¹ See, for example, Charles Brothers, Hilson Fincham, Domestic Jurisdiction; the Exception of Domestic Jurisdiction as a Bar to Action by the League of Nations and the United Nations; a Contribution to the Study of Article 15, Paragraph 8, of the Covenant and Article 2, Paragraph 7, of the Charter (1948); H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Eights (1950); Lawrence Preuss, Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction (1949); Charles Rousseau, La Compétence de la Société des Nations dans le Règlement des Conflits Internationaux (1927); Sakutaro Tachi, La Souveraineté et l’Indépendance de l’Etat et les Questions Intérieures en Droit International (1930); Baty, Thomas, “Domestic Jurisdiction,” Révue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, Vol. 56 (1929), pp. 44–51 Google Scholar; Bentwich, Norman, “The Limits of the Domestic Jurisdiction of the State,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 31 (1946), pp. 59–89 Google Scholar; Bertoud, Paul, “La Compétence Nationale des Etats et l’Organisation des Nations Unies,” Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, Vol. 4 (1947), pp. 17–104 Google Scholar; Brierly, J. L., “Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction,” British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 6 (1925), pp. 8–19 Google Scholar; Davies, D. J. Llewelyn, “Domestic Jurisdiction: A Limitation on International Law,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 32 (1947), pp. 61–67 Google Scholar; Fenwick, Charles G., “The Scope of Domestic Questions in International Law,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 19 (1925), pp. 143–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodrich, Leland M., “The United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction,” International Organization, Vol. 3 (1949), pp. 14–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gross, Ernest A., “Impact of the United Nations upon Domestic Jurisdiction,” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 452 (1948), pp. 259–267 Google Scholar; Hill, Norman L., “International Jurisdiction and Domestic Questions,” Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 10 (1929-1930), pp. 22–32 Google Scholar; Jones, Helen Hart, “Domestic, Jurisdiction—From the Covenant to the Charter,” Illinois Law Review, Vol. 46 (1951-1952), pp. 219-272Google Scholar; Nisot, Joseph, “Art. 2, Par. 7, of the United Nations Charter as Compared with Art. 15, Par. 8, of the League of Nations Covenant,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43 (1949), pp. 776–779 Google Scholar; Paulus, J., “Les ‘Affaires Domestiques’ de l’Article 15, Alinea 8 du Pacte de La Société des Nations,” Revue de Droit International, de Sciences Diplomatiques, Politiques et Sociales, Vol. 2 (1924), pp. 121–138 Google Scholar; Pollux, , “Domestic Jurisdiction,” Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret, Vol. 17 (1946), pp. 13–35 Google Scholar; Potter, Pitman B., “As Determined by the United States,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 792–794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Preuss, Lawrence, “Questions Resulting from the Connally Amendment,” American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 32 (1946), pp. 660–662, 721Google Scholar; Same, , “The International Court of Justice, the Senate, and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 40 (1946), pp. 720–736 Google Scholar; Raestad, Arnold, “La Reconnaissance, la Détermination et la Signification en Droit International du Domaine Laissé par ce Dernier à. la Compétence Exclusive de l’Etat,” Nordisk Tidsskcrift for International Ret, Vol. 3 (1932), pp. 108–122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scelle, Georges, “Critique du Soi-Disant Domaine de ‘Compétence Exclusive,” Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, Vol. 14 (1933), pp. 365–394 Google Scholar; Schapiro, L. B., “Domestic Jurisdiction in the Covenant and the Charter,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 33 (1948), pp. 195–211 Google Scholar; Segal, S., “Le Domaine Réservé,” Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, Vol. 14 (1933), pp. 704–725 Google Scholar; “The ‘Domestic Jurisdiction’ Limitations in the United Nations Charter,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. 47 (1947), pp. 268-297. Domestic jurisdiction reservations have also received considerable attention in international organs.

² Perhaps an exception is the definition advanced by the Soviet bloc when the question of the treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty and others in the Soviet satellites was before the General Assembly. The definition, presented first by the delegate of Poland, was later restated by others in the same bloc. Beginning with the statement that the domestic jurisdiction of a state must be determined by the legal order prevailing in that state, the definition was so fashioned that it made possible a Soviet denial of the right of the United Nations to intervene in the Mindszenty case and a Soviet support of the right of the United Nations to intervene in the question of treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. The determination of the domestic jurisdiction of a state turned on the ability of its internal political organization to cope with the matter. If a state had established a political organization competent to deal with a matter, the matter was domestic; if the political organization of the state was not competent to deal with the matter, it was not domestic and the United Nations would have authority to intervene. Since, in the Soviet view, there were laws for the settlement of the Mindszenty case and there were no laws capable of settling the race problem in the Union of South Africa, the former was domestic and the latter was not. Equally outside domestic jurisdiction, according to the Soviet view, is the problem of Negroes in the Southern United States. “It was a fact,” the Polish delegate said, “that the domestic jurisdiction of the United States was based on that country’s Constitution, but on the other hand the legislation of the Southern States was, on that point, in contradiction with the Constitution. The Government of the United States could answer that it was not in a position to interfere with the legislation of the Southern States, but in so doing, it would be proving that all such matters in the Southern States did not come under national jurisdiction and that some of them should therefore be settled by a decision of the United Nations.” See General Assembly, Official Records, 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, First Committee, pp. 301-302; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, Plenary Meetings, p. 428; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, General Committee, p. 14.

³ The fullest examination of the idea of international concern has been made by Lawrence Preuss in Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction. Although the idea had been clearly expressed by the time of the publication of this study, it does not seem that the idea is yet sufficiently established to regard it as the dominant concept of the reserved domain of states.

⁴ See League of Nations Official Journal, Spec. Supp. No. 3, October, 1920, p. 4 ; Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, No. 4, p. 24. Preuss, however, claims that the jurisdiction of the League Council was always based on an element of international concern (see Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction, p. 18).

⁵ See the statement of Leo Pasvolsky in The Charter of the United Nations, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., on the Charter of the United Nations for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security (Revised), p. 312; Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, 1945, Doc. 969 1/1/39, June 14, 1945, p. 4.

⁶ General Assembly, Official Records, Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly, Oct. 3, 1946, pp. 83-85, 89.

⁷ Security Council, Official Records, 1st Year, 1st Series, Spec. Supp. (Rev. Ed.), Report of Sub-Committee on the Spanish Question, pp. 1-2, 8-9.

⁸ Ibid., 1st Year, 1st Series, No. 2, pp. 317-318, 352.

⁹ See, for example, Security Council, Official Records, 6th Year, 563rd Meeting, p. 1 ; General Assembly, 1st Sess., Pt. 2, Official Records, Plenary Meetings, p. 1220; ibid., 5th Sess., Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 262.

¹⁰ Ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, General Committee, p. 17; ibid., Plenary Meetings, p. 269.

¹¹ This concept has been rather generally accepted by publicists, although they usually retain, on an equal footing, the concept that matters are removed from domestic jurisdiction by legal processes. See, for example, H. Lauterpacht, Oppenheim’s International Law (7th ed., 1948, 1952), Vol. II, p. 115; Finchara, op. cit., p. 113; Goodrich, loc. cit., p. 27.

¹² Security Council, Official Records, 2nd Year, No. 68, p. 1657 ; ibid., 3rd Tear, No. 134, p. 10; General Assembly, Official Records, 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 77 ; ibid., 5th Sess., Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 256.

¹³ Security Council, Official Records, 2nd Year, No. 68, p. 1684.

¹⁴ General Assembly, Official Records, 1st Sess., Pt. 2, Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees, p. 254.

¹⁵ Security Council, Official Records, 4th Year, No. 7, p. 3.

¹⁶ General Assembly, Official Records, 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, Plenary Meetings, p. 25. See, also, ibid., 1st Sess., Pt. 1, Plenary Meetings, p. 1009 ; ibid., 1st Sees., Pt. 2, Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees, pp. 3-4, 15-16, 22-23, 32-33, 42, 51, 248; ibid., 2nd Sess., Vol. 2, Plenary Meetings, p. 1115; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 1, Sixth Committee, pp. 724-725; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, General Committee, pp. 16, 19; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, Ad Hoc Political Committee, pp. 80, 87-88, 89, 96-97 ; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, First Committee, pp. 282, 290, 296; ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 2, Plenary Meetings, p. 247; ibid., 5th Sess., Ad Hoc Political Committee, pp. 264, 272; Security Council, Official Records, 6th Tear, 560th Meeting, pp. 6, 10, 11-12 ; ibid., 4th Year, No. 9, p. 10 ; “ Committee Acts on Apartheid Policy in South Africa,” United Nations Bulletin, Vol. 13 (1952), pp. 540-541.

¹⁷ General Assembly, Official Records, 5th Sess., Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 263.

¹⁸ Ibid., 5th Sess., Ad Hoc Political Committee, p. 275.

¹⁹ Ibid., 1st Sess., Pt. 2, Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees, pp. 28-29.

²⁰ Ibid., 3rd Sess., Pt. 1, Sixth Committee, p. 747.

²¹ LeFur, Louis in Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, Vol. 36, Tome 1 (1931), p. 35 Google Scholar.

²² Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series В, No. 4, p. 26.

²³ “Assembly Considers Treatment of Indians in South Africa,” United Nations Bulletin, Vol. 13 (1952), p. 513 Google Scholar.