Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-s56hc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T05:33:03.353Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Newly Independent States and the Scope of Domestic Jurisdiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

George M. Abi-Saab
George M. Abi-Saab*
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Third Session
Information
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting (1921-1969) , Volume 54 , 1960 , pp. 84 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Miller, Drafting of the Covenant 277 ff. (New York, 1928). Note especially the fourth Lodge reservation.

2 Schwarzenberger, The League of Nations and World Order, especially Part III, pp. 59 ff. (London, 1936).

3 For a review of the practice of the League, see Fincham, Domestic Jurisdiction 41–53 (Leyden, 1948).

4 Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, 79th Congress, 1st Sess., on the Charter of the United Nations 309–313 (rev. ed., 1945). The U.S.S.R. had also the same worry. U.N.C.I.O., Summary Report, 9th Meeting, Executive Committee (June 17, 1945), Doc. 1063, EX/27 (V Documents 522). Summarized in Preuss, “Article 2, Paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction,” 74 Hague Academy, Eecueil des Cours 553, at 582 (1949).

5 Ibid. 588–594.

6 E.g., U.N.C.I.O., Amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals Presented by the Egyptian Government (May 5, 1945) (III Documents 453).

7 Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations 769 ff. (London, 1950).

8 Preuss, loc. cit. note 4 above, at 627.

9 See Pollux, “Domestic Jurisdiction,” 17 Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium (1948).

10 For a clear exposition of these cases, see Bajan, United Nations and Domestic Jurisdiction 179 ff., 364 ff. (Calcutta, 1958).

11 E.g., Statement of the representative of Egypt before the General Assembly's Sixth Committee. General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Becords, Plenary Meetings, p. 167, reproduced in Egypt and the United Nations 64 (New York, 1957).

12 France's attitude towards the Algerian question in the United Nations is a good example of this kind of tactics.

13 E.g., speech of French delegate, General Assembly, 6th Sess., Official Records, Plenary Meetings, p. 98; also the British delegate made a similar argument during the discussion of the Cyprus question, ibid., 9th Sess., Plenary Meetings, p. 53.

14 Rajan, op. cit. note 10 above, at 398 ff.

15 New York Times, Aug. 10, 1956, p. 2.

16 Ibid., Aug. 13, 1953, p. 1.

17 General Assembly Ees. 626 (VII), Dec. 21, 1952.

18 General Assembly Ees. 1314 (XIII), Dec. 12, 1958.

19 For a good discussion of the whole issue, see Hyde, “Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Wealth and Besources,” 50 A.J.I.L. 854 (1956).

20 General Assembly Kes. 822 (IX), Dec. 11, 1954; General Assembly Ees. 923 (X), Dec. 9, 1955.