definitive established political situation, depending exclusively upon the territorial sovereignty of a State.
"(2) On the contrary, the dispute arose from a de facto situation caused by the political trans formation of the Aaland Islands, which transformation was caused by and originated in the separatist movement among the inhabitants, who quoted the principle of national self-determination, and certain military events which accompanied and followed the separation of Finland from the Russian Empire at a time when Finland had not yet acquired the character of a definitively constituted State.
"( 3) It follows from the above that the dispute does not refer to a question which is left by International Law to the domestic jurisdiction of Finland.
"(4) The Council of the League of Nations, therefore, is competent, under paraeraph 4 of Article 15, to make a:ny recommendations which it deems just and proper in the case." 13. Following the submission of this report, the Council of the League
declared itself competent to make any reootmendations which it deemed just
and proper in the case and appointed a Commission of Rapporteurs to advise
on the substance of the dispute. This Commission considered the competence
of the League rested on the international importance to the peace which the
question had acquired. The Commission considered that historically and
geographically the islands were a part of Finland, that the,y were more
important to Finland than to Sweden in the protection of its borders against
smuggling, that the loss to F:ln1ald of the Aaland Islands wi th thei r 25,000
inhabitants would adversely effect the position of the Swedish minority
(350,000) in Finland and that the loss would alienate Finland from the - 9 -
Scandanavian countries and weaken its position as a bulwark of peace in
Northern hurope. (Fears of Russia were apparent in this last consideration).
14. The Commission of Rapporteurs, on the basis of these arguments, concluded that the solution could only be based on the maintenance of the sovereignty of Finland, but ·~hat Finland should grant autonomy with international guarantees for maintaining its distinctive character. The
Commission added:
"However, in the event that Finland, contrary to our expectations and to what we have been given to understand, refused to grant the Aaland population the guarantees which we have just detailed, there would be another possible solution, and it is exactly the one which we wish to eliminate. The interest of the Aalanders, the interests of a durable peace in the Baltic, would then force us to advise the separation of the islands from Finland, based on the wishes of the inhabitants which would be freely expressed by means of a plebiscite."
15. The Council of the League of !lations based its decision {resolu · ~ion of
24 June 1921) on the recommendations of the Rapporteurs, which it noted had set forth "geogTaphical, ethnical, political, economic and military considerations".
Sovereignty of the Aaland Islands was recognized to belong to Finland and international guarantees of autonomy were incorporated in an Agreement between
Finland and Sweden approved by ·the Council of the League of Nations on 27 June 1961. • -lo-
IV. The United Nations
A. The Charter
16. The Charter of the United Nations expressly recognizes the
principle of "self-determination of peoples". (Articles 1 and 55)
Article 1 states that:
11 The Purposes of the United Nations are: • • • 11 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;".
Article 55 introducing Chapter IX on "International Economic and Social
Co-operation" also refers to "respect for the principle of self-determination
of peoples".
17. The Report of COilDDit tee I/1. at the San Francisco ConferencJ!/
contained the following comment on paragraph 2 of Article 1:
"The Committee after considering paragraph 2 as amended by the sponsoring governments found it satisfactory and decided to recommend it to you.
"The Conunittee understands that the principle of equal rights of peoples and that of self-determination are two complementary parts of one standard of conduct;
"that the respect of that principle is a basis for the developnent of friendly relations and is one of the measures to strengthen universal peace;
"that an essential element of the principle in question is a free and genuine expression of the will of the people, which avoids cases of the alleged expression of the popular will, such as those used for their own ends by Germany and Italy in later years. 11 (p. 84)
1!/ UNCIO Doc. 944, I/1/34(1), p. 10, UNIO, Vol. 6, P• 455. -11-
18. .Uso of importance in this regard are the provisions of Chapter XI -
Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories and Chapter XII - the
International Trusteeship System. In Article 73 the Members administering non-self-governing territories recognize the obligation 11to develop self- government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive developnent of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement. 11
19. Article 76 provides that one of the basic objectives of the trustee- ship system shall be:
"to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive develoiJnent towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoPles and the freely expressed wishes of the peoPles concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement ; 11 •
20. Balanced with the principle of self-determination is the principle of "domestic jurisdiction" in ..4a'ticle 2(7) of the Charter.W Likewise the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity may be cited as counterweights, although the latter as it appears in Article 2(4) is only protected against 11 the threat or use ot torce11 and not against peacef'ul. change.
B. Resolutions of the General Assembly concerning self-determination
generally
21. Self-determination has been the subject of many resolutions of
~ For a discussion of the relationship between Article 2(7) on the one hand and the Charter Provisions Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories/the Charter Provisions on the Self-Determination of People& on the other hand, see Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, Vol. I, pp. 146-148 and SupPlement No. 1, Vol. I, pp. 63-66. -12-
the General As sembly. Some of these have dealt with the general application of the principle or right of self-determination while others concerned specific territories.
22. One group of resolutions!lf dealing with self-determination generally have rEllated to the work in the field of human rights and preparatory considera- tion has been in the Human Rights Commission, the Economic and Social Council, and the Third Committee of the General Assembly.
23. By Resolution 421 D ('IT) of 4 December 1950 the General Assembly called upon
lithe Economic and Social Council to request the Coomission on Human Rights to study ways and means which would ensure the right of peoples and nations to self-determination, and to prepare recommendations for consideration b,y the General Assembly at its sixth session;".
24. However, the Economic and Social Council and the Conmission on
Human Rights did not have time to carry out this request, and at its sixth session the General Assembly (Resolution 545 (VI) of 5 Februar.y 1952) decided
11 to include in the Interna.tional Covenant or Covenants on Human Rights an article on the right of all peoples and nations to self-determination in re-affirmation of the principle enunciated in the Charter of the United Nations. This article shall be drafted in the following terms: 'All peoples shall have the right of self-determination', and shall stipulate that all States, including those having responsibility for the adminis tration of Non-self-Governing Territories, should promote the realization of that right, in conformity with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, and that States having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing Territories should promote the realization of that right in relation to the peoples of such Territories;".
!lf These resolutions include 421 D (V), 545 (VI), 637 (VII), 738 (VIII), 837 (IX), U88 (ID, a.nd 1314 (XIII). -13-
25. The General Assembly by the same resolution requested the
Conmdssion on Human Rights to prepare recommendations concerning international
respect for the self-determination of peoples and to submit these recommend&-
tiona to the General Assembly at its seventh session.
26. At its seventh session the General Assembly again adopted a resolu-
tion (637 (Vll of 16 December 1952) on 11the right of peoples and nations to
self-determination." The operative paragraphs of Part A of this resolution recommend that:
111. The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations;
11 2. The States Members or the United Nations shall recognize and promote the realization or the right of self-determination or the peoples of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories who are under their administration and shall facilitate the exercise of this right by the peoples or such Territories according to the principles and spirit of the Charter or the United Nations in regard to each Territory and to the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, the wishes of the people being ascertained through plebiscites or other recognized democratic means, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations;
"3. The States Members of the United Nations responsible for the administration or Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories shall take practical steps, pending the realization or the right of self determination and in preparation thereof, to ensure the direct par ticipation of the indigenous populations in the legislative and executive organs of government of those Territories, and to prepare them for complete self-government or independence."
27. In Part B of the resolution the Assembly recommended that States
administering Non-Self-Governing Territories voluntarily transmit information
regarding the extent to which the right or peoples and nations to self-
determination is exercised by the peoples or those Territories. In Part C it
requested that the Commission on Human Rights -14.--
"continue preparing recommendations concerning international respect for the right of peoples to self-determination, and particularly recommendations relating to the steps which might be taken, within the limits of their resources and competence, by the various organs of the United Nations and the specialized agencies to develop international respect for the right of peoples to self-determination; u.
28. At its eighth session the General Assembly requested (Resolu- tion 738 (VIII of 28 November 1953) the Commission on Human Rights "to give due priority" to these recommendations. At its ninth session (Resolution 837 IX of 14 December 1954) the Assembly . noting recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights (E/2573, para. 335 and Annex IV, Draft Resolution F), and
Resolution 545 G (XVIII) of the Economic and Social Council (inviting the
Commission to reconsider its draft resolution) requested the Commission to complete its recommendations on the subject, including recommendations con- cerning permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources.
29. At its eleventh session in April 1955 the Human Rights Conmission reaffirmed its previous reconunendations. These recommendations proposed the establishment by the General Assembly of two commissions: the first to conduct a survey of the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources and to make recommendations thereon; the second to examine any situation resulting from alleged denial or inadequate realization of the right of self-determination, to provide its good offices for the peaceful rectification of any such situation, and, if necessary, to report the facts, with appropriate recommendations, to the General Ass embly.
30. In its Resolution 586 D (XX) of 29 July 1955, the Economic and
Social Council transmitted to the General Assembly the Commission's draft -15-
resolutions, together with the records or its discussion on that item. It also. transmitted a third draft resolution calling for the establishment or an ad hoc commission to 11 conduct a thorough study or the concept or self- determination".
31. The General Assembly postponed consideration or these recommend&- tions at its tenth and eleventh sessions. It considered them at some l ength during its twelfth and thirteenth sessions adopting Resolutions ll8S (XII) of ll December 1957 and 1314 (XIII) of 12 December 1958. A summary of the discussion is found in the Reports or the Third Committee, A/3775 and A/4019.~ 32. While there was general agreement on the importance or self-determination in connexion with the maintenance or international peace and friendly relations among nations, there were divergent opinions on the legal nature and scope or self-determination. Only one or the three Committees, that dealing with
"permanent sovereignty" l'laS establishEd. (See Resolution 1314 (XIII).)
Resolution 1188 (XII) confined itself to a reaffinnation that
11 it is or international importance that, in accordance with the purposes and principles or the Charter of the United Nations:
11 (a) Member States shall, in their relations with one another, give due respect to the right or self-determination;
11 (b) Member States having responsibility for the adminis tration of Non-Self-Governing Territories shall promote the realization and facilitate the exercise or this right by the peoples or such Territories;".
33. One or the differences or opinion in the discussion included whether
~ For these reports and the text or the resolutions see Annexes to Agenda Item 32 of the twelfth session and to Agenda Item 33 or the thirteenth session attached hereto. -16-
self-determination was a 11right 11 or merely a 11 principle". The majority- stressed that the Assembly in previous resolutions recognized it as a fundamental right (A/3775, para. 14, A/4019, para. 14.) There was also a difference of opinion whether self-determination applied only to the peoples of dependent territories or had a more universal application. On the one hand it was argued that it should apply to peoples who, within the territories - - of sovereign states, were unable to determine their own destinies or freely ~ - - - participate in the government of their countries. On the other hand it was - - - .. - argued that alleged lack of political freedom within the territories of sovereign States was a question outside the scope of self-determination, to which Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter applied. (A/3775, paras. 15-16;
A/4019, paras. ll and 1~)
34. Another group of General Assembly resolutionJ:V dealing with self- determination generally have related to Non-Self-Governing Territories and have ' been considered in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly. This group has dealt ~rith the factors for determining whether a territory is one to which
Chapter n of the Charter applies. The earlier resolutions 222 (III) of
3 November 1948, 334 (IV) of 2 December 1949, and even 567 (VI) of 18 January 1952 (which contained the first tentative list of factors) did not refer expressly to self-determination and advanced rather timidly to the position that it is the General Assembly which has a right to decide when a territory has ceased to be non-self-governing. The list of factors annexed to Resolu- tion 567 (VI) as a basis for further consideration sets out the following:
!2f These resolutions include 222 (III), 334 (IV), 567 (VI), 648 (VII), 742 (VIII)J 850 (IX), 1051 (XI), and 1541 (XV). -17-
11 The condition under which the prOVJ..sl.ons of Chapter XI of the Charter cease to apply will be that the inhabitants of the territory have attained, through political advancement, a f'ull measure of self-government. 'l'he fulfilment of this condition may be achieved by various means, involving in all cases the expression of the free will of the people. The two principal means are (a) the attainment of independence and (b) the union of the taETitory on a footing of equal status with other component parts of the metropolitan or other country or its association on the same conditions with the metropolitan or other country or countries.
• • • "the General Assembly considers that the essential factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a Non-Self-Governing Territory has attained a full measure of self-government are the following:
(i) Political advancement: Political advancement of the population sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the territory with due lmowledge; (ii) Opinion of the population: The opinion of the popu lation of the Territory, freely expr-essed by informed and democratic processes, as to the status or change in status which they desire."
35. Resolution 648 (VII) of 10 December 1952 expressly recognizes the relation of this subject to self-determination. The General Assembly
"Recognizes that each concrete case should be considered and decided in the light of the particular circumstances of that case and taking into account the right of self-determination of peoples ; 11 •
It also invites a new Ad Hoc Con:mittee set up by this resolution to carry out a more thorough study of the "Factors" to take into account, inter .!!!!,, "The features guaranteeing the principle of self-determination of peoples in relation to Chapter XI of the Charter;". A list of "Factors indicative of the attain- ment of independence or of other separate systems of self-government" is also
armexed to this resolution. -18-
36. In Resolution 742 (VIII) of 27 November 1953 the General Assembly
"Reasserts that each concrete case should be considered and decided upon in the light of the particular circumstances of that case and taking into account the right of self-determination of peoples; 11 •
The General Assembly then:
"Considers that the validity of. any form of association between a Non-Self-Governing Territory and a metropolitan or any other country essentially depends on the tree~ expressed will of the people at the time of the taking of the decision;
"Considers that the manner in which . Territories referred to in Chapter XI of the Charter can become fulzy self-governing is primarily through the attainment of independence, although it is recognized that self-government can also be achieved by association with another State or group of States if this is done free~ and on the basis of absolute equality;".
37. The list of 11Factors11 annexed to Resolution 742 (VIII) is divided into three Parts: Factors indicative of (1) the attainment of independence,
(2) the attainment of other separate systems of self-government, and
(3) the Free Association of a Territory on equal basis with the Metropolitan or other Country as an integral part of that country or in any other form.
The General considerations set out in the second and third parts are as follows:
"FACTORS INDICATIVE OF THE ATTAINMENT OF OTHER s:zpARATE SYSTEMS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT
A. General "1. Opinion of the population. The opinion of the population of the Territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic pro cesses, as to the status or change in status which they desire.
"2. Freedom of choice. Freedom of choosing on. the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples between several possibilities, including independence.
"3· Voluntarz limitation of sovereignty. Degree of evidence that the attribute or attributes of sovereignty which are not individually exercised will be collectively exercised by the -19-
larger entity thus associated and the freedom of the population of a Territory which has associated itself with the metropolitan country to modify at any time this status through the expression of their will by democratic means.
"4• Geographical considerations. Elctent to which the relations of the Non-Self-Governing Territory with the capital of the metropolitan government may be affected by circumstances arising out of their respective geographical positions, such as separation by land, sea or other natural obstacles; and extent to which the interests of boundary states may be affected, bearing in mind the general principle of good-neighbourliness referred to in Article 74 of the Charter.
11 5. Ethnic and cultural considerations. Extent to which the populations are of different race, language or religion or have a distinct cultural heritage, interests or aspirations, distinguishing them from the peoples of the country with which they freely associate themselves.
11 6. Political advancement. Political advancement of the popu lation sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the Territory with due knowledge.
• • • "FACTORS INDICATIVE OF THE FREE ASSOCIATION OF A TmRITORY ON EQUAL BASIS WITH THE METROPOLITAN OR OTHER COUNTRY AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT COUNTRY OR IN ANY OTHER FORM
11 A. General
111. Opinion of the population. The opinion of the population of the Territory, freely expressed by informed and democratic proc.esses, as to the status or change in status l-rhich they desire.
11 2. Freedom of choice. '.i'he freedom of the population of a Non-Self-Governing Territory which has associated itself with '!the metropolitan country as an integral part of that country or in any other form to modify this status through the expression of their will by democ:ratic means.
"3. Geographical considerations. Extent to which the relations of the Territory with the capital of the central gOV'ernment may be affected by circumstances ~rising out of their respective geographical -2()...
positions, such as s~paration by land, sea or other natural obstacles. The right of the metropolitan country or the Territory to cha.nge the political status of that Territory in the light of the consideration whether that Territory is or is not subject to any claim or litigation on the part of another State.
11 4. Ethnic and cultural considerations. Extent to which the population are of different race, language or religion or have a distinct cultural heritage, interests or aspirations, distinguishing them from the peoples of the country with which they freely associa.te themselves.
11 5. Political advancEIIlent. Political advancement of the popu lation sufficient to enable them to decide upon the future destiny of the Territory with due knowledge.
11 6. Constitutional considerations. Association by virtue of a treaty or bilateral agreement affecting the status of the Territory, taking into account (i) whether the constitutional guarantees extend equally to the associated Territory, (ii) whether there are powers in certain matters constitutionally reserved to the Territory or to the central authority, and (iii) whether there is provision for the participation of the Territory on a basis of equality in any changes in the constitutional system of the State."
38. At its ninth session the Gen~al AssemblY in Resolution 850 (IX) of 22 November 1954 relating to the work of the Comnittee on Information trom Non-Self-Governing Territories, expressed the opinion that communications relating to the cessation of the transmission of information under Article 73(e) of the Charter should be examined "with particular emphasis on the manner in which the right of self-determination has been attained and freely exercised. 11 This provision is repeated in Resolution 1051 (XI) of 20 February 1957 adopted by the General Assembly at its eleventh session.
39. Finally, Resolution 1541 (~T) of 15 December 1960 approves "Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for · .. in . Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations." The full text of these principles is annexed to the -21-
resolution. The following may be particularly noted:
11 Principl.e IV
"Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographi~ separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it. • • • "Principle VI
"A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
"(a) Emergence as a sovereign :Independent State;
11 (b) Free association with an independent State; or
11 ( c) Integration with an independent State.
"Principl.e VII
11 (a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural charac teristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory trxough the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes.
11 (b) The associated territory should have the right to deter mine its internal constitution without outside interference, in accordance with due constitutional processes and the tre~ expressed wishes of the people. This does not preclude consultations as appropriate or necessary undet" the terms of the free association agreed upon.
"Principle VIII
"Integration with an independent State should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of funda mental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legisla tive and judicial organs of government. -22-
"Principle IX
"Integration should have come about in the following circum stances:
11 (a) The integrating territory should have attained an advanced stage of self-government with free political institu tions, so that its peoples would have the capacity to make a responsible choice through informed and democratic processes;
"(b) The integration should be the result of the freely ex pressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting with full knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage. The United Nations could, when it deems it necessary, supervise these processes."
40. Before leaving the subject of Non-Self-Governing Territories
particular mention may also be made of General Assembly Resolutions 1534 (XV)
of 15 December 1960 and 1697 (XVI) of 19 December 1961 concerning the Prepara- tion and training of indigenous civil and teChnical cadres in Non-Self-Governing
Territories.
41. A third group of General Assembly resolutionsW dealing with the
subject of self-determination generally relate to the trust territories and have also been considered by the Fotn"th Committee of the General Assembly.
