1 See p. 326 below; cf. statements by the Netherlands Government, Handelingen II, 1963-64, p. 62; M.v.A., Handelingen II, Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 7, at 15 (second column); Handelingen II, 1964-65, p. 82 (second column). The Government hesitated for some time before signing the convention, even after it had been agreed upon, Handelingen I, 1964-65, p. 163.

2 See the undated letter addressed to the States-General in early June, 1964, mimeographed text, p. 11.

3 See March Hunnings, 15 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 411 (1964).

4 [1951] I.O.J. Rep. 116, 132; 46 A.J.I.L. 348 (1952).

5 Note, however, the limitations resulting today from economic causes, which have led to many mergers. See M. L. Ernst, The First Freedom (New York, 1946).

6 See TJ.N. Doc. E/Conf. 6/30, pp. 3-4. 1 In Art. 1, Sec. Ill , Rule 93, E.E. Geneva, 1959, T.I.A.S., No. 4893, ‘harmful interference has been defined as: any emission, radiation or induction which endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radio communication service operating in accordance with these Regulations. See also Annex 3, I.T.C., Geneva, 1959, T.I.A.S., No. 4892, Rule 313.

8 The sinking of the S.S. Titanic is a case in point. The Eadiotelegraphic Conference held in London in 1912 thereupon decided to lay down binding rules for radiocommunication equipment on board ships and assigned certain wave-lengths solely to ships and coastal stations, long-distance radio telegrams and to radio buoys. Cf. Goy, 5 Annuaire Français de Droit International 569, at 572 (1959).

9 See, lately, I.T.C., Geneva, 1959, T.I.A.S., No. 4892. For reference on the earlier conventions, see 1 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law 1024 (8th ed.). Cf. also S0rensen, “ ‘Pirate Broadcasting’ from the High Seas,” Legal Essays (Festschrift Castberg) 319, at 320 (Oslo, 1963).

10 Quoted from the Geneva I.T.O., 1959.

11 On these remedies, see the interesting article by Goy, mentioned in note 8 above.

12 See Art. 4, I.T.C., Geneva, 1959.

13 See R.R., Geneva, 1959, Art. 5, Sec. IV, Rules 156-412.

14 Assignment of frequencies to transmitting stations may take place either unilaterally or by means of an international agreement. At the European Broadcasting Conferences of Copenhagen (1948) and Stockholm (1952) the frequencies available for sound and television broadcasting in the so-called “European Broadcasting Area” were distributed among the states situated in that area. A number of the interested states did not participate in these conferences and refused to sign or ratify the agreements obtained. The distribution of frequencies among stations of the different states in the European Broadcasting Area is therefore not completely regulated. Cf. Goy, loc. cit. 590-591, and March Hunnings, loc. cit. 415.

15 See Art. 9, Sec. I, R.B., Geneva, 1959, §1(1), Rule 486. See also Art. 10, Nos. 640-658.

16 On the action of the International Frequency Registration Board, see Goy, loc. cit. 583-590.

17 The question may be raised as to what extent the international telecommunication conventions and annexed radio regulