FINAL SUBMISSION- PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

TRUST TERRITORIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES UNDER

INTERNATIONAL LAW

By
Achlesh Chandra Mishra
Class- BA LLB, Group A
PRN- 14010223001

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, PUNE

In September, 2017

Under the guidance of

Prof. Sai Prasad

Associate Professor
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International University, Pune
 CERTIFICATE
The Project entitled “Trust Territories And Mandated Territories Under International Law”
submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Property Law as part of internal
assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Mr. Saiprasad.
R.G. from July to September. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award
of any degree. The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has
been duly acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and
accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date: 04.09.2017
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my father and my professor for the constant support while doing the
project. The project has taught me the history behind the evolution of states in International
Law. Further I have also done research on the main areas and factors causing pollution thus
further enhancing my knowledge. I hope to do more interesting research projects like this in
the future.
Contents
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 5
CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES.......................................................................................... 5
UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ................................................................ 5
BOOKS AND TREASTIES ...................................................................................................... 6
ARTICLES AND JOURNALS ................................................................................................. 6
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 9
I. THE SIGNIFICANT OF MANDATE AND TRUST TERRITORIES IN SHAPING
HISTORY ................................................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Mandated Territories – Introduction .............................................................................. 10
1.2 Division of Mandate ....................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Administrative Features of Mandate .............................................................................. 11
1.4 Trusted Territories: Introduction .................................................................................... 12
1.5 Underlying Objective: Self Determination .................................................................... 12
1.6 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 13
II. Relevance of Statehood in International Law and the Modern World. ............................... 13
2.1 Nationality in International Law .................................................................................... 13
2.2 Sovereignty in International Law. .................................................................................. 14
2.3 Principle of Self-Determination. .................................................................................... 14
2.4 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 15
III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 16
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES

The Atlantic Charter, 1941.

Charter of the United Nations (1945), 1 U.N.T.S. XVI.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

UNITED NATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

British Nationality Act, 1948.

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XXI –

Self-Determination, 8 March 1996, Un Doc CERD/A/51/18.

Covenant of the League of Nations, 1919.

Mandate for Palestine, 1920.

Moscow Declaration, 1943.

Native Title Report 1999 -Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner,
HREOC. Report No. 1/2000.
Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change – A More Secure World:
Our Shared Responsibility, Doc. A/59/565.

The United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), 1945.

Volume I. Chapter III, p. 103. Prepared December 1945-January 1946 for the Anglo-
American Committee of Inquiry.
 BOOKS AND TREASTIES
BRUNO SIMMA, DANIEL-ERASMUS KHAN , GEORG NOLTE , ANDREAS PAULUS
(Eds.) , THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS A COMMENTARY 325,3rd ed.
(2012)
Christian J Tams, League of Nations, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
(2006).

Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Self-Determination, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International
Law (2008).

IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 435, 7th ed. (2008).

James R. Crawford, THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, Oxford

University Press (2006).

ARTICLES AND JOURNALS

Mike Waldren QPM, Tear Gas and Empire, Police Firearms Officers Association (2013).

Nationality instructions: volume 2, "Mandated Territories" and "Trust Territories", Gov.Uk

(2016), available at, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationality-instructions-volume-
2.

D. Hall, Mandates Dependencies and Trusteeship, 1948.

C.L , Up the grove, Empire by Mandate, 1954.

