W ES T ER N S A H AR A C A SE 1

CASE SUMMARY

Facts: On December 17, 1974, the UN General Assembly by Resolution 3292 requested the
ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the following questions:

1. 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)

If the answer to the first question is in the negative,

2. What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and
the Mauritian entity?2

This request took place in the context of decolonization of Western Sahara, formerly a
protectorate of Spain. Morocco and Mauritania are rival claimants, both arguing that
portions of the disputed area formed part of their pre-colonial territories and seeking to have
the former colony re-integrated to their respective national territories.

Held:1. Western Sahara at the time of colonization by Spain was not terra nullius.

2. [There are] legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the
tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. [There are also] legal ties between the
Mauritanian entity … and the territory of Western Sahara. [However, such] do not establish
any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of
Morocco or the Mauritanian entity.3

CASE EXCERPTS

“Turning to Question I, the Court observes that the request specifically locates the
question in the context of ‘the time of colonization by Spain’, and it therefore
seems clear that the [question has] to be interpreted by reference to the law in force
at that period.”4 According to State practice of that period, “territories inhabited by
tribes or peoples having a social and political organization were not regarded as
terrae nullius. [I]n the case of such territories the acquisition of sovereignty was
not generally considered as effected unilaterally through "occupation" of terra
nullius by original title but through agreements concluded with local rulers.”5

“In the present instance, the information furnished to the Court shows that at the
time of colonization Western Sahara was inhabited by peoples which, if nomadic,

1 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p.12.

2 Id. at 14.
3 Id. ¶ 162 at 68.
4 Id. ¶ 79 at 38-39.
5 Id. ¶ 80 at 39.
 were socially and politically organized in tribes and under chiefs competent to
represent them. It also shows that, in colonizing Western Sahara, Spain did not
proceed on the basis that it was establishing its sovereignty over terrae nullius.”6

“The Court's answer to Question 1 is, therefore, in the negative and, in accordance
with the terms of the request, it will now turn to Question II.” 7

“Question II asks the Court to state ‘what were the legal ties between this
territory’—that is, Western Sahara—‘and the Kingdom of Morocco and the
Mauritanian entity’. The scope of this question depends upon the meaning to be
attached to the expression ‘legal ties’ in the context of the time of the colonization
of the territory by Spain… It appears to the Court that in Question II the words
‘legal ties’… must be understood as referring to such ‘legal ties’ as may affect the
policy to be followed in the decolonization of Western Sahara.”8

“Morocco's claim to ‘legal ties’ with Western Sahara … has been put to the Court
as a claim to ties of sovereignty on the ground of an alleged immemorial possession
of the territory. This immemorial possession, it maintains, was based not on an
isolated act of occupation but on the public display of sovereignty, uninterrupted
and uncontested, for centuries… In support of this claim Morocco refers to a
series of events stretching back to the Arab conquest of North Africa in the
seventh century A.D… [It invokes] inter alia the decision of the Permanent Court
of International Justice in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case (P.C.I.J., Series
A/B, No. 53), [maintaining] that the historical material suffices to establish
Morocco's claim to a title based ‘upon continued display of authority.’” 9

“In the view of the Court, however, what must be of decisive importance in
determining its answer to Question II is not indirect inferences drawn from events
in past history but evidence directly relating to effective display of authority in
Western Sahara at the time of its colonization by Spain and in the period
immediately preceding that time (cf. Minquiers and Ecrehos, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1953, p. 57).”10 (emphasis supplied)

In appreciating the evidence presented by Morocco, the Court took into account
the special structure of the Sherifian State, saying that “where sovereignty over
territory is claimed, the particular structure of a State may be a relevant element in
appreciating the reality or otherwise of a display of State activity adduced as
evidence of that sovereignty.”11

6 Id. ¶ 81 at 39.
7 Id. ¶ 83 at 40.
8 Id. ¶¶ 84-85 at 40-41.
9 Id. ¶¶ 90-91 at 42.
10 Id. ¶ 93 at 43.
11 Id. ¶ 94 at 43-44.
 “[T]he Sherifian State at the time of the Spanish colonization of Western Sahara
was a State of a special character... Its special character consisted in the fact that it
was founded on the common religious bond of Islam existing among the peoples
and on the allegiance of various tribes to the Sultan, through their caids or sheikhs,
rather than on the notion of territory.”12

“As evidence of its display of sovereignty in Western Sahara, Morocco has invoked
alleged acts of internal display of Moroccan authority and also certain international
acts said to constitute recognition by other states of its sovereignty over the whole
or part of the territory. The principal indications of “internal” display of authority
invoked by Morocco consists of evidence alleged to show the allegiance of Saharan
caids to the Sultan, … the alleged imposition of Koranic and other taxes, and what
were referred to as ‘military decisions’ said to constitute acts of resistance to foreign
penetration of the territories… Emphasis is also placed by Morocco on two visits
of Sultan Hassan I in person to the southern area of the Souss in 1882 and 1886 to
maintain and strengthen his authority in the Southern part of the realm, and on the
dispatch of arms by the Sultan to … the south to reinforce their resistance to
foreign penetration.”13

Having considered this evidence and the observations of the other States which
took part in the proceedings, the Court finds that neither the internal nor the
international acts relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant
period of either the existence or the international recognition of legal ties of
territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State. 14 “Even
taking account of the specific structure of the Sherifian State, the material so far
examined does not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between Western
Sahara and that State. It does not show that Morocco displayed effective and
exclusive State activity in Western Sahara. It does however provide indications
that a legal tie of allegiance had existed at the relevant period between the Sultan
and some, but only some, of the nomadic peoples of the territory.” 15 (emphasis
supplied)

As to the various international agreements presented by Morocco claiming external

recognition of the Sultan’s alleged territorial sovereignty in Western Sahara, the
Court ruled that “[the] agreements … are of limited value in this regard; for it was
not their purpose either to recognize an existing sovereignty over a territory or to
deny its existence. Their purpose, in their different contexts, was rather to

12 Id. ¶ 95 at 44.
13 Id. ¶¶ 98-99 at 45.
14 I.C.J., Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, available at http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=323&code=sa&p1=3&p2=4&case=
61&k=69&p3=5.
15 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, ¶ 107 at 49.
 recognize or reserve for one or both parties a ‘sphere of influence’ as understood in
the practice of that time.”16

The Court thereafter took up the question of what were the legal ties which existed
between Western Sahara, at the time of its colonization by Spain, and the
Mauritanian entity. The term ‘Mauritanian entity’ was first defined as a term “used
by the General Assembly to denote the cultural, geographical and social entity
which existed at the time in the region of Western Sahara and within which the
Islamic Republic of Mauritania was later to be created.”17 According to Mauritania,
that entity, at the relevant period, was the Bilad Shinguitti or Shinguitti country, a
distinct human unit, characterized by a common language, way of life, religion and
system of laws, featuring two types of political authority: emirates and tribal
groups. 18 Recognizing that this entity did not constitute a State, Mauritania
nevertheless claims that the Bilad Shinguitti “was a community having its own
cohesion, its own special characteristics, and a common Saharan law concerning
the use of water-holes, grazing lands and agricultural lands, the regulation of inter-
tribal hostilities and the settlement of disputes.”19 Mauritania suggests the concept
of “nation” and of “people” to explain the position of the Shinguitti people at the
time of colonization.20

“As to the legal ties between Western Sahara and [this entity] the views of
Mauritania are as follows: At the time of Spanish colonization, the Mauritanian
entity extended from the Senegal River to the Wad Sakiet El Hamra. That being so,
the part of the territories now under Spanish administration which lie ‘to the south
of the Wad Sakiet El Hamra was an integral part of the Mauritanian entity’. The
legal relation between the part under Spanish administration and the Mauritanian
entity was, therefore, ‘the simple one of inclusion’... That part and the present
territory of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania together constitute "the
indissociable parts of the Mauritanian entity". 21

“In the present case, the information before the Court discloses that, at the time of
the Spanish colonization, there existed many ties of a racial, linguistic, religious,
cultural and economic nature between various tribes and emirates whose peoples
dwelt in the Saharan region which today is comprised within the Territory of
Western Sahara and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. It also discloses, however,
the independence of the emirates and many of the tribes in relation to one another
and, despite some forms of common activity, the absence among them of any
common institutions or organs, even of a quite minimal character. Accordingly, the

16 Id. ¶ 126 at 56.

17 Id. ¶ 131 at 57.
18 I.C.J., Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, available at http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=323&code=sa&p1=3&p2=4&case=
61&k=69&p3=5.
19 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, ¶ 136 at 59.
20 See id. ¶ 138 at 60.
21 Id. ¶ 139 at 60.
 Court is unable to find that the information before it provides any basis for
considering the emirates and tribes which existed in the region to have constituted,
in another phrase used by the Court in the Reparation case, "an entity capable of
availing itself of obligations incumbent upon its Members" (ibid.). Whether the
Mauritanian entity is described as the Bilad Shinguitti, or as the Shinguitti "nation",
as Mauritania suggests … the difficulty remains that it did not have the character
of a personality or corporate entity distinct from the several emirates and
tribes which composed it. The proposition, therefore, that the Bilad Shinguitti
should be considered as having been a Mauritanian "entity" enjoying some form of
sovereignty in Western Sahara is not one that can be sustained.” 22 (emphasis
supplied)

Nevertheless, the General Assembly does not appear to have so framed Question
II as to confine the question exclusively to those legal ties which imply territorial
sovereignty, which would be to disregard the possible relevance of other legal ties
to the decolonization process.23 “Accordingly, although the Bilad Shinguitti has not
been shown to have existed as a legal entity, the nomadic peoples of the Shinguitti
country should , in the view of the Court, be considered as having in the relevant
period possessed rights, including some rights relating to the lands through which
they migrated. These rights … constituted legal ties between the territory of
Western Sahara and the ‘Mauritanian entity.’”24

Thus the Court, being mindful of the purpose for which the Advisory Opinion was
sought, held in its penultimate paragraph: “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 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.” 25

22 Id. ¶ 149 at 63.

23 I.C.J., Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975, available at http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=323&code=sa&p1=3&p2=4&case=
61&k=69&p3=5.
24 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, ¶ 152 at 64-65.
25 Id. ¶ 162 at 68.