with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting, in special cases within the framework of its competence, resolutions which make determinations or have operative design. The General Assembly, however, lacktd the necessary powers to ensure the withdrawal of South Africa from the Territory and therefore, acting in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Charter, enlisted the cam-operation of the Security Council. The Council for its part, when it adopted the resolutions concerned, was acting in the exercise of what it deemed to be its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. Article 24 of the Charter vests in the Security Council the necessary authority. Irs decisions were taken in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter, under Article 25 of which it is for member States to comply with those decisions, even th'ose members of the Security Council which voted against them and those are not members of the Members the United Council. Legal Consequencesfor States ofthe Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (paras. 117-127 and 133of the Advisory Opinion) The Court stresses that a binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to thleeffect that a situation is illegal cannot remain without cons~equence. South Africa* being for ha'ring created and maintained that situation, has the obligation to put an end to it and withdraw its administration from the Territory. By occupying the Territory without title. South Africa incurs international responsibilities arising from a continuing violation of an international obligation. It also remains accountable for of the rights of the p p l e ofNamibia, Or of its obligations under international law towi~dsother States in respect of the exercise of its powers in relation to the Territory. The member States of the United Nations ;areunder obligation to recognize the illegality and invrllidity of South Africa's continued presence in Namibia ant1 to refrain from lending any Support Or any form of aSSiStancleto South Africa with reference to its occupation of Namibia. The precise determination of the act9 permitted-what measures should be selected, what scope they should be given and by whom they should be applied-is a matter which lies within the competence of the appropriate political orgzms of the United Nations acting within their authority under t]he Charter. mus it is for the Security Council to determine any further measures consequent upon the decisions already taken by it. The Court in consequence confines itself to ;givingadvice on those dealings with the Government of Sou~thAfrica which, under the Charter of the United Nations and general international law, should be considered as inconsistent with reS0lution 276 (1970) because they might imply recognizing South Africa's presence in Namibia as legal: (a) Member States are under obligatioin (subject to (d) below) to abstain from entering into treaty relations with South Africa in all cases in which the Government of South Africa purports to act on behalf of or conccming Namibia. With respect to existing bilateral treaties mernber States must abstain from invoking or applying those treaties or provisions of treaties concluded by South Africa. on behalf of or concerning Namibia which involve active in~tergovernmental co-operation. With respect to multilateral treaties, the same rule cannot be applied to certain general conventions such as those with humanitarian character, the non-performance of which may adversely affect the people of Nrunibia: it will be 80 for the competenl: international organs to take specific measures in this respect. (b) Member States are under obligation to abstain from sending diplomatic or special missions to South Africa including in their :jurisdiction the territory of Namibia, to abstain from sending consular agents to Namibia, and to withdraw any such agents already there; and to make it clear to South Africa thal:the maintenance of diplomatic or consular relations does not imply any recognition of its authority with regard to Namibia. (c) Member States are under obligation to abstain from entering into economic and other forms of relations with South Africa on behalf of or concerning Namibia which may entrench its authority over the territory. (d) H ~ non-recognition ~ ~ should ~ not result ~ in~ depriving the people of ~ ~ iof any b advantages i ~ derived from international co-operation. In particular, the illegality or invalidity of acts performed by the Government of South Afiica on behalf of 'or concerning Namibia after the termination of the Mandate cannot be extended to such acts as the registration of birthis,deaths and marriages. As to States not members of the United Nations, although they are not bound by Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter, they have been called ufmn by resolution 276 (1970) to give assistance in the action which has been taken by the United Nations with regard to Namibia. In the view of the Court, the termination of the Mandate and the declaration of the illegality of SouthAfrkaVs presence in Nmibia =opposabk all States in the sense of barring erga omnes the legality of the situation which is in violation of international law. In particulsr, State which enters into Elations with South Africa concc:rning Namibia may expect the United Nations or its Members to recognize the validity or effects of any such relationship, The M e having been terminsred by a decision of international organizatim in which the supervisory authorily was vested, it is for non-member States to act accordingly. All States should bear in mind that the ,,tity injured by t]he illegal presence of south Africa in Namibia is a people which must look to the international for assistance in its towards the goals for which the sacredl m t was instituted. Accordingly, the Court has given the replies above on page l. Propositio~by S o ~ t hAfrica concerning the S M ~of ~~ uZr -~ the' Factual 1nfi)nnationand the hssible Holding of a @-. 128-132 Ihe Advisory Opinion) meGovernmentof south Africa had expressed the desire to supplythe court with further factual infomation concerning the purposes and of its policy of sepmte development, contelndingthat to establish a breach of its substantive internationall obligations under the Mandate it would be necessary to prove that South Africa had failed to exercise its powers with a 'view to promoting the well-being and progress of the inhabitants. The Court found that no factual evidence was needed for the purpose of determining whether the policy of apartheid in Namibia was in conformity with the international oblligations assumed by South Africa. It is undisputed that the official governmental policy pursued by South Africa in Namibia is to achieve a complete physical separation of races; and ethnic groups. This means the enforcement of distimctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations exclusively. based on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental human rights. This the Court views as a fla- ,