only owing to the good will of the mandatory Powers that the League is allowed

Only owing to the good will of the mandatory powers

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 48 pages.

only owing to the good will of the mandatory Powers that the League is allowed to supervise their administration. Most writers believe, on the contrary, that sovereignty resides with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, with the League, or, in a residual way, with the inhabitants of the mandated territories .... The real truth lies outside both these sets of arguments. The truth is that there is no such thing as sovereignty over the mandated territories, because there is nothing even resembling absolute power .... The power of the League is limited by the fact that since the League is not an administrative body, it can only super- vise what the mandatory Powers do, but can do nothing itself. Finally, the power of the Mandatories is limited, first by their obligations as signatories of Article 22, and secondly by the right of supervision of the League. See also Sayre, Legal Problems Arising from the United Nations Trusteeship System, 42 Am. J. INT'L L. 263, 271 (1948). The International Court considers sovereignty over a mandated territory to be in abeyance: . . . [I]f and when the inhabitants of the Territory obtain recognition as an inde- pendent State, as has already happened in the case of some of the Mandates, sovereignty will revive and vest in the new State. S.W.A. STATUS 150 (McNair, separate opinion). Similarly, it has been established that the native population of the mandated territory does not acquire the nationality of the respective mandatory powers as a result of the transfer of the territory to the Mandatory under the mandate system. See 3 LEAGUE OF NATIONS OFF. J. 604 (1923); 1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW 210-11 (4th ed. A. McNair 1928). However, the exact nationality of the populace has continued to be a matter of much speculation. See O'Connell, Nationality in 'C' Class Mandates, 31 BaIT. Y.B. INT'L L. 458 (1954). Thus, it would appear that the mandatories were not given unrestricted control over the mandated territory, but were to remain solely and absolutely responsible for the administration of the mandate to the League, which was vested with the unqualified right of supervision. E. VAN MAANEN-HELMER, supra note 10, at 42; see A. MAROALITH, THE INTERNATIONAL MANDATES 69-70 (1930), where the author expresses the view that the mandatory is under a duty to delegate the administration of the territory to a territorial government: Although it is the mandatory government which is held responsible for the execu- tion of the mandate, it cannot, itself, in the nature of things, govern the mandated territory. The administration of the territory must be delegated to the territorial government which, though subordinate, must work on the general lines laid down Washington University Open Scholarship
Image of page 6
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW QUARTERLY B. After Dissolution of the League With the dismembering of the League following World War II, a ques- tion arose as to the fate of the mandated territories, and whether the newly created United Nations succeeded to the right of the League to force com- pliance with the mandates." 8 Although the Charter of the United Nations did not
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 48 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes