RIGHT OF PROTECTION IN MOROCCO-JULY 3, 1880 ART. 15
Any subject of Morocco who has been naturalized in a foreign country, and who shall return to Morocco, shall after having remained for a length of time equal to that which shall have been regularly necessary for him to obtain such naturalization, choose between entire submission to the laws of the Empire and the obligation to quit Morocco, unless it shall be proved that his naturalization in a foreign country was obtained with the consent of the Government of Morocco.
Inspired by the interest attaching itself to the reign of order, peace, and prosperity in Morocco, and recognizing that the attainment thereof can only be effected by means of the introduction of reforms based upon the triple principle of the sovereignty and independence of His Majesty the Sultan, the integrity of his domains, and economic liberty without any inequality, have resolved, upon the invitation of His Shereefian Majesty, to call together a conference at Algeciras for the purpose of arriving at an understanding upon the said reforms, as well as examining the means for obtaining the resources necessary for their application, and have appointed as their delegates plenipotentiary the following:
STATE, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
Western Sahara
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 13 December 1974, the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion on the following questions : “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 in the negative, “II. What were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity ?” In its Advisory Opinion, delivered on 16 October 1975, the Court replied to Question I in the negative. In reply to Question II, it expressed the opinion that the materials and information presented to it showed 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 showed 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 was that the materials and information presented to it did 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 did not find any legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of the General Assembly’s 1960 resolution 1514 (XV) — containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — 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.
: a geographic area belonging to or under the jurisdiction of a governmental authority
b
: an administrative subdivision of a country
c
: a part of the U.S. not included within any state but organized with a separate legislature
d
: a geographic area (such as a colonial possession) dependent on an external government but having some degree of autonomy
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO
I have voted in favour of the Advisory Opinion because it states that there are no ties of sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity, and that the principle of self-determination should be applied to the said territory, thereby giving a correct, clear and conclusive reply to the real questions put to the Court. On the other hand, I cannot go along with the Advisory Opinion either in its statement regarding the existence of other legal ties between the territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity, nor in all its reasoning. In order to justify my vote, I feel obliged to set out my separate opinion below.
(a) Unbroken Relations between Morocco and the Sahara
The statements submitted to the Court by Morocco mention, as relevant historic ties, immemorial relations existing between Morocco and the Sahara, as well as a series of special facts cited as proofs of Morocco's authority over Western Sahara. The following quotation in the second part of the written statement of Morocco is italicized to indicate the importance attached to it: "this basic fact of Moroccan history, the periodic conquest of inner Morocco by outer Morocco . . . In most cases a dynasty that has come into being beyond the Atlas has conquered Atlantic Morocco. " The passage quoted is used equivocally; it seems to have been interpreted as meaning that there are two Moroccos, inner Morocco and outer Morocco, and that outer Morocco is the Sahara.