Matz, N, Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations as Origin of
Trusteeship, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2005).
E. de Wet, “The Direct Administration of Territories by the United Nations and its Member
States in the Post Cold War Era: Legal Bases and Implications for National Law”, Max
Planck UNYB 8 (2004), 291 et seq.
B. Deiwert, “A New Trusteeship for World Peace and Security: Can an Old League of
Nations Idea be Applied to a Twenty-first Century Iraq?”, Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 14
(2004), 771 et seq. (781 et seq.).
Eli E. Hertz, Mandate for Palestine, The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights, League of Nations-
Mandate for Palestine (2016).
H.H. Perritt, “Structures and Standards for Political Trusteeship”, UCLA J. Int’l L. & For.
Aff. 8 (2002), 385 et seq.
Robert Beckman and Dagmar Butte , Introduction to International Law, International Law
Students Association, available at https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf.
H Steinberger, ‘Sovereignty’, in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and
International Law, Encyclopedia for Public International Law, vol 10 (North Holland, 1987)
414.
Allessandro Pellizon, Sovereignty- General Principles, available at
http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/Sovereignty-Guidelines-Alessandro-Pelizzon.pdf.
Armin von Bogdandy, Rüdiger Wolfrum, MAX PLANCK YEARBOOK OF UNITED
NATIONS LAW, UNBY 9 (2005).
The United Nations, International Trusteeship System, United Nations and Decolonization ,
available at http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/its.shtml.
 ABBREVIATIONS
UN United Nations
CIL Customary International Law
Ed. Edition
Vol. Volume
Covenant Covenant of League of Nations
Art. Article
Doc. Document
HRC Human Rights Committee
ICJ International Court of Justice
OECD Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
INTRODUCTION
The Mandates system for German possessions and Turkish Near Eastern provinces
was suggested after the First World War by General Smuts of South Africa, and adopted as a
compromise between the liberal attitude favoring international administration and the
conservative one urging annexation. Moreover, it was adopted as a provisional regime at the
time.1 But the "provisional regime, the period of transition, lasted for longer than anticipated.

The two attributes of compromise and provisionally account for the vague language of article
22 of the Covenant, which established the principles of "sacred trust" and of international
accountability for the administration of dependent territories on the international level.
Article 22 did not touch on several essential issues. It did not specify clearly enough the
nature of the relationships it established, and thus left room for speculation in appraising the
new system, running from "noblesse oblige," to hypocrisy that cloaks protectorates for the
Class "A" mandates, and outright annexation for Classes "B" and “C” mandates.

Britain received mandates for Mesopotamia (later renamed Iraq); Tanganyika (now part of
Tanzania); and Palestine. Palestine was later divided into Palestine and Transjordan (later
renamed Jordan). France received Syria, which was later divided into Syria and Lebanon.
Both Britain and France were given parts of the Cameroons and Togoland. Belgium received
Ruanda-Urundi. Japan was given German islands in the North Pacific Ocean. Australia
received German islands in the South Pacific, including the northeastern section of New
Guinea and Nauru. New Zealand received Western Samoa, and the Union of South Africa
(now called South Africa) got German Southwest Africa (now called Namibia).2 This system
ended in 1947.3

Many of the mandated territories became independent territories and attained

Statehood like Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The next system came into force and this
was known as the trusteeship system. Those territories that could not attain independence
were still under the administration of the same countries, but their direct control was with the
United Nations. This system was also called the United Nations trusteeship system. The

1
Wright, Mandates Under the League of Nations 24 (1930); Hall, Mandates, Dependencies, and Trusteeship
112 (1948).
2
Anthony D'Amato, Mandated territory. ,
http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/encyclopedia/Mandatedterritory-wb.pdf (last visited Sep 1,
2017).
3
Id.; See also Nationality instructions: volume 2, "Mandated Territories" and "Trust Territories", Gov.Uk
(2016) , available at, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationality-instructions-volume-2.
British Nationality Act 1948 also defines trust territories as “a territory administered by the
government of any part of His Majesty's dominions under the trusteeship system of the
United Nations".4 The emergence of independent states was a result of the efforts of the
League of Nations and the United Nations. The concept of statehood can be clearly seen
through the history and struggle of these states. The objective of these systems was to evolve
new states which would be able to be sovereign nations both internally and externally. In
particular, the principle of self-determination was also made applicable to the Mandates and
Trust Territories as reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice.

I. THE SIGNIFICANT OF MANDATE AND TRUST TERRITORIES IN

SHAPING HISTORY
1.1 Mandated Territories – Introduction
The mandate system was instituted in accordance with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of
Nations. It was, in fact, a veiled form of colonial domination by the imperialist powers and covered up
their redistribution of the colonial possessions taken from Germany and Turkey.

Subject to inclusion in the mandate system were colonies and territories “which as a consequence of
the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the states which formerly governed them and
which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of
the modern world.”5 The formal transfer was supposed to be carried out by the League of Nations, but
in fact the mandate system consolidated a division of colonies that favored Great Britain and France
and that had been carried out by them before the end of World War I.

1.2 Division of Mandate

The mandated territories were subdivided into groups A, B, and C. Group A mandates were formally
organized as states with their own citizenship and administration, but in fact all rights in legislation,
domestic policy, and foreign relations were held by the governing state, the mandatary, which was
also given the power to determine when the particular territory would be “capable of governing
itself.” Included in this group were Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan (for which Great Britain was the
mandatary), as well as Syria and Lebanon (mandatary, France).

4
Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
5
Mandated Territories, THE FREE DICTIONARY,
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Mandated Territories (last visited Sep
4, 2017).
Mandated territories in group B were to be directly governed by the mandatary, which was to observe
certain conditions. These territories included part of the Cameroons and part of Togo and Tanganyika
(Great Britain, mandatary), another part of the Cameroons and another part of Togo (France), and
Ruanda-Urundi (Belgium).

Mandated territories in group C were governed entirely by the laws of the mandatary “as integral
portions of its territory.” In other words, these territories were annexed by the mandataries. Included
in this group were Southwest Africa (mandatary, the Union of South Africa), German New Guinea
(Australia), Western Samoa (New Zealand), Nauru (Australia, Great Britain, and New Zealand,
collective mandataries), and the Caroline, Mariana, and Marshall islands in the Pacific Ocean (Japan).

The colonial dominion of the mandataries over territories in groups B and C was, in fact, unrestricted.
Under the Covenant of the League of Nations, the slave trade and trade in weapons and alcohol were
formally prohibited in these territories. In addition, the states holding the mandates were obliged to
“guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and
morals,” and were prohibited from building fortifications and military and naval bases and from
providing the native inhabitants with military training.

The USSR never recognized the mandate system and sharply condemned it. After World War II the
mandate system was replaced by the UN trusteeship system.

1.3 Administrative Features of Mandate

The Mandates system could not, however, be judged on the basis of article 22 alone.6 In the quoted
phase of appraisers: The much quoted phase about the administration of mandate: “[L]e systeme des
mandats sera en droit ce qu'il sera en fait.”7 It simply restates the sociological law that social
institutions, whether internal or international, legal or otherwise, once created, acquire new
dimensions and lead a life of their own, independent, but not necessarily different from the
anticipations of those who conceived and established them. Law can always find a way to
accommodate itself to the novelties of social institutions and realities.

The Mandates system was no exception to this social law of evolution. From early uncertainties it
developed through the practices and manipulations of the Mandatories and the reactions of the
League. The rules of International supervision were effectively developed by the Permanent Mandates
Commission, which was composed of elected persons independent from their countries, and which
fought, diplomatically but bravely, on the side of international supervision and the Mandated
peoples.7

6
George M. Abi-Saab, Nationality and Diplomatic Protection in Mandated and Trust Territories, 3 Harv. Int'l. L.
Club Bull. 44, 76 (1962)
7
"Article 22...reads like a University extention lecture": Baty Protectorates and Mandates, 2 Brit. Yb. Int'l L.
109, 119 41921-1922).
The Mandates system, being a new one in law, and vague enough at that, aroused great interest
among jurists, political scientists and contemporary historians. For the jurists, aside from the
technicalities of administration and supervision which were fully treated, it posed several highly
theoretical questions which were important because of their logical and practical implications. These
questions can be described as those of characterization of the nature of the system, the status of
sovereignty and the nationality of the inhabitants of the Mandated territories. In 1930, only ten years
after the creation of the system, Professor Quincy Wright could put in his book on the subject a
bibliography of the better known works on Mandates that ran into thirty pages in small Print.8

1.4 Trusted Territories: Introduction

The Second World War interrupted the working of the system. After the war, the United Nations was
established and the League was liquidated. The United Nations Charter embodies in Chapters XII and
XIII a new system of international supervision as to the administration of dependent territories under
the denomination of the "Trusteeship system". It is essentially the same as the Mandates system, and
poses the same questions. It also stimulated many studies, but these were mainly concerned with the
descriptive and behavioral rather than the theoretical aspects.

The interest of the Trusteeship system is obvious. As to the Mandates System, it is not only
interesting to us now as a pioneering historical experiment, but also it has topicality in that there still
is one Territory under Mandate which is the subject of much controversy, and that there are still some
unresolved legal problems originating from Mandates which have expired, such as the status and
rights of the Palestinian Arab refugees.

It is against this general background that the present essay attempts to trace the problem of the
nationality of inhabitants and their diplomatic protection under the two systems.

1.5 Underlying Objective: Self Determination

The main objective of the trusteeship system, also enumerated in United Nations
Charter9 was to help the peoples of the trusteeship nations to attain self-determination along
with self-governance so that there would be an overall progressive development of the nation.
10
Self-determination has always been linked to historically pre-constitute political entities
with a specific territory.11 Although a traditional, ‘naturalist’ understanding of a ‘people’ can
point to the intuition that the term ‘people’ does not in itself have a territorial connotation, a

8
Wright, op. cit. supra note 1, at 639-668.
9
Art 76(b) UN Charter supra note 21.
10
Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri, Self-Determination, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
(2008).
11
BRUNO SIMMA, DANIEL-ERASMUS KHAN , GEORG NOLTE , ANDREAS PAULUS (Eds.) , THE
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS A COMMENTARY 325,3rd ed. (2012) at 326 ¶ 24. [Hereinafter UN
Charter Commentary].
functional perspective of self-determination, construing the concept in light of the political
and legal system in which it is embedded, leads to the insight that a certain degree of
‘territoriality’ is unavoidable if the concept of self-determination is to operate productively
under our current political circumstances.12 State practice has emphasized a close linkage
between (predetermined) political entities and self-determination.13

1.6 Conclusion
If we look at the international scenario in the present day, using the Mandate system
as a guide for the same is questionable because of the element of colonization which did
prevail during that time and because of the assertion of power from the powerful states.
Today, the evolution of international law does make the mandate and trust territory systems
seem like too much of a childlike state when it comes to emergence of states. The modern
state building efforts although it stemmed from the systems is just the underlying history
predeceasing the modern times where colonial structures are not prevalent. Lessons should be
learnt from the systems to understand the deficiencies, mainly the institutional shortcomings
as well as the institutional supervisions.14

II. Relevance of Statehood in International Law and the Modern

World.
The main objective of the system introduced by the League of Nations through the
mandates and the United Nations through the trust territories. . All the elements combined
indicate the relevance of statehood as the key factor in the emergence of international law and
thus the formation of new states in the modern world.

2.1 Nationality in International Law

A state constitutes of a permanent population, a government, a defined territory and
the inherent capacity to enter into relations with other States. Scholars argue, to attain
Statehood, a state has to be recognized by other states. A state is said to achieve statehood if
it is considered equal and sovereign. States have a right to become members of the United
States, international organizations have access to the International Court of Justice and have
sovereignty over territory.15 This is the ultimate aim of the systems, that is, help the nations

12
Id. at 326 ¶ 25.
13
Id.
14
Matz, N, Civilization and the Mandate System under the League of Nations as Origin of Trusteeship, Max
Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2005) at 89.
15
Robert Beckman and Dagmar Butte , Introduction to International Law, International Law Students
Association, available at https://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf.
attain self-government so that there is no requirement for a supervisory role by a sovereign
state.

2.2 Sovereignty in International Law.

When there is an exclusive right which authorizes supreme political authority over a
defined territory and the people within a State is said to be sovereign and the right is referred
to as Sovereignty. Sovereignty is interlinked with the concept of political interdependence.16
Sovereignty is also referred to as the status afforded to a state that has exclusive jurisdiction,
in the sense territorial, governmental, executive, legislative, juridical, it is recognized in
international law.17 Sovereignty is acquires through three mechanisms in international law: 1.
Conquest: A territory, after a war, has been conquered because of elimination of the enemy or
there has been subsequent surrender by a sovereign entity. 2. Cession: All the powers of a
sovereign entity are succeeded through a treaty, or part of the treaty to another entity. 3.
Settlement: An uninhabited territory is the area marked for a sovereign entity to acquire it.18
One of the key elements to statehood is sovereignty, and many nations have achieved the
same as through the administration of the powerful nations, they came to form self-
governments and understand the importance of independence as a nation.

