14 SOVEREIGNTY AND EQUALITY OF STATES 1, GENERAL equality of states represent the which governs a community con expresses the content of sovereignty varies, and indeed mis of the coexistence ofsovereignties. Theaa STATE JURISDICTION SOVEREIGNTY AND EQUALITY OF STATES a problems can be approached through the concept ofthe reserved domain of domestic jurisdiction (ection 5, infra, p. 290), Yetanother perspective is provided by the notion fof sovereignty as discretionary power within areas delimited by the law. Thus states ‘alone ean confer nationality for purposes of municipal law, delimit the territorial ea tnd decide on the necessity for action in self-defence. Yet in all these cases the exercise ‘ofthe paver i conditioned by the lave* ‘fincompetence. Inthe Lotus case the Court decided the issue of jurisdiction on the ‘isis that ‘restrictions upon the independence of Statescannot be presumed’ However, Isalso the case that a general presu orabuse. The context ofa problem proof, which may be described in terms ofthe duty to establish a restriction on ov igty on the part ofthe proponent ofthe duty. The jurisdictional 'geography’of the | problem may provide usef thei Jomatic asylum involves a derogation from sovereignty as represented bythe normally exclusive jurisdiction ofthe territorial state. On the other hand, in the Fisheries case, the dominant factor from this point of view was the international Impact ofthe de frontiers, in that case the maritime front 2. SOVEREIGNTY AND THE APPLICATION OF RULES* ‘of obligations arising from treaties lan the Petmanent Court firmly rejected the argument that a testy sovereign right to apply the law of neutr "The Court declines to se, in the concly> vdertakes to perform or refrain from performing fa particular act an abandonment ofits sovereignty the right of entering into inter national engagements isan attribute of State sovereignty 3. SOVEREIGNTY AND COMPETENCE, ignty is also used to describe the legal competence which states have in gen= eri, o reer toa particular function of this competence, of to provide a rationale fora particular aspect of the competence:® Thus jurisdiction, including legislative competence over national territory, may be referred 10 in the terms ‘sovereignty’ oF sovereign rights: Sovereignty may refer to the power to acquite ile to teritory and rights accruing from exercise ofthe power. The correlative duty of respect for ter rial sovereignty. and the privileges in respect of territorial jurisdiction, referred 25 sovereign or state immunities, ae described after the same fashion, In general sovereignty’ characterizes powers and privileges resting on customary law and inde- ate () Interpretation of treaties “The principles of treaty interpretation are considered in Chapter 26, On occasion tht International Couct has referred to sovereign rights asa bass fora restrictive inter pretation of teaty obligations, but evrything depends on the context, the intention Of the partes, and the relevance of other, countervailing, principles such as tha off cffectiveness é (@ Presumptions and burdens I law are uncertain or contain principles which do fete issues. Thus much could turn on the answer 4, MEMBERSHIP OF ORGANIZATIONS? onl aspects of organizations of states result in an actual 8 opposed to qualification ofthe principle of sovereign equality” Thus an organization y alopt majority voting and also havea system of weighted voting; and organs may the isiue is whether, incase of doubt as to the mode of application of rues o absence of rules, the presumption is that states have legal competence ors ‘She afr, pp OE Sethe Wimbledon spr 2s andthe ree Zones cae (91). PC Se. A192 Ser Ala 459-1627 sare yu SOVEREIGNTY AND EQUALITY OF STATES 295, (Certain contrasts with the provision of the Covenant quoted above will be appar~ ext, There is no reference to international law, the reference is to m: be authority which the Charter was ‘8 matter is prima facie within the reserved domain because ted in the normal case, then certain presumptions agai ‘that domain may be created."* Thus the i tbe thoroughgoing, hence the formula esse in because ofthe wide impli- jatios of the economic and social provisions of the Charter (Chapter IX) These Intentions have in practice worked against each other. Te flexi nd the assumption in practice that 6. ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 7, OF THE UNITED © NATIONS CHARTER® The advent of basis caused some resolutions addressed to particul feagraph 7. Atthe same time the term ‘intervene’ is not to be conceived of only as ctatorial intervention in this context. Member states have proceeded empiically ‘an eye to general opinion and a clear knowledge that precedents created in one may have a boomerang elect Inpractice Uni the Charter and the pro of Chapters IX and X1 55 and 56, have taken 0 theit ina. sm, and non-elf governing territories (ee qualified by the General smbly) have ben adopted regularly. Ifthe organ concerned felt ned of were cont the purposes and principles ofthe Charter and also that sive was ‘endanger sdopted a resolution con- international peace and secur id only partly on the bass that the situation ‘constitutes potential peace and security’ ick a cleat answer isthe relation of Article 2, paragraph 7, t0 ional com we have seen, it lacks reference to 6, 1006-7, Gaguenim 80 therm ogo 90 and gga isd other eatin ofthe Con296 STATE JURISDICTION SOVEREIGNTY AND EQUALITY OF STATES 7 the question of domestic jurisdiction is raised in relation tothe precise issues before In practice the International Court has joined a plea of dome er question which arises is application ofthe reservation in Article 2, para 7, of the Charter to the jurisdiction of the Court, the object of arguing for ts sation being to benefit from the extensive formnula ‘essen he reservation inthe Charter applies tothe contentious jurisdiction or not idiction is available by operation of ‘the United Nations has had important ‘must again escape from tautology. What has happened is simply that 8 new conta! has been given othe obligations and legal competence of states through the medium of the Charter ‘organ concerned 2, paragraph 7. In 7. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS AND THE PLEA OF DOMESTIC JURISDICTION™ 4 cept of fac of set i he concept played a prominent re simply by e250 ich the League Council had requested an a jain and France had been brought be request 0 accept a judicial paragraph 4s not called upon to deal Foc the Questions putto the court relate ng human rights and furdament {then stated that these considerations sufficed to dispose of the obj [on Article 2, paragraph 7, directed specifically ’his approach on the basis ofa ‘pe where there is a preliminary objection to jurisdiction in a contentious case