Introduction

On assuming office in May 1948, the NP administration emphasised that its policy towards the UN was based on the principle of domestic jurisdiction, in terms of which the GA was not empowered to discuss the internal affairs of a member state. Domestic jurisdiction trumped allegations of human rights violations. The new Prime Minister, Malan, stated that SA would assert its claim to the protection of Article 2(7) of the Charter, despite the interference that had already occurred contrary to the assurances Smuts had given Parliament in the 1946 debate on the Charter. Referring to a debate at the 2nd GA as to whether the UN should be ‘abolished completely, or modified and restricted’, Malan said ambiguously that SA would work in that direction and support all efforts to ‘restrain UNO from interfering in the domestic affairs of any nation’.

This chapter examines SA's adherence to that principle in respect of Soviet bloc countries, with which it did not maintain friendly relations, and the colonial powers, with which it did. It reviews the problems caused for the Union by a US proposal to expand the powers of the GA where the SC was hamstrung by the exercise of the veto and how that proposal was put into practice. The review concludes that the Union's stand on domestic jurisdiction was not inflexible, and could be attenuated by political considerations.

The Soviet bloc

Exit visa from the Soviet Union

When accused during the 3rd GA of violating the human rights of the Russian daughter-inlaw of the Chilean Ambassador to Moscow, by refusing her an exit visa, the Soviet Union replied that its decision was a matter of domestic jurisdiction. Article 2(7), it claimed, overrode the other Charter provisions, including Article 1(3) and Article 55. Instead of explaining the reasons for the visa refusal, the Soviet Union simply alleged human rights violations in Western countries, including discrimination against women in the US, the UK and France, and racial discrimination in Australia and SA. The Soviet Union used the tu quoque argument against SA to support its contention that a state had the sovereign right to issue or refuse entry or exit visas.