This group of resolutions does not use the term self-determination but instead the wording of Article 76 nself-government or independence". The General
Assembly in a series or resolutions entitled variously nPolitical Advancement of Trust Territories", "Attainment by the Trust Territories of the objective of self-government or independence11 and "Attainment of self-government or
independence by Trust Territories11 called, progressively with more insistence,
!2/ These resolutions include 320(IV), 558(VI), 858(IX), 946(X), 1064(XI), 1207(XII), 1274(XIII), 1413(XIV), and 1535(XV). -23- for the fixing of a date for each territory for the achievement of this objective and for steps to ensure its early realization.
42. Finally, at the fifteenth and sixteenth sessions, this movement with respect to both Non-Self-Governing Territories and Trust Territories reached a culmination with the adoption of the "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" (Resolution 1514 (XV) of
14 December 1960) and the subsequent steps toward its implementation. (Resoll.r tion 1654 (XVI) of 27 November 1961.) The Declaration refers to the principle also of self-determination in the second paragraph of the Preamble. n/ declares that "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural developnent. 11
43. The text; of the Declaration 1.. excepting the Preamble) follows:
11 The General AssEI!lbly,
• • • "Declares that:
11 1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co operation.
"2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development;
"3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext; for delaying independence.
"4• All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to EllCercise peacefully and freely their right to co(t.plete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. 11 5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples or those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
tt6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the J:W'poses and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
11 7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Decla.ration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their terri torial integrity.~~ - 25 -
C. Snecific cases dealt vii th by the United Nations
involving the guestion of self-determination.
43. 'J:lhe question of self-determination has come before the United Nations in a number of different ways with respect to specific cases considered by the
General Assembly or the Security Council. These include, in addition to the trust territories which are considered in a separate section, Palestine,
Southwest Africa, Indonesia, Kashmir, Eritrea, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria,
Cyprus, Tibet, Puerto Rico, Greenland, Alaska and Hawaii, Netherlands Antilles and Surinam, Spanish and Portuguese territories generally, Angola, Southern Rhodesia, and other cases now being considered by the Con~ittee of Seventeen.(l7) Within the scope of this paper it is not possible to present these cases in detail. However, reference will be made to certain aspects of the cases involving the question of self-determination.
(1) Palestine.
44. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to
"certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" which had reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations could be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assist&..nce by a mandatary until such time as they are able to stand alone.
Palestine, being a conununity formerly belontsing to the Turkish :Elnpire, was a territory to which the so-called "A" A andate vmuld be applicable. However, in th2 order to give effect to/Balfour Declaration for the establishment in Palestine
(17) Committee established by General ..:..ssembly resolution 1654(XVI) of 27 lfovember 1961- '~he situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples." - 26- of a national home for the Jewish people, the Mandate for Palestine differed fundamentally from that ::t'or Lebanon, Syria and Iraq_. As a result the principle of self-determination was seriously limited.
45· This situation is described and enalized in the Report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (A/364) which recommended the partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State. In its "Appraisal of the Jewish case" the Commission stated: "135. Under the preamble of the andate, the Principal Allied Powers agTeed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the I.eague of Nations, to entrust to a mandatory Power the administration of the territory of Palestine. They also agreed that this mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration. Article 2 of the r.iandate made the mandatory responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as would assure:
"(a) The establishment of a Jewish National Home, as laid dovn1 in the preamble, and
"(b) The development of self-governing institutions.
"The obligation to assure the establishment of a Jewish National Home was q_ualified by article 6, which made the mandatory Power responsible for the facilitation of immigration and the encouragement of close settlement on the land. "136. There has been great controversy as to whether the obligations relating to the National Home and self-governing insti tutions were equal in weight, and also as to whether they were consistent with each other. Opinions have been expressed that between thesetwo obligations the Mandate recognizes no primacy in order of importance and no priority in order of execution, and that they were in no sense irreconcilable. According to other opinions, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble e.nd in its articles, was to promote the establishment of a Jewish National Home, to which the obligation of developing self governing institutions was subordinated.
"13?· The practical significance of the controversy was that, if the country were to be placed under such political conditions as would secure the development of self-governing institutions, - 27-
these same conditions would in fact destroy the Jewish National Home. It would appear that, although difficulties were anticipated, when the Mandate was confirmed it was not clearly contemplated that these two obligations would prove mutually incompatible. In practice, however, they proved to be so. The conflict between Arab and Jewish political aspirations, intensified by the growth of Arab nationalism throughout the Arabic-speaking countries and by the growth of anti-Semitism in some European countries, excluded any possibility of adjustment which would allow the establishment of self-governing institutions. Had self-governing institutions been created, the majority in the country, who never willingly accepted Jewish immigration, would in all probability have made its continuance impossible, causing thereby the negation of the Jewish National Home."
46. Even more directly in point is the comment of the Commission in its
"appraisal of the Arab case"a
"176. \1ith regard to the :principle of self-determination, although international recognition was extended to this principle at the end of the First orld ar and it was adhered to with regard to the other Arab territories, at the time of the creation of the "A" Mandates, it was not applied to Palestine, obviously because of the intention to make possible the creation of the Jewish National Home there. Actually, it may well be said that the Jewish National Home and the sui generis Mandate for Palestine run counter to that principle."
47. A representative of the Arab Higher Committee stated the Arab claim in these terms: ''The principle of self-determination, upheld by both the Covenant of the League of Nations under which Palestine was governed, and the United
Nations Charter, grants to the Arab majority of the people of Palestine the unquestionable natural right of complete sovereignty over that country."* This view, however, was not supported by the decisions of the United Nations.
(2) South West Africa.
48. South West Africa is the only remaining League of Nations Mandate which l1as neither become inde~endent nor been placed under United Nations trusteeship. While South West Africa has been an important question before
*See also Report of Sub-Committee 2 of Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, AjAC.l4/ 32, para. 24. - 28- the General Assembly in almost all its sessions, as well as before the International
Court of Justice, the main issue has been the right of United Nations supervision.
However, in resolution 1702(XVI) of 19 December 1961, the General Assembly, recalling its "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" •••
"Solemnly nroclaims the inalienable right of the people of South West Africa to independence and national sovereignty." 49· It will be recalled that South West Af'rica was a so-called "0 Mandate" referred to specifically in Article 22 of the Covenant as a territory which, owing to its geographical contiguity, could be best administered under the laws of the
Mandatory as an integral portion of its territory, subject to safeguards in the interests of the indigenous population.
{3) Kashmir. 50. J ammu and Kashmir was a Princely State of British India which under t he Indian Independence Act of 1947 became free to accede to India or Pakistan. The
Maharajah was Hindu and the majority of the popula,tion Muslim. \Yhen disturbances and incursions across the border from Pakistan occurred the Maharajah declared his accession to India and asked for Indian military assistance. This accession was accepted by the Government of India. However at the same time the Governor General in a letter to the :Maharajah stated:
"In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India.. Consistently wi t l-1 their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people." - 29-
51. The Prime Minister of India, in a broadcast from New Delhi on
2 November 1947 said:
"Yfe decided to accept this accession and to send troops by air, but we made a condition that the accession would have to be considered by the people of Kashmir later when peace and order were established. VJe are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis, and without the fullest opportunity to the people of Kashmir to have their s~. It was for them ultimately to decide."
52. These statements recognize that an accession by an absolute rules although formally valid does not satisfy the principle of self-determination which should be exercised by the people. 53. Fighting in Kashmir continued and in January 1948 India took the matter to the Security Council alleging an invasion by tribesmen and others with the assistance and participation of Pakistan. In a resolution of 21 April 1948 the
Security Council noted with satisfaction "that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite." It instructed the Commission previously established to place its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan both with respect to the restoration of peace and order and to the holding of a plebiscite, by the two
Governments, acting in cooperation with one another and with the Commission.
54. Wnile agreement was initially reached in principle on the holding of a plebiscite the parties were unable to agree on the withdrawal of troops preliminary to arrangements for the plebiscite. Since that time efforts to achieve agreement on a plebiscite or on partition of the territory have been unsuccessful. Pakistan continues to urge a plebiscite whereas India contends that conditione have changed and that in fact the population has expressed their agreement to the accession in subsequent elections. - 30-
55. The Security Council in a number of resolutions continued to give its approval to the principle "that the final disposition of the state of Jammu and
Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite" (3 June 1948, 14 Jfarch 1950,
30 Karch 1951, 24 Januar,y 1957 and 2 December 1957. The subject is again under discussion in the Security Council but at the present writing there has been no resolution adopted on Kashmir since 1957).
56. The choice envisaged in the Security Council resolutions was accession to India or Pakistan. Partition of the territo17 between India and Pakistan has also been discussed. There does not appear to have been any proposal that independence be one of the choices. However, the matter has never progressed to the point where details of a plebiscite could be arranged.
{4) Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.
57. The principle of self-det81'1Dination was invoked in the General Assembly in the Moroccan, Tunisian and Algerian questions as a basis for the Assembly' a competence. On the other hand Article 2(7) of the Charter was invoked to exclude consideration as a matter essentially within the jurisdiction of France.
58. At the 7th session resolutions were adopted on both the question of
Morocco {612(VII) of 19 December 1952) and of Tunisia {6ll(VII) of 17 December 1952) which quoted in the preamble from Article 1(2) of the Charter. Draft resolutions in both cases were also approved by the First Committee at the 8th session which expressly recognized the right of the people "to complete self-determination in conformity with the Charter". {This quotation is from the draft resolution on
Morocco). These draft resolutions failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majorit7 in plenary. In the 9th and loth sessions further consideration was postponed in the - 31 - light of negotiations between the parties and in March 1956 agreements were reached in which France recognized the independence of Morocco and TWlisia. Each was admitted to membership in the United nations at the 11th session of the General
Assembly on 12 November 1956.
