Delimiting "Domestic' Jurisdiction"

Abstract

HE DOMESTIC jurisdiction reservation in Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter needs clarification. When the tenth General Assembly failed to set a date for calling a conference to review the Charter,1 it delayed a decision on this problem, for amendment of that article undoubtedly would have been one of the topics of discussion at such a conference.2 However, events of that session the admission of sixteen new members to the United Nations3 and the walkouts of the delegations of France and the Union of South Africa protesting the Assembly's inclusion on its agenda of items that these nations regarded within their respective domestic jurisdictions4 may result in some basic changes in the application of the reservation. These events will influence the application of the domestic jurisdiction reservation in two ways: (1) the decision on a plea of domestic jurisdiction will be made by a General Assembly with altered voting blocs which may take advantage of the precedent of deter. mining domestic jurisdiction on the basis of rather vague findings; (2) the defendant state before United Nations organs may no longer rely heavily, or at all, on legal arguments, but upon unilateral action such as a walkout. The admission of new members may result in significant changes in voting alliances when the General Assembly deals with domestic jurisdiction questions. The new members strengthened the Communist bloc and the Asiatic area more than other groups. These two groups can be relied upon to favor United Nations proceedings against colonial policies of Western European countries and national policies affecting human rights (excepting, of course, their own policies on human rights); in the past they