2.3 Principle of Self-Determination.

Article 1 of the UN Charter states that one of the purposes of the UN is to develop
relations based on the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The place
of the article in the charter points in the direction of qualifying the purposes as legally
binding.19 Certain elements of Article 1 (1) and (2) are principles binding under CIL. This
includes self-determination of peoples.20 With the reference to self-determination in Article
1(2) of the UN Charter, guaranteeing self-determination of all nations became a central
political purpose of the UN, inextricably linked with the purpose of achieving friendly
relations among nations.21 It is beyond doubt that self-determination, as a purpose and
principle of the UN Charter, constitutes a legally binding norm for all member states of the

16
Id.
17
H Steinberger, ‘Sovereignty’, in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law,
Encyclopedia for Public International Law, vol 10 (North Holland, 1987) 414.; See also Allessandro Pellizon,
Sovereignty- General Principles, available at http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/Sovereignty-Guidelines-
Alessandro-Pelizzon.pdf.
18
Id.
19
UN Charter Commentary supra 32 at 108 ¶ 4.
20
Id. at 108-109.
21
Id. at 315.
UN.22 The ICCPR23 also states the principle of self-determination. In their General
Recommendation on Self-determination the CERD Committee embraced the principle of
self-determination.24 The principle of self-determination is a part of the obligations stemming
from the UN Charter and is not a ‘recommendation’ but is in the form of an authoritative
interpretation of the charter.25 As discussed in Chapter I, both the mandate as well as the trust
territory objectives sought to implement the understanding of self-determination in the minds
of the people, thus leading to formation of new nations. It is a principle of customary law and
there is an erga omnes obligation on the same, which all states around the world have to
adhere to.

2.4 Conclusion
The main objective of the mandated and trust territories was to promote the social,
political and economic advancement of territories to help them attain self-government and
self-determination. Universally accepted principles of human rights and fundamental
freedoms also emerged out of this system which helped recognize the independence of
peoples. In 1945. The Security Council terminated the last trust territory in the island of
Palau, administered by the United States which attained statehood in 1993. It joined the
United Nations as the 185th member in 1994.11 Territories were placed under the Trusteeship
System all which have attained independence. The historic objective was finally met giving
rise to the modern world as it stands proud today.26Some of the countries that became
sovereign nations after this system are Togoland, now Ghana under the British
administration, Somalia land now Somalia, Cameroons under the French administration,
Tangayika under the British administration, Western Samoa under New Zealand
administration, New Guinea under the Australian administration, Ruanda under the Belgian
administration, Togoland now Togo under the French and many more.27

22
Id. at 316.
23
Art.1, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 [hereinafter ICCPR].
24
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XXI – Self-
Determination, 8 March 1996, Un Doc CERD/A/51/18, 125-126, ¶ 9 & 10.
25
IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 435, 7 th ed. (2008) 581; Native
Title Report 1999 -Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, HREOC. Report No.
1/2000.
26 The United Nations, International Trusteeship System, United Nations and Decolonization , available at

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/its.shtml
27
Id.
III. CONCLUSION
Before concluding, it is necessary to tackle a question the answer to which was assumed
throughout the exposition. The question simply is: Can there be a nationality for the inhabitants of
Trust territories under the existing concepts of international law? Can any of the links and
relationships between the inhabitants and the Trust territory, the Administering Authority, or the
United Nations fit into the notion of nationality according to present conceptions?28

Nationality has been given many definitions; they all revolve around the idea of
relating a person to a state. The objective of the systems were met and led to the formation of
many nations. Modern day politics still play a major role in international law and most of the
problems arise from the history of the formation of these territories. In some cases, even
today there are disputed nations and minority groups trying to attain self-determination. The
introductions of the systems have created a lot of precedents and have drawn the lines when it
comes to the regulation of powers of all the sovereign nations who were victorious during the
World Wars. The positive aspects do not necessarily outweigh the negative but the formation
of various concepts in international law all stemmed through the implementation of these
systems. This paper is my original work and is studies the evolution of the mandate and trust
states, the concept of self-determination and the concept of evolution of statehood.

28
beyond practice: some concluding theoretical remarks, Supra note 1 at 71;