59. The Algerian question was first brought to the General Assembly at its lOth session in 1955. The French Representative strongly objected to the consideration of the question as a matter essentially within its jurisdiction. At the 11th through the 14th sessions resolutions specifically referring to the principle or right of self-determination failed of adoption, althoueh resolutions at the 11th and 12th sessions (1812(XI) of 15 February 1957 and 1184(XII) of
10 December 1957) referred to the purposes and principles of the Charter. However, at the 15th session, after the admission of a number of new Members, the General
Assembly adopted resolution 1573(XII) on 19 December 1960. By this resolution the General Assembly inter _?lia
'~aking note of the fact that the two r arties concerned have accepted the right of self-deterDiination as the basis for the solution of the Algerian problem,
'~ecognizing the passionate yearning for freedom of all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peopes in the attainment of their independence,
"Convinced that all peoples have an inali,nable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the i ntegri ty of their national territory,
"1. Recognizes the right of the Algerian people to self determination and independence;
"2. Recognizes the imperative need f or adequate and ef fective guarantees to ensure the successful and just implementation of the right of self- determination on the basis of respect for the unity and territorial integrity of Algeria;
"Recognizes further that the United Nations has a - 32-
responsibility to contribute towards the successful and just implementation of this right."
60. At ita 16th session the General Assembly adopted resolution 1724(XVI)
of 20 December 1961 in which, after recalling its Declaration on colonialism
(resolution 1514(XV)) and its previous resolution on Algeria (1573(XV), it
took note of "the fact that the two parties concerned have affirmed their willingness to seek a negotiated and peaceful solution on the basis of the
right of the Algerian people to self-determination and independence" and called upon "the two parties to resume negotiations wi. th a view to implementing the
right of the Algerian people to self-determination and independence respecting
the unity and territorial integrity of Algeria."
61. On 18 March 1962 an agreement was reached at :E.'vian under which a
referendum on self-determination will be held on 1 July at which time it is
expected that Algeria will vote in favour of ind~pendence.
(5) Libya, Somalia, ~ritrea.
62. The question of self-determination may also be examined ;,lith respect to the f ormer Italian colonies of Libya, Somalia, and Eritrea. Italy renounced all claims to j.ts former colonies and when the four Powers (France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR) were unable to agree, their final dis- position was referred to the General Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Italian Peace Treaty. After hearings granted to representatives of political parties or organizations from the territories concerned, the General
Assembly decided on independence for Libya and for Somalia after an interim
10-year trusteeship period for the latter. ith respect to Eritrea, since
opinions were widely divided, the General Ass~ilily established a five-Member - 33 -
Commission to ascertain more fully the wishes of the inhabitants and the best means of promoting their welfare.
63. The United Nations Commission for Eritrea held 64 hearings at 37 different centres in h~itrea in order to obtain the views of representatives of the population of the territory, including re:presentatives of the minorities.
It also consulted the British Administration and other interested States. The
Commission was divided in its conclusions, its members submitting tl1ree different recommendations (l) integration into Ethiopia (with possible separation of Western Province which would decide which of the two neighbouring countries
it should join) (2) self-governing unit of a Federation with Ethiopia and (3) independence.
64. A wide variety of proposals were considered by the General Assembly at its Fifth Session. A majority of speakers pointed to the observations of three of the five members of the U.N. Commission for :::Jritrea as indicating that a majority of the Eritrean people favoured union with Ethiopia, and as demonstrating strong economic reasons against independence. The Federation envisaged was r egarded as sufficient to safeguard the interests of the minorities. Other speakers considered inte~~ s.lia th<:;t there vras evidence of support for independence and that the Rritrean ~-eo};le should in s.ny case be enabled to decide the issue themselves. The General Assembly adopted a resolution approving federation v. i th
Ethiopia, and with the assistance of a United Nations Commissioner, a constitution for Eritrea and a Federal Act were adopted.
65. Of the two leading political parties, one had favoured integration with
Ethiopia and the other independence. 'l'he solution adopted - an autonomous unit - 34 -
federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the b~hiopian crown - appears to have been a compromise between these opposite positions.
(6) Korea.
66. The General ~ssembly by resolution 112(II) of 14 November 1947 in order to enable the Korean people itself to resolve the question of its freedom and independence, recommended the holding of elections on the basis of adult suffrage and by secret ballot, under the observation ot a United llations Comii\ission, to elect represento.tives with whom the Connnissi on mi ght consult r egarding the prompt attainment of the freedom und j.nd.ependence of the Korean people.
67. Such elections wer e held in the southern :!Ja- t of Korea but the Unit ed
Nat ions Temp orary Comm ission on Kor ea, as well as su bse ~uent commie ions( established by the Gene1·al Assembly, was not permitted to observe elections in the northern part of Korea. By resolution 195(IIJ:) of 11 December 1948 the General Assembly declared:
"that ·there has been established a lmvful government (the Government of the Republic of Korea) having effective control and jurisdiction over that ?art of Korea where the Temporary Commission was able to observe and consult and in which the great ma.jority of the people of all Korea reside; that this Government is based on elections which were a valid eJq)ression of the free •;dll of ·the electorate of that part of Korea and which were observed by the Temporary Commission; and that this is the only such Government in Korea;"
This resolution has been affirmed in all subsequent resolutions of the General
Assembly on the subject.
( 7) Cyprus.
68. The question of Cyprus was first considered by the General Assembly at its 9th session (1954) under the Agenda item "Application, under the auspices of - 35 - the United Nations, of the y)rinciple of equal rights and self-determination of peoples in the case of the !:l Opulation of the Island of Cyprus." 69. The representative of Greece in supporting the request of his
Government for inclusion of the item in the Agenda argued:
''The contractural obligation to respect the principle of self determination which Member States had assumed by ratifying the Charter had been re-stated in General Assembly resolutions 545(VI) and 637(VII). Although those resolutions were not legally binding, their moral weignt had nevertheless been recognized at the Tenth International Conference of American States held et Caracas in March 1954 and at the conference held at Manila in September 1954·" argued 70. The representative of the United Kingdom, ~ that under
Article 2(7) the question was a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of his Government. With respect to the question of self-determination, the representative of the United Kingdom contended:
''The argument has been put forward that Cyprus, as a Non-Self Governing 'Jlerritol"'J, has in some wa:y become internationalized because of the reference in the Charter to the self-determination of peoples. But this is not a question of self-determination and independence in the accepted sense of those terms. Cyprus is an island inhabited in the main by two ethnic groups, one Turkish-speaking, the other Greek-speaking; one Christian, the other 1Ioslem. These two groups are to be given, it is suggested, a choice between Greek and United Kingdom sovereignty. But supposing that enosis (union), which is the whole claim, were to take place, does anyone really suppose that that the Cypriots would ever then in fact be given the chance to decide their own future, the chance to secede, if they wanted, and to become independent? Of course not. Does anyone believe that the Turkish ethnic group would be given t b e rie;ht to determine its orm future? Of course not. All the arguments and almost all the quotations from the :p ast have referred to the cession of Cyprus to Greece."
71. ·The General Assembly !Jlaced the item on its Acenda by a vote of 30 to 19 with 11 abstentions. It decided, however, that for the time being it did not appear appropridte to adopt a resolution on the subject. (Resolution 814(IX) of
17 December 1954). ..
- 36-
72. At the lOth session the General Assembly decided not to put the
question of Cyprus on its Agenda, but did so at the 11th, 12th and 13th sessions.
At the 12th session (1957) the First Committee approved a draft resolution
expressing the wish that the :people of Cyprus be given the opportunity to
determine their O\vn future by the application of their right of self-determination.
This draft resolution failed to receive the required two-thirds majority in
plenary. At the ll th session a resolution was ;adopted referring generally to
the principles and purposes of the Charter. At the 13th session the General
Assembly in resolution 1287(XIII)of 5 December 1958 eDJressed its confidence
"that continued efforts would be made by the parties to reach a peaceful,
democratic and just solution in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."
73. A settlement acceptable to all parties was agreed upon in London on
19 February 1959 between the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and the Greek and
Turkish communities of Cyprus. After detailed negotiations in Cyprus an
independent Cyprus was established and Cyprus was admitted to membership in the
United Nations on 20 September 1960. (Resolution 1489(XV)). The solution was not the first choice of the majority of the population which preferred union with
Greece but was a compromise takint; into account all the interests involved. It
was accepted by representatives of both Greek majority and Turkish minority as
well as by the three other Governments concerned.
(8) Tibet.
74. ~he General Assembly adopted resolutions on the Question of Tibet at its
14th and 16th sessions. (1353(XIII) of 21 October 1959 and 1723(XVI) of
20 December 1961). In resolution 1353(XIV) it referred to the distinctive . , ..
- 37 -
cultural and religious heritage of the people of Tibet and of the autono~ which
they have traditionally enjoyed. In resolution 1723(XVI) the General Assembly:
"Solemnly renews its call for the cessation of practices which deprive the Tibetan people of their fundamental human rights, including t' eir ric-ht to self-determination."
(9) ~erto Rico, GreeE]and, Netherlands Antilles and Surinam, Alaska and Hawaii.
75. In paragTaphs 34 to 40 above, General Assembly resolutions are described
which deal generally with the c!uestion of determinine:; v;hen a territory has ceased
to be Non-Self-Governing. V,'hen such a territory achieves independence the
United l~ations normally recognizes this fact by admitting it as a Member. In
other cases, special resolutions have~approved the cessation of the trans-
mission of information under Article 73(e) of the Charter.
