La notion de domaine de compétence nationale de l'État ou domaine réservé est envisagée par la majorité de la doctrine internationaliste comme renvoyant à une sphère de matières dans lesquelles l'État, parce que non tenu par des obligations juridiques internationales, jouit d'une liberté totale de décision et d'action. Or, les transformations de la société internationale depuis 1945 ont engendré une extension matérielle du droit international de telle sorte qu'il est aujourd'hui difficile de déterminer une matière où l'État n'est pas soumis à des règles internationales et où il jouit d'une liberté absolue. À ce titre, le domaine de compétence nationale doit être appréhendé non dans sa dimension matérielle, mais de manière fonctionnelle qui permet d'expliquer la persistance de cette notion dans droit international, mais aussi de mettre en exergue la singularité du phénomène étatique par rapport aux autres phénomènes de pouvoir tant à l'échelle nationale qu'internationale. Cette singularité de l'institution étatique fait que certaines fonctions comme celle de gouvernement à travers ses manifestations et implications, lui sont intrinsèquement rattachées de telle manière que, s'il se les prive ou s'il en est privé, il perd sa qualité d'État. Dans cette mesure, le domaine de compétence nationale apparaît comme un critère incompressible de sauvegarde de la souveraineté en tant qu'indépendance de l'État dans l'ordre international. / The notion of domestic jurisdiction of the State is considered by the majority of the internationalist doctrine as referring to a sphere of material in which the State, because not bound by international legal obligations, has a complete freedom of decision and action. However, changes in international society since 1945 have resulted in a material extension of international law so that it is now difficult to determine a matter in which the State is not subject to international rules and where it has absolute freedom. As such, the domestic jurisdiction must be understood not in its material dimension, but functional way that helps explain the persistence of this notion in international law, but also to highlight the uniqueness of the phenomenon of State in relation to the other phenomena of power both nationally and internationally. This peculiarity of the state institution is such that certain functions such as government through its manifestations and implications are intrinsically linked him so that if he does without them or if it is deprived of them, it loses its statehood. To this extent, the domestic jurisdiction appears as an incompressible criterion safeguarding sovereignty as that independence of the State in the international order.

At the United Nations Conference on International Organization in April 1945 South Africa affirmed the principle of respect for human rights in a Preamble it proposed for inclusion in the Charter of the United Nations. The proposal was approved and the Preamble was accorded binding force. While South Africa participated in the earliest attempts of the United Nations to draft a bill of rights, it abstained on the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because its municipal legislation was incompatible with some articles. Similarly, South Africa did not become a party to the international human rights instruments the declaration inspired, and avoided an active role in their elaboration. Subsidiary organs of the General Assembly undertook several studies on discrimination in the field of human rights. They provided evidence that racial discrimination in South Africa intensified after the National Party came to power in May 1948 on the platform of apartheid and diverged from global trends in humanitarian law. The gap between the Union and the United Nations widened. At the first General Assembly in 1946, India successfully asked that the treatment of persons of Indian origin in South Africa be inscribed on the agenda. The Indian question was later subsumed in the charge that South Africa's racial policies violated the Charter and in 1952 the General Assembly began to discuss apartheid. South Africa protested that these actions contravened Charter Article 2(7), which prohibited intervention in matters of domestic jurisdiction, and were ultra vires. Criticism of the Union increased in intensity, until in 1960 it culminated in calls for economic and diplomatic sanctions. Research shows that South Africa was the main architect of its growing isolation, since it refused to modify domestic policies that alienated even its potential allies. Moreover, it maintained a low profile in United Nations debates on human rights issues, abstaining on all substantive clauses in the two draft covenants on human rights. These actions were interpreted as lack of interest in global humanitarian affairs. South Africa had little influence on the development of customary international law in the field of human rights but was a catalyst in the evolution of international machinery to protect them. / Jurisprudence / (LL.D)

At the United Nations Conference on International Organization in April 1945 South Africa affirmed the principle of respect for human rights in a Preamble it proposed for inclusion in the Charter of the United Nations. The proposal was approved and the Preamble was accorded binding force. While South Africa participated in the earliest attempts of the United Nations to draft a bill of rights, it abstained on the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because its municipal legislation was incompatible with some articles. Similarly, South Africa did not become a party to the international human rights instruments the declaration inspired, and avoided an active role in their elaboration. Subsidiary organs of the General Assembly undertook several studies on discrimination in the field of human rights. They provided evidence that racial discrimination in South Africa intensified after the National Party came to power in May 1948 on the platform of apartheid and diverged from global trends in humanitarian law. The gap between the Union and the United Nations widened. At the first General Assembly in 1946, India successfully asked that the treatment of persons of Indian origin in South Africa be inscribed on the agenda. The Indian question was later subsumed in the charge that South Africa's racial policies violated the Charter and in 1952 the General Assembly began to discuss apartheid. South Africa protested that these actions contravened Charter Article 2(7), which prohibited intervention in matters of domestic jurisdiction, and were ultra vires. Criticism of the Union increased in intensity, until in 1960 it culminated in calls for economic and diplomatic sanctions. Research shows that South Africa was the main architect of its growing isolation, since it refused to modify domestic policies that alienated even its potential allies. Moreover, it maintained a low profile in United Nations debates on human rights issues, abstaining on all substantive clauses in the two draft covenants on human rights. These actions were interpreted as lack of interest in global humanitarian affairs. South Africa had little influence on the development of customary international law in the field of human rights but was a catalyst in the evolution of international machinery to protect them. / Jurisprudence / (LL.D)