The tendency to hold the United States entirely responsible for the domestic jurisdiction reservation has diverted attention from the role of the Commonwealth members in the definition of that clause. Commonwealth members were concerned with it at the Paris Peace Conference and the San Francisco Conference and, as members of both world organizations established at those conferences, have taken a lead in applying the reservations drafted on both occasions. At San Francisco it was the Australian, Herbert V. Evatt, as well as John Foster Dulles, who proposed broadening the effect of the domestic jurisdiction reservation in Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations. It was again Evatt who headed the sub-committee of the Security Council to determine international competence to deal with the Franco regime in Spain and who managed the reversal of the limitation for which he had fought at San Francisco. It was in a dispute between India and the Union of South Africa that the General Assembly elaborated on the beginning made by Evatt in developing the concept of “international concern.” In the World Court the Commonwealth countries have been parties to leading cases involving domestic jurisdiction and, perhaps partly through their capable legal arguments, have succeeded in having their views incorporated into Court opinions and decisions. The Permanent Court of International Justice, for example, adopted much of the British argument in its Advisory Opinion in the Tunis-Morocco Nationality Decrees case.

The international lawyer sometimes reads the current literature on the Canadian Arctic with a sense of uneasiness. A wide range of writers and scholars maintain an active discourse on questions relating to what is usually called “Arctic sovereignty.” It is not that the lawyer feels he has any special wisdom or monopoly on discussions of questions of “sovereignty.” The sovereignty concept has several layers of meaning, only one of which can be said to be the special preserve of the lawyer. Public discussion in Canada is largely, and legitimately, focussed on policy questions that flow from sovereignty, from Canada's right to exercise authority, to the exclusion of that of any other state, over vast areas of arctic lands and waters. If war is too important a matter to be left to the generals, perhaps sovereignty is too important a matter to be left to the lawyers. Nevertheless, the lawyer is sometimes troubled by a tendency of non-legal commentators to blur his favourite distinctions and to question some of his most firmly held assumptions.

Les principes généraux de droit sont reconnus par l’article 38, I du Statut de la Cour Internationale de Justice, comme faisant partie des sources du droit international public. Get article énonce:

La Cour, dont la mission est de régler conformément au droit international des différends qui lui sont soumis, applique: …

c) les principes généraux de droit reconnus par les nations civilisées;

Cependant ces principes ne sont pas définis au niveau de ce texte.

L’article 38 précité reprend ainsi, presque mot pour mot, les dispositions correspondantes du Statut de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale. En fonction de celui-ci, la jurisdiction internationale a quelquefois fait application des principes généraux de droit, qu’elle a dû tenter de définir.

The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has described the preliminary examination as one of its “three core activities,” alongside investigating and prosecuting crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute). Honing in on this once-mysterious “core activity,” this article contributes to the recently expanding literature on preliminary examinations at the ICC by providing a much needed comprehensive picture of all preliminary examinations conducted to date. The twentieth anniversary of the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, provides a timely opportunity for this review as part of the broader effort to take stock of the ICC’s achievements, failures, and future. The article demonstrates that, despite not having full investigatory powers at the preliminary examination stage, the OTP is very active during this phase. It interacts with a wide range of domestic and international actors and makes decisions on important legal issues that go to the heart of the ICC’s work. Paying close attention to preliminary examinations is therefore critical to understanding the OTP’s work, to understanding which actors engage with, and seek to “use,” the ICC, and to understanding important debates about the ICC’s legitimacy.