76. In the cases of Puerto Rico (resolution 748(VIII) of 27 November 1953)and
Alaska and Hawaii (resolution 1469(XIV) of 12 December 1950), the General Assembly
expressly recognized that the people of the territories had "effectively
exercised their right to self-detel'mination". In the case of Greenland
(resolution 849(IX) of 22 November 1954) the General Assembly took note that the people of Greenland had "freely exercised their right to self-determination" and
"freely decided on integration within the Kingdom of Denmark on an equal
constitutional and administrE,tive basis with the other parts of Denmark." 11· The resolution concerning the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam (945(X)
of 15 December 1955) is not so clearly viOrded, but the General Assembly takes note
of the documentation to the effect that the 11eople of the territories have expr essed,
through their freely elected representative bodies, their approval of the new constitutional order, and expresses the opinion that cessation of the transmission
of information is appropriate. (10) Snanish and Portuguese Territories. 78. In resolution 1542(XV) of 15 December 1960 the General Assembly dealt with
the ~uestion of the transmission of information under Article 73(e) with respect to
Spanish and Portuguese Non-Self-Governine Territories. It noted with satisfaction
that Spain agreed to transmit infor-mation and declared that Portugal had an obligation
to do so with respect to nine enumer~ted territories. In the preamble to t his
r esolution the Assembly recognized "that the desire for independence is the rightful
aspiration of peoples under colonial subjugation and that the denial of their ri ht
to self-detern:ination oonsti tutes a threat to the well-bein of humcU:li ty and to
internation peace."
(11) Southern Rhodesia.
79. ~y r esolution 1745(XVI) of 23 February 1962 the Gener Assembly r equest d t he Spe i al Cornmittee est ablished by General Assembly resol ution l 654( XVI ) of
27 1lovember 19 1 (Committee o ~ Seventeen) to consider whether t he territory of
Southern Rhodesia has attained a full easure of self-government. The Co itt e
came to a ne ative conclusion on the basis that the African m·jority because of
educational and :propert;y requirements would not have an opportunity to participate
:fully in the elections and was bitterly opp osed to t h e proposed new constitution. It considered that elections should be baaed on universal adult suffrage. The question is being discussed at the current resumed session of the General Assembly.
(12) Angola. So. The General ssembly a.dopted resolutions 1603(XV) of 20 April 1961 and
1742(XVI) on "the situation in Angola". The General Assembly, in the preamble of the former resolution views with concern "the growincr resti veness of dependent peoples throug out the world for self-determination f>.nd independence" "nd recalls - 39 - its Declaration on the granting of indep endence to colonial countries and !'eoples.
(Resolution 1514(XV)).
81. Resolution 1742(XVI) includes the following references to self-determination:
"The General .Assembly •••• convinced that the continued refusal of Portugal to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the Angolan people to self-determination and independence constitutes a permanent source of international friction and threatens international peace and security.
II
11Solenmly reaffirms the inalienable right of the Angolan people to self-determination and independence;" -~
(i3) Indonesia. 82. It is not intended to retrace the subject of Indonesian independence in this paper. Reference is made to Alastair Taylor 1 s book 11 Indonesian
Independence and the United Nations 11 published in 196o. It may be noted, how- ever, that with respect to Indonesia the question of self-determination arose in several ways o First, the independence of Indonesia. from the Netherlands; second, the status of various areas within the short-lived United States of
Indonesia; and finally the question of :-rest ern ew Guinea. or Irian Barat o
33. On 17 .ugust 1945, immediately following the surrender of Japan, a Proclamation of Independence was issued by Sukarno and Hatta as follows: 'll,le the Indonesian people proclaim the independence of Indonesia. All matters pertaining to the transfer of power, etc., will be carried out efficiently and in the shortest possible time. On behalf of the Indonesian People - Sukarno, Hattaon
84. The question came to the Security Council as a result of fighting which broke out when the Netherlands attempted to re-establish its authority in areas controlled by the Republic. The Security Council resolutions do not refer to self-determination but from the beginning dealt with the Netherlands and the aepublic of Indonesia as parties - although not necessarily ~~ual parties. The lengthy resolution of 28 January 1947 contains provisions for observance of elections by the United Nations Commission. The following para- graphs may be noted: The Security Council, "Noting with satisfaction that the parties continue to adhere to the principles of the Renville Agreement and agree that free and democratic elections should be held throughout Indonesia for the purpose of establishing a constituent assembly at the earliest practicable date, and further agree that the Security Council should arrange for the observation of such elections qy an appro priate agenc.y of the United Nations; and that the representative of the Netherlands has expressed his Government 1 s desire to have such elections held not later than 1 October 1949;
• • • -41-
"4( e). The Commission or such other United Nations agency as may be established in accordance with its recotlmendation under paragraph 4( c) above is authorized to observe on behalf of the United Nations the elections to be held throughout Indonesia. and is further authorized, in respect of the Territories of Java, Madura and Sumatra, to make recommendations regarding the condi tions necessary (a) to ensure that the elections are free and democratic, and (b) to guarantee freedom of assembly, speech and publication at all times, provided that such guarantee is not construed so as to include the advocacy of violence or reprisals." (S/INF/3, PP• 7 and 9.) .
85. With respect to the relationship between Articles 1(2) and 2(7)
of the Charter the following analysis by Mr. Taylor may be of interest:
"The Indonesian Question also drew attention to another inherent conflict in the Charter - between the 'principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' in Article 1(2) and the principle of domestic jurisdiction in Article 2(7). It is true that the first of these principles is found in the Article on 'Purposes 1 and was understood by Committee I/1 at San Francisco to constitute 1 complementary parts of one standard of conduct, ' and that - in contrast to Article 2 (7) - it does not impose legal obligations upon the signatories of the Charter. As a consequence, however, of leaving the juridical issues in abeyance and of regarding the Indonesian Question primarily as a military-political problem, members of the Security Council in fact attached considerable weight to arguments based on the principle of equal rights and self-determination. Indeed, to the extent that it regarded the Indonesian Question as a 1 colonial' dispute, the Council felt called upon to choose between two antithetical principles. Its ultimate choice might be considered a direct consequence of an !. priori determination to treat the dispute as primarily political; con versely, it might be reasoned that had the case been referred to the juridical organ of the United Nations, the confiict of principles might well have been resolved in favour of that of domestic juris diction." (pp. 370-3'71)
86. The Report of the United Nations Commission for Indonesia (S/2087) discusses the question of self-determination in relation to the "metamorphosis" of the "Republic of the United States of Indonesia" into the unitary "Republic of Indonesia". The following extracts may be of interest: -42- ·.
"Provisions concerning rights of self-determination were also included in the agreements signed at The Hague on 2 November 1949• Article 2 of the Agreement on Transitional ~Ieaeures provided in particular that:
111 1. The division of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia into component states shall be established finally by the Constituent .~ssembly in conformity with the provisions of the Provisional Con stitution of the Republic of the United states of Indonesia, with the understanding that a plebiscite will be held among the population of territories thereto indicated by the GovernmEilt of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia upon the reoommendation of the United Nations Commission for Indonesia or of another organ of the United Nations, under supervision of the United Nations Commission for Indonesia or the other United Nations organ referred to, on the question whether they shall form a separate component state.
111 2. Each component state shall be given the opportunity to ratify the final constitution. In case a component state does not ratify that constitution, it will be allowed to negotiate about a special relation ship toward the Republic of the United states of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 1
This article allowed means for the exercise of the so-called 'external right of self-determination•, namely the right of Indonesian terri tories to dissociate themselves from the Republic of the United states of Indonesia and to enter into special relationship with both Indonesia and the Netherlands.
"Even prior to the signing of the Provisional Constitution there were indications of a movement for the liquidation of the negaras in Java and Madura and for the inclusion of these territories in the Republic of Indonesia. Following the transfer of sovereignty, this movement was greatly accelerated and was also active in Sumatra, Borneo and other adjoining islands. On 15 February 1950, President Sukarno, addressing the first meeting of Parliament, referred to the position of meni>er states in the Federation in the light of the popular demand for the abolition of the federal Provisional Constitution of the country. He stressed the temporary nature of the structure of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and the provisional character of the Constitution, and announced the Goyernment 1 s intention to introduce in Parliament a draft Bill to be based on article 44 of the Constitution •to channel the claims and demands of the people along legal and peaceful ways 1 • This Bill was eventually promulgated by the President on 7 March 1950, as the ~ergency Law 'on the procedure of political reforms of the territory of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia•. -43-
"The ~ergency Law of 7 Ua.rch provided that the initiative to realize 1 political reforms 1 could be taken by each state, by the Gov ernment of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia, or by a territory without the status of a state; such initiative should be approved by the population of the territory concerned, directly, through a plebiscite, or by a majority vote of a council of repre sentatives specially elected for that purpose. However, a number of exceptions to the above principle were provided for and actually no plebiscites were held. A 'political reform' might be (a) the liquidation of a state through the transfer of all authority and power directly to the Government of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia; (b) the liquidation of a state by incorporation into another state; (c) the fusion of several states into one; or (d) the partition of a state and incorporation into several other states.
"The 'political reforms• started immediately with the promulga tion of the ::!.mergency Law and, on 9 March, by decree of the Federal Government, the territories of East Java, Central Java, Madura, Padang and Sabang were incorporated into the Republic of Indonesia. This process continued during March and April and by the beginning of May 1950, all states and territories, with the exception of East Sumatra and East Indonesia, had joined the Republic of Indonesia. Negotiations between the Governments of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia (acting also on behalf of East Sumatra and East Indonesia) and the Republic of Indonesia, which followed these developnents, led to an agreEIIlent on 19 May concerning the establish ment of a unitary State.
·~'fllile not questioning that these reforms in the first place per tained to the Government of the Republic of the United states of Indonesia, the Netherlands High Commissioner, in a letter addressed to the Commission on 25 :t-ray, expressed his Government 1 s concern over safeguarding the right of self-determination as laid do'Wil in article 2 of the Agreement on Transitional Measures. The Netherlands Govern ment asked how the right of self-determination could be carried into effect in a unitary State. In the view of the Netherlands Government, article 2 of the Agreement on Transitional Measures imposed on the United Nations Commission for Indonesia 1 a t ask of its own in that the recommendations of holding a plebiscite under its supervision among the population of areas which in its opinion are qualified therefore must ananate from it'. The Netherlands Government indicated that the result of a possible plebiscite was less important than the safeguarding of the principle itself.
"The Commission forwarded the High Commissioner 1 s letter to the Indonesian Government on 3 June and expressed confidence that plans for the creation of a unitary State for the whole of Indonesia would not interfere in any way with the right of self-determination of the people or with the obligations of the Government under the terms of the H.ound Table Conference agreements. -44-
11In a letter addressed to the Commission on 8 June the Indo nesian Prime Minister expressed the view that the right of self determination of the peoples in Indones:ia was to be guaranteed by establishing autonomous provinces or cornm'lUlities; he further stated that preparations were being made to hold general elections to a constituent assembly as stipulated in the Provisional Constitution; the constituent assembly, together with the government, would enact the final constitution 'displaying the real democratic features of the unitary state• ••••
"At a ceremony held on 15 August 1950 in the Indonesian House of Representatives, in the presence of the members of the diplomatic copra accredited in Djakarta and the members of the Commission, President Sukarno proclaimed the establishment of the Republic of Indonesia as a 'lUlitary State • • • •
11The movement towards the liquidation of the negaras and the establishment of a unitary State met with some opposition in the Negara Indonesia Timur (East Indonesia) •••• 11 (pp. 452-455)
'l'he Report then describes a revolt in the City of Ambon - the so-called
"South Moluccas B.epublic."
87. :"lith respect to the question of "-lest ern New Guinea itself a
~ough study of the question up to 1958, writ ten from a point of view
sympathetic to the Indonesian position, is found in a monograph by Robert
C. Bone, Jr., entitled 11The Dynamics of the Western New Guinea (Irian Barat)
Problem. A shorter treatment is found in Taylor's book, pp. 440-446.
88. Indonesia considers that its original proclamation of Independence
applied to the Netherlands East Indies in their entirety 11 from Sabong to
Merauki 11 • The Linggadjati and Renville Agreements stipulated that sovereignty was to be transferred over the whole territory of the former Netherlands Indies.
However, both Agreements contained a reservation with respect to areas where
the population did not wish to join.
89. Article 3 of the Linggadjati Agreement provided: -45-
"Article 3
aThe United States of Indonesia shall comprise the entire territory of Netherlands India with the understanding that, if the,population of·any area, after consultation with the r emaining areas, give an indication qy means of a democratic process that it is not, or not yet, willing to join the United States of Indonesia, a special relationship for that territory to these States and to the Kingdom of the Netherlands can brought into being. 11
90. The sixth political principle in the Renville Agreement was:
11Should any state decide not to ratify the constitution (i.e. of the proposed United States of Indonesia) and desire, in accordance ltith the principles of articles 3 and 4 of the Linggadjati Agreement, to negotiate a special relationship with the United States of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, neither party will object • 11
91. Bone argues, however, that is is obvious that "New Guinea was patently outside the whole process" because it l'tas not in a position to resolve its political future "by means of a democratic process".
92. The question of New Guinea was one of two problems which was not solved at the Round Table Conference. Article 2 provided:
11Article 2
''With regard to the residency of New Guinea it is decided:
11 a. in view of the fact that it has not yet been possible to reconcile the views of the the parties on New Guinea, which remain, therefore, in dispute, •••
"that the status quo of the residency of New Guinea shall be maintained with the stipulation that within a year from the date of transfer of sovereignty to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia the question of the political status of New Guinea be determined through negotiations between the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and the Kingdan of the Netherlands."
93. In addition the Chainnan of the Dutch Delegation addressed letters to the Chairmen of the Indonesian delegations which stated: -46-
"The clause in article 2 of the Draft Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty reading: 1the status quo of the residency of New Guinea shall be maintained 1 means: 1 through continuing under the Government of the Netherlands.'"
94. In a joint letter of reply the two Indonesian delegations expressed their agreement. - 47-
95. Indonesia and the Netherlands were unable to reach agreement vdthin the time specified in the Round Table Agre~nent, nor were they able to settle it within the framework of the Netherlands-Indonesian Union which then existed. The
Netherlands maintained that it ~uld continue to administer the territory of
est New Guinea until conditions were established for the exercise of self determination by the Papuans. It argued that there was no provision in the
Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty to the effect that Netherlands sovereignty would cease after one year or that a change in etatua quo should take place if agreement v1as not reached. Indonesia on the otherhand maintained tha.t '1iest Irian had always been an integral part of Indonesia, and that after the expiration of the period of a year provided in the Round Table Agreement the Netherlands was r emaining in territory without Indonesian consent.
96. Indonesia brought the question of West Irian ( est New Guinea) before the General Assembly at its 9th, lOth, 11th and 12th sessions (1954-1957). Only at the lOth session was a resolution adopted (915(X) of 16 Dec~nber 1955 and this only expressed the hope that negotiations would be fruitfUl. At the other sessions draft resolutions urging the parties to reach a settlement and providing for "good effects" were approved by the Firat Committee but failed to receive the necessary two-thirds majority. W'ith the failure of the Assembly at its 12th session to adopt a resolution, the Indonesian Foreign Minister announced that he had brought the 'I/ est Irian issue to the United Nations for the last time.
97. The question of Western New Guinea ( est Irian) did not again come before the General Assembly until its 16th session. Then, under the Agenda item "The situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples", the Netherlands introduced a draft - 48-
resolution (A/ L.554;Rev.l) which would have provided for a U.N. Commission
"· ••••• to investigate the possibilities of an early implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in respect of Netherlands New Guinea and more specifically to this end to inquire into:
"(a) The political, economic, social and educational conditions in the Territory;
"(b) The opinion amongst the population as to its present situation and its future;
"(c) The possibility of organizing a plebiscite under the supervision of the United Nations in order to register the wishes of the population concerning their future, and the timing of the plebiscite;
"(d) The desirability and. possibility of bring-ing the Territory, during the interim period, partially or wholly under the administration of an International Developm ent Authority, established by and operating under the United Nations;"
98. In an accompanying memorandum the Netherlands stated that in conformity with resolution 1514(XV) it was prepared to terminate its sovereignty over
Netherlands New Guinea at the earliest possible date, that is, as soon as the
right of self-determination of the population is properly safeguarded. It added that it was prepared to bring the administration and development of t he territory under the active supervision of the United Nations and was prepared to accept a decision of the General Assembly which clearly t'~uarantees the right of self- determination of the population. (A/4915. See also A/ 4954 containing a memorandum from the Netherlands "on the status and the future of Netherlands
New Guinea".
99. In a Statement submitted to the General Assembly (A/4944), the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia stated that the Netherlands was attempting to use the right of self-determination to cut off a part of the territory of the
Indonesian Republic, and argued that there would be just as much rieht to apply - 49 -
it to cut off Friesland from the territory of the Netherlands. He aclded that
the Dutch Government was occupying the Indonesian territory of ~ est Irian by force.
100. In acldition to the Netherlands draft resolution two other draft
resolutions were submitted to the General Assembly. In one (A/L.368} co-sponsored
by thirteen Powers - (Cameroun, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville),
Dahomey, Gabon, Ivory Coast, tadagascar, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Togo and
Upper Volta} the General Assembly recognizing that the territory of West New Guinea
was the subject of a dispute between Indonasda and the Netherlands, convinced that
any solution which affects the final destiny of a Non-Self-Governing Territory
must be based on the principle of self-deterndnation of peoples in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations, would urge the Gove1~ments to resume
negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement on the future of the territory
of West New Guinea, without prejudice to the respect i'or the will and self-determinat ion
of the peoples, reQuest the Secretary-General to use his good offices, and establish
a Corr~ission which, if the parties had not reached agreement by 1 March 1962, would
investigate into the conditions prevailing in the territory and examine the possibilities of establishing, for an interim period, an international system for the administration 2.11d su1)ervision of t he territory . It ~ould declare th~t this was >iithout prejudice to the ri&;ht of the :p opulation to decide, in the last resort, t e status of the territo This draft resolution which was acce:r:Jtable to the
Netherlands but op}osed by Indonesia received 53 votes in favour, 41 against and
9 abaentions. It was not adopted havir~ failed to o~tain the required two-thirds
ajority. (A; PV .1066, pp. 87-90). •
- 50 -
101. The other draft resolution (A;'L .367/ Rev .l) was co- sponsored by nine
Fowers (Bolivia , Congo (Leopoldvi lle ) , Guinea, India, Liberia, !ali, Nepal ,
Syria, and t he Unite Arab epublic. It ,;'() uld ur e t_ e Governments o
I 'onesia and t he Netherlands to engage themselves in further negotiations under the aegis of the President of the General Assembly v:i th a view to finding a solution of this question (dispute concerning est Irian) in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. This resolution was favoured by Indonesia and opposed by the Netherlands. It I·eceived 41 votes in favour, 40 against, with 21 abstentions. It was not ado11t ed having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. (A/PV.1066, pp. 98-100).
102. The Netherlands did not insist on a vote on its draft resolution. - 51 -
D. Trust Territories.
103. The following eleven territories were placed under United Nations
trusteeship, with the administering authority as indicated:
(1) Togoland under British administration (2) Togoland under French administration The Camerouns under French administration (~~ The Camerouns under British administration 5) Somaliland under Italian administration 6) Tanganyika under British administration 7) Western f!amoa under New Zealand administration (8)! Ruanda-Urundi under Belgian administration (9) New Guinea under Australian administration (10) Nauru under Australian, New Zealand and British administration. (11) The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (U.S. under strategic area trusteeship agreement).
104. Of these, the trusteeships for the first seven have been terminated with
the Agreement of the United Nations and the .4.dministerine Authority. The trustee-
ship for Ruanda-Urundi is expected to be tern1inated following the current session
of the General Assembly. Togoland under F'rench administration, the Camerouns under French administration, Somaliland under Italian administration, Tanganyika
and ,estern Samoa have become independent States. The first four have been
admitted to membership in the United Nations, and the Assembly has expressed the hope that Western Samoa will be admitted to membership should it so desire. (1626(XVI)
of 18 October 1961). It is ex:oected that Ruanda and Burundi will each become
independent States and be admitted to the United nations.
105. Togoland under Br itish administration and the territories of the Northern and Southern Camerouns under british administration have "achieved independence" by joining with the neighboring States of Ghana, Nigeria anu Cameroun a£ter plebiscites conducted under United Nations supervision. United Nations plebiscites in Togoland and the Camerouns under British administration are described in a background note ·. •
- 52-
.. prepared by the Trusteeship Department for the infonnc;.tion of Ambassador :Bunker.
uome solvent points concerning the consultations with the populations of Trust
Territories are noted below.
(1) Togoland under British Administration
106. British Togoland, under both Mandate and Trusteeship, was administratively
united with the Gold Coast. The General Assembly at first after receiving numerous
petitions from:representatives of theEwe Tribe and after lengthy consideration
expressed itself in favour of a union of the two Togolands under 3ritish and French
administration in order to facilitate union of the Ewes. However, with the
approaching independence of the Gold Coast the situation underwent a change. At
its ninth session the Assembly decided (resolution 86o(IX) of 14 December 1954) that steps should be trucen t o · s certain the ·shes of the inhabitants as to their fut ure,
o;Ti thout prejudice to the eventual solution they may choose whether it be independence,
unification of an independent Tocol&nd under British administration with an
independent Togoland under French administration, unification with an independent
Gold Coast, or some other self-government or independent status. 107. After receiving the report of its visiting mission the Assembly at its
lOth session recommended that the administering authority, in consultation with a
United Nations Plebiscite Administrator, organize and conduct, under the supervision
of the United Nations, a plebiscite in order to ascertain the wishes of the majority
of its habitants in regard to the following questions:
(a) The union o:J:' their territory with an independent Gold Coast; or
(b) Separation of Togoland under British administration from the Gold Coast and its continuance under trusteeship pending the ultimate determination of its poli tical future. •
- 53-
108. The results were obtained separately for the :Northern and Southern sections. In the north a preponderant majority (49,119 to 12,707) favoured union with an independent Gold Coast. In the south by 54,785 to 43,976, a majority favoured continuation under Trusteeship. For the territory as a whole 58% favoured union with the Gold Coast.
109. At its 11th session the General Assembly decided to consider the results &s a whole and by resolution 1044(XI) of 13 December 1956 expressed its approval of union of the entire territory with an independent Gold Coast.
110. Separate independence was not included in the choices on which the inhabitants were asked to vote. It would appear that there was general agreement that economically the territory was not sufficiently diversified to survive as an absolutely independ~nt entity. Moreover, it did not appear that the populations had requested that solution.
(2) ~ogoland under French administration.
111. In resolution 944(X) of 15 December 1955 tha General Assembly recommended that consultation of the populution to ascertain their wishes as to their future be conducted under the supervision of the United Nations. By resolution 1046(XI) of 23 January 1957 it resolved to dispatch a Commission to the territory to examine the entire situation resulting from the adoption of the "Statute of Togoland" and recommended that the Legislative Assembly should be constituted on the basis of univers&l adult suffrage. In resolution 1182(XII) of 29 November 1957 the
General Assembly noted that the Legislative Assembly to be elected by universal adult suffrage in 1958 and the Togoland r~vernment would be asked to formulate, in consultation with the administering Authority, proposals for the early attainment -54-
of the final objective of the Prusteeship System. It accepted the invitation for supervision of the elections by the United Nations. In resolution 1253(Xlii) of
14 November 1958 it took note of the report of the United Nations Commissioner on the elections and of the Agreement between the Governments of France and Togoland that Togoland should attain independence in 1960. It resolved that the trusteeship agreement should cease to be in force on the day on which Togoland became independent.
(3) The Carnerouns under French administration.
112. The General Assembly in resolution 1282(XIII) of 5 December 1958 after notin statements from the representative of France, the Prime inister of the
Camerouns under French administration and the w~ishes expressed by the Legislative
Assembly of the Can1erouns, noted the declarations of the Government of France t hat the terri tory wa.s to achieve independence on 1 January 1960 thus fulfilling the objectives of the Trusteeship System. The Assembly resumed its 13th session in
February 1959 to consider the future of the t\70 Ca.merouns (:British and French) on the basis of reports .from the visiting mission and the Trusteeship Counci l. By resolution 1349(XIII) of 13 llarch 1959 the Assembly resolved, in agreement rlt the administerine authority, that the Trusteeship Agree ent should cease to be in force on 1 January 1950 v;hen th3 t e :.:J.~i tory became independent. It also express ed confidence that at the earliest r)ossible date after the attainment of independence elections would be held f'or t h e f ormat i on of a new Assembly which should t , ~ e decisions r egarding the establishment, in their i"ind f orm, of t he i nstitutions of the f r ee and independent Camerouns .
(4) I'l1e Camerouns under Brit ish administration .
113. The Briti sh C ~erouns under bot h ~date and rusteeshi were a ministered l'I.S a.n :integral part of 1 ie-e ia. A vis itins; mission in 1958 was requested to include .. •
- 55 -
in its re ort its views on the method of consul tat ion to be adopted as to vlishes
of the people about their future. It reported t at the ~ishes of t he peoples
of the northern and Southern Camerouns should be determined separately because
of the profound political, ethnic and other differences between them. In the
north it found opinion to be unani01ously in favour of becoming part of an
independent Nigeria and considered no further consultation necessary. In the
south it found opinion sharply divided between federation with Nigeria and
unification with the Camerouns under French administration.
114. By resolution 1350(XII1) of 13 March 1959 the General Assembly recommended t hat separate plebiscites ue held in the North and South under the supervision of the United Nations.
115. In the orthern C8lilerouns a plebiscite should be held in november 1959
on t e questions (1) whether they wished the :Northern Cmerouns to l>e a. part of the
Northern Region of Nigeria when the Federat~on of Nigeria bec<:J.IDe independent or
(2) whether they were in favour of deciding the future of the Northern Camerouns at
a later date. 42,788 voted for the first alternative (joining Nigeria) and 70, 546
for the second alternative (postponine decision).
116. By r esolution 1473(XIV) of 12 Dec ember 1959 the General Assembly recommended a further plebiscite under United Nations supervision on the questions:
(1) Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of the Camerounsor
(2) Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Federation of Nigeria?
117. 97,659 or 40,03% of the votes were for joining Cameroun and 146,296 or
59-97% were for joining Nigeria. The trusteeship agreement for the Northern Camerouns • ..
- 56 -
was t.enninated (resolution 1608(XV)) on 1 June 1961, the date of its joining the
Federation of Nigeria as a separate province of the Northern Region. The
Republic of Cameroun has made an application to the International Court of Justice
protesting this action.
118. The General Assembly was informed by the Administering Authority at the
beginning of its 14th session t hat a conference had been arran{::ed with the
political leaders and representatives of the Southern Camerouns but that no
agreement had been reached on the alternatives to be put or the ~u~lification for
voting. Leaders of the two factions in the Southern Camerouns present at t he
General Assembly suggested deferring the consultation. However the General Assembly
recommended that a plebiscite should be held on the following questions:
(1) Do you wish to achieve independence by joinjng the independent Federation of Nigeria?
(2) Do you Ydsh to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of the Camerouns?
It :further reconm1ended that only persons born in the Southern Camerouns or
whose parents were born there should vote. (resolution 1352(XIV) of 16 October 1959).
119. 97,741 or 29.51% voted for joining Nigeria c.:.nd 233,571 or 70.49% voted for
joining Cameroun.
120. It should also be noted that the Assembly recommended the separation of
the administration of both the Northern and Southern Camerouns from Nigeria before
the latest plebiscites were held.
121. At its resumed 15th session the General Assembly by resolution 1608(XVI) of
21 April 1961 endorsed the results of the plebi scites, and decided, in agreement with
the Administering Authority, on termination of the Trusteeship Agreement with respect
to each of the territories upon their joining Nigeria and Cameroun respectively in
accordance with the results of the plebiscites. • ..
- 57 -
(5) Somaliland.
122. en the Somaliland Trusteeship .Agreement was estahlished a definite time
(10 years) was fixed within which Somaliland was to become independent, and a United
Nations Advisory Council for Somalia was established to assist the Administering
Authority. Somaliland in fact achieved its independence in 1960 in accordance
with this time table (General .Assembly resolution 1418(XIV) of 5 December 1959).
( 6 ) Tanganyika.
