1 Press release USUN-68(70), 19 May 1970. Analytically It would appear that the four proposed actions should properly fall under two headings: to discourage American business operations in Namibia ((2) and (3) being means of accomplishing this end); and to encourage other countries to act similarly.

2 It is possible that the Export-Import Bank has refused to make some credit guarantees; such non-actions seldom are publicly announced.

3 Paras. 121-125 of the Court's Opinion.

4 Of course, other states have identical obligations, but concerted action is not necessary to fulfill them.

5 There is some overlapping among and within categories. In general, when one action is more extensive than the other, it should be taken. However, a less extensive or efficacious action should be taken pending the commencement of a more extensive one (though it should not be a justification for postponing the other); and an action which is prospective in application only may be supplemented by another which properly can be applied retrospectively.

6 The United States has closed its consulate in Windhoek and withdrawn its personnel from the Territory; but consular personnel in Cape Town continue to have as part of their area of jurisdiction “South West Africa”.

7 Para. 123.

8 e.g., the Convention on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Southeast Atlantic, 23 Oct. 1969. Although South Africa did not formally claim to represent Namibia at the conference, its legislation by which it asserts sovereignty over Namibian coastal waters has this result. Note that para. 122 of the Court’s Opinion requires such action.

9 Also required by para. 122.

10 The United States used such a system to prevent the importation of goods originating in the People’s Republic of China via Hong Kong and other Far Eastern trading centers.

11 Throughout this article the term “South African government” includes, unless the context otherwise requires, the territorial Administration and any agent or licensee of either, as well as any person or body acting under the de facto control of the South African government. Acts of the South African government include acts of any of the foregoing.

12 With appropriate exceptions for Namibian exiles and refugees. See, in this connection, para. 125 of the Court’s Opinion.

13 On 20 May 1970, even before the Security Council sought the Court’s Opinion concerning Namibia, Ambassador Yost had announced (see above) P. 15 that the United States would not protect any American government since the termination of the mandate against the claims of a future lawful government of the Territory.

14 Or any reconstituted Council or successor body if the General Assembly decides to undertake structural reform in order to strengthen its powers.

15 Including commercial paper, as bills of lading or promisory notes, issued by the (publicly owned) South African Railways Administration or Airways in relation to the transportation of Namibian goods or any goods in Namibia.

16 The International Court’s specific prohibition against invoking treaties extended to Namibia applies to the American-South African double-taxation treaty.

17 As pointed out above. Ambassador Yost stated on 20 May 1970 that Export-Import Bank credit guarantees would no longer be available for trade with Namibia.

18 The right — and duty — to levy and collect taxes Is implicit in General Assembly Resolution 2248 (S-V) [1967] para. III (i) (a), which provides that “the administration of South West Africa under the United Nations shall be financed from the revenues collected in the Territory…”