The court has spoken

By pure chance, on reading Sahara Views' post on the International Court's 1975 verdict on Western Sahara (oh, can you guess which way he's leaning?), I noticed that the ICJ has quietly posted all of its material on the web. Until recently, there was just the summary, but now they've made available all the hundreds and hundreds of pages of statements to the court -- and with a brand new, sexy website design too. As a fullblown Western Sahara nerd, I get all sweaty and shiny-eyed.

However, in the unlikely case that you, dear reader, don't fully share my passion for dusty old pdf documents, the important part is quoted below. The powers that be may have decided to do it like West Irian, but there's still reason to read the verdict again, if you're ever in doubt about where international law comes down on all this:

In its Advisory Opinion which the General Assembly of the United Nations had requested on two questions concerning Western Sahara, the Court,

With regard to Question I, "Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?",

- decided by 13 votes to 3 to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

- was unanimously of opinion that Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain was not a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius).

With regard to Question II, "What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?", the Court

- decided by 14 votes to 2 to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

- was of opinion, by 14 votes to 2, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco of the kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion;

- was of opinion, by 15 votes to 1, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Mauritanian entity of the kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion.

The penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion was to the effect that:

The materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.

* * *

SPS Watch: long after we gave up hope, they finally returned. SPS English is no longer AWOL.