123. In resolution 1413(XIV) of 5 December 1959 the General Assembly requested
the Administering Authority, after consultation with representatives of the
inhabitants,to submit a time-table and target for the attainment of independence for
the consideration of the General Assembly at its 15th session. The General Assembly
in resolution 1609(XV) of 21 April 1961 noted that the Governments of the United
Kin?.;dom and of Tanganyika had agreed that Tanganyika. should become independent on
28 December 1961. It resolved, in ae;reement with the Administering Authority, that
the trusteeship agreement should cease to be in force upon that date . It also
requested that the Administering Authority submit further inf ormation to the
Trusteeship Council on the constitutional conference to be held in March 1961 and on
the transfer of powers to the legislative and executive organs of Tanganyika.
(7) Western Samoa. 124. The General Assembly by resolution 1569(XV) of 18 December 1960 recommended
that the Administering Authority in consultation vlith a United Nations Plebiscite
Co issioner, organize, under the supervision of the United Nations, a plebiscite in
Western Samoa in order to ascertain t he wi shes of the inhabitants of the t erritory
concerning their future. It recommended that the questions to be asked should. be: - 58 -
"(1) Do you agree with the Constitution adopted by the Constitutional Convention on 28 October 1960?
"( 2) Do you agree that on l January 1962 estern Sc.moa should become an independent State on the basis of that Constitution?"
It further recon-mended that the ~lebiscite should be conducted on the basis of
universal suffrage with all adult citizens of Western Samoa being entitled to vote.
125. 'l1he overVlhelming majority of the people of ~ estern Samoa voted in the
affirmative on each of these ~uestions and the General Assembly by resolution
1626(XVI) of 18 October 1961 endorsed the results of the plebiscite.
(8) Ruanda-Urundi.
126. ~he question of the independence of Ruanda-Urundi has been an extremely
complicated one involving strong clashes of tribal and political opinion and such d:ii'ficult issues as the suspension of the pov1ers of the Mwami of Ruanda. (See
General Assembly resolutions 1579(XV), 1580(XV), 1605(XV), 1743(XVI) and the reports of the United Nations Commissions, (A/4994 and A1 5126)). 127. In resolution 1579(XV) of 20 December 1960 the General Assembly set up
;:;.. Comr.~ission inter alia to
"• •• supervise the elections to be held in Ruanda-Urundi in 1961 on the basis of direct, univers~l adult suffrage, ~nd the preparatory measures preceding them, such as the comp ilation of the electord rolls, the conduct of the election campaign and the organization of a system of ballotin,J· 'lihich will ensure complete secrecy;"
128. It also endorsed
" ••• the observation of the Trusteeship Council that, in view of the essential co ~~nity of interests and the facts of history and geography, the best future for Ruanda UrJndi lies in the evolution of a single, united and composite State, with such arrangements for the internal autonomy of Ruanda and Urundi as may be agreed upon by their re:9 resent at i ves." - 59 -
129. Difficulties in implementine this resolution were noted by the General Assembly at its resumed session in resolution 1605(XV). In this resolution the
Assembly inter alia
"Decides that the referendum on the question of the Mwami, contemplated in resolution 1580(XV), and the legislative elections in Ruanda-Urundi should be held in the month of August 1961 on the basis of direct universal adult suffrage, under the supervision of the United Nations, and that these be organized by the Administering Authority in full consul tat ion with the United Nations Commission for Ruanda-Urundi, the actual dates to be fixed, after mutual consultation, in the lie3'ht of the prevailing circumstances;
"Decides further that the questions to be put at the referendun on the question of the Mwami in Ruanda should be the follo\ving:
' 11 1. Do you wish to retain the institution of the IJwami in Ruanda?
111 2. If so, do you wish Kigeli V to continue as the Mwami of Ruanda?'"
130. So far as the referendum on the Mwami were concerned 95% of the voters voted in the negative. The legislative elections resulted in the establishment of Governments in !;he two parts of the territory which v1ere unable to ~noree on a union, a.nd it appears that Ruanda and · urundi will achieve separate indeJlendence.
131. A comment may be made that with r espect to the plebiscites generally t h t the problem of illiteracy was overcome by using symbols or coloured ballots.
The United ations insisted on universal adult suf'frage, and this has been the general practice followed in plebiscites.
27 June 1962 (
·' ...
UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: __l 9;..._J_u_l-"'y_ l...;_9_6_2 _____ TO: U 'Ihant cti ng Secr etar y-General FIL.E NO.:------THROUGH:
FROM: C.A. Stavropoulos Legal Counsel
SUBJECT: ercise of sel f e t errr~nation in West e Guinea
As I informed you by cable, Ambassador Bunker, at t he r equest of the Indonesi an and Dut ch negot i ators, a sked me to prepar e some pr ovi si ons conc erni ng the exerci se of sel f -determination or inclus ~ on i n t he proposed agreement on vk st e G~in e a . I t t a ch a copy of the provisions I sent t o Ambassador Bmker, t oget her ith my coverin l etter to him. You I'Till see that I ha ve suggest ed t hat t he Secret a ry- General's r esponsibiliti es for assisting and parti cipating in arrangements f or self-det rminat' on should be di scharged by a United Nations Commi ssi oner appoint ed by t he Se cret ary-Genera l . In this r espect I also considered t he pos si bil i t y of having a mmiss i on, rather than a Commi ssioner. However, in view of possi bl e political difficulti es attachi ng to the s l ection of members of a Commission, the added e xpense, a nd the past Unit d Nat ions exper ience in this field I deci ded that the alternati ve of 1aving a Commi ssioner r at her than a Commission was the proper one. (
19 Jul.1' 1962
Dear AabaaMd r 'lhnk< ,
••• regueated l att ch a dra!t on principle• and proc ~re• ,for the uerciu ot eelt-detend.nation b7 the popu t ion ot atern Jew Chinea. Should JOU teal thia draft oontaina odaiona which ,.ou know would be cceptable to one or other ot the rtiea, and would. thue COIIPli te neptiationa, plea•• d.o not tail to delete or alter auch trodaiona.
The tt baa been pre red on the aa8UIIption t it might be inaerted. as a nn pa '* S 1n :rour ropoaala t or Msotiationa 'between the OoveriJIII\ellt a ot Indonesia and. the Netherland.a, or aa an &MU to such an Agre-.nt. re the lat ter eourae opted it llight be deeirable tor ,.rapb 4 ot the }ropoaala to state that the nnex to:nu an 1ntearal Jart t ber.ot.
The at ched d.ratt rhapa calli tor eo.. •. p I concern. t he appo1n t ot a United. Ration• Oo..taaioner b,r the Secreta17-0eneral, whi appoin~t wUl be auto-.tio alter the lap•• ot a cert.ain p1 riod ot t iM to M clet.end.necl by JOU in the 1 ht ot the l t.it to 'be aet in ph 4 ot )'OV poMla. ror reaaona alreaq • xpl ined., I believe a ec..1aaioner would pron a mre aatiafactor.r and 1••• expenaiYe alternatiYe than a ~••1 . P&ragaph II relate• t o t he tunetiona t the a:m.taaioner. Part. (a ) t hereof cane em. oonau.l t tion with t he local population on the ..thode and procedure• !or the exeraise ot aelt-dete~t ion. 'lbia baa been bro dlT dratted to p81"111t the poe•ibiUt:r ot not oftl7 a plebiacite :t. eo, or alta tively, other f orM ot aecerta.inin& the peoplea' willhee. feel thia 1• ne beoa •• ot oonditiona in the terr1tol7, 'Whi -:r pend.t or a pl iacite 1ft the 11101"8 po ua and ad cecl area• but not in others in tllhicb conditiona are too prlld.tin nd in which some fora ot tribal or h.eacDYI.n conaul tion 111.y be t he appropriate solution. ve aleo p-orl.ded. tor the peaeibilit , in part {d), that the queationa t to the population in the a:erolu ot • elt~et.e!'llination •T eart.md bqo:nd those you MDtiorwd. to • to enc~•• other poaaU.illti.. auch u union with eome other territory etc. J:U.cibility to wte baa been
• dor er 62(11 Dllpartaent of st.ate ehingtcm, D. C. • "
d.etine4 ale the lln•• d eaireci by the rtlea althoqh, •• I .,.. alr dT pointed out in our telephone mDfti'At iDD, d.itfiau.l\lea •7 ar1•• 1n aaoertaini:Dg vho 1• "ad.ult" and 1n ap l Jinl unin raa.l autf ra • in the oonditlone pertai niDc ill J»,!"te or e\ .._, Cld.nea. In view ot n ch dittlcultle• we '" t hou t it deairable to Teat t.he final dieoretion on elJ.&ib111t7 in the thited •tiona eo.laaioac-.
Paragraph ni ot the dratt concema reportin& to the aretar;r-Qezaeral the Cleneral Aaa..,q. f"l it i• neoeea 17 t r tbe Aaatll:l7 to tte intoraed at at at ~ illta ot the opva11Dna, na.q • • a c•eat;• haTe been CCifPlet.t tor tu IIXIII'Ciee ot eelt-cleterad.natlora and when the aotu.al exerelae of aelt-detel'llinatlon has taken place. ~berwi.ae the oreta17-Cim•ral ahoulcl be t ree to aubc:l.t :peri.Qdlo report• ot the o..1ea1oner to the e..tlq it he t.hink• it d" irable.
Jou w11l He that w haft througho t referred to 't.he S.Oretar;r-Oeneral" aDd. not the "Actin& oretarr-Oineral". In 'Viw of the anticipated d.v atlon ot the arrang rt e cont. la ted w teel tbia ia the appropriate dealpation tor uee t~ bout the eaent.
Conatantin A. St.a't'l"' ul•• I.e Couuel • • ••••••••••
t •
) \ # -
( )
•
• •