REPUBLIC AND MANDATE
| Date | 01 March 1961 |
| Published date | 01 March 1961 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1961.tb02174.x |
| Author | L. J. Blom‐Cooper |
REPUBLIC
AND MANDATE
CONSIDERABLE
credence has been given recently to the view,
expressed initially by Mr. Dingle
Foot,
Q.c.,
M.P.,
in
a
letter to
The Times,=
that when South Africa becomes
a
Republic (within
or
without the Commonwealth), the Union Government will no
longer be entitled in law to administer the Mandated Territory of
South-West Africa.
Mr.
Foot's contentions were that the matter
would at least be questionable on the attainment of the status of
a Republic and beyond argument
if
republicanism is accompanied
by non-membership of the Commonwealth.
The argument in favour of such a mode of termination of the
Mandate rests on the form in which the mandate was granted by
the League and accepted by the mandatory Power.
Mr.
Foot
concluded his letter, and the point is endorsed by two subsequent
leaders in
The Times,*
that it can never have been contemplated
that the
"
duties imposed by the Mahdate upon the British Crown
should be carried out by a foreign power [which South Africa
would automatically become]
."
The statement is founded upon
the fact, if fact
it
be, that the mandate was granted to and accepted
by the
"
British Crown
)'
and has for practical purposes been
administered by the Union Government on behalf of the Crown.
Determination of that legal link would mean,
so
the argument
runs, that by a reversion the mandate becomes vested in the
Crown.
Reliance is placed-in fact
it
is the only passage cited by
Mr.
Foot-upon the second paragraph of the preamble to the mandate.
It
reads
:
"
Whereas the Principal Allied and Associated Powers
agreed that, in accordance with Article
22,
Part
I
(Covenant
of the League of Nations) of the said Treaty,
a
mandate should
be
conferred upon
Ifis
Britannic Majesty to be exercised
on.
his
behalf by the Government
of
the Union
of
South Africa4
to
It
is suggested that this is manifestly a conferment of the mandate
upon the British Crown.
If
there were no contrary indications, it
might have to be argued contrariwise that only a state and not
administer the Territory.
.
.
.
9)
1
May 13, 1960.
*
September
5
and 14, 1960.
3
These were Britain, France, United States, Italy and Japan. Since the
United States
was
not
a
member of the League only four
of
the Powers were
party to the Treaty establishing the Mandate. Normally, the United States
Government gave its informal approval to the selection of the mandatory
power, but for some inexplicable reason this appears tpt to have been given
in the case of South-West Africa: see pamphlet, Mandate in Trust,"
published by Africa
1960
Committee,
on
September
5,
1960, price
Is.
6d.
256
4
My
italics.
To continue reading
Request your trial