Western Sahara Case Brief
Western Sahara Case Brief
It had been colonized by the Spanish for many yrssince Papal Bull (1492).
Spain resisted adjudication.
Morocco claimed the north half and Mauritania claimed the S. Half.
Mauritania was indep from Fr in the 60s, but Morocco claimed it was part of
Morocco). This area had a huge deposit of phosphates. (Oil deposits)
Morocco eventually claimed the whole area and Spain wldnt consent to a
contentious proceeding. If this is really a contentious proceeding, can an
advisory opinion work? Within the framewk, , Muth says this is ok. Ct sees its
role as broaderto help the UN.
Holding 1: At the time of colonization, the land was not terra nullius.
Holding 2: There were some ties btwn the nomadic tribes and
Morocco but not enough to say full political allegiance. (Like in E.
Greenland case and Muth says ct is right). Ct says the same about the ties
w/ Mauritania.
In North Sea Casect was very bold in its application of the law.
Problem with a referendum is how do you ask the questionW. Sahara and
Morocco cldnt agree on this. So now UN wont even push for a referendum.
Efficacy of intl court: Its opinion in this case has been ignored for 26 yrs!