ADVISORY OPINION ON WESTERN SAHARA 1975
Case Summary
The General Assembly sought advice on the following issues on December 13th, 1974
from the ICJ
I. 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 negative,
II. What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco
and the Mauritanian entity?
For the first question, ICJ held that the native Western Saharans inhabited Western
Sahara in 1885. This means that in 1885, the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara had the
position of sovereignty.
so the answer was NO
Then ICJ moved to the second question What were the legal ties between this territory
and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?
Morocco argued that there are 'internal' and 'external' recognition of Moroccan
sovereignty
The Court has been presented with Morocco's claim to "legal ties" with Western Sahara
at the period of Spanish colonialism as a claim to ties of sovereignty based on a supposed
immemorial possession of the territory. It claims that this immemorial possession was
founded not on an isolated occupation, but a demonstration of sovereignty in public, for
many centuries, without disruption or dispute
Morocco referred to a series of events stretching back to the Arab conquest of North
Africa in the seventeenth century A.D ICJ held that the historical information is rather
ambiguous as proof of possession of the land in question because many of these
occurrences were distant, sporadic, and frequently fleeting.
Further concerned the legal states of Eastern Greenland ICJ held that Western Sahara
was sparsely populated and a territory across which socially and politically organized
tribes were in constant movement and where armed incidents between these tribes were
frequent. Then concerned the relevance of the special structure of the Sherifian State
The Moroccan sultan was acknowledged as the supreme ruler in regions outside of direct
governmental control (bilad al-siba) based on his spiritual authority (amir al-mu'minin).
However, the evidence does not dispense the Court form appreciating whether at the
relevant time Moroccan sovereignty was effectively exercised or displayed in Western
Sahara
Case Summary
The General Assembly sought advice on the following issues on December 13th, 1974
from the ICJ
I. 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 negative,
II. What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco
and the Mauritanian entity?
For the first question, ICJ held that the native Western Saharans inhabited Western
Sahara in 1885. This means that in 1885, the Sahrawi people of Western Sahara had the
position of sovereignty.
so the answer was NO
Then ICJ moved to the second question What were the legal ties between this territory
and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?
Morocco argued that there are 'internal' and 'external' recognition of Moroccan
sovereignty
The Court has been presented with Morocco's claim to "legal ties" with Western Sahara
at the period of Spanish colonialism as a claim to ties of sovereignty based on a supposed
immemorial possession of the territory. It claims that this immemorial possession was
founded not on an isolated occupation, but a demonstration of sovereignty in public, for
many centuries, without disruption or dispute
Morocco referred to a series of events stretching back to the Arab conquest of North
Africa in the seventeenth century A.D ICJ held that the historical information is rather
ambiguous as proof of possession of the land in question because many of these
occurrences were distant, sporadic, and frequently fleeting.
Further concerned the legal states of Eastern Greenland ICJ held that Western Sahara
was sparsely populated and a territory across which socially and politically organized
tribes were in constant movement and where armed incidents between these tribes were
frequent. Then concerned the relevance of the special structure of the Sherifian State
The Moroccan sultan was acknowledged as the supreme ruler in regions outside of direct
governmental control (bilad al-siba) based on his spiritual authority (amir al-mu'minin).
However, the evidence does not dispense the Court form appreciating whether at the
relevant time Moroccan sovereignty was effectively exercised or displayed in Western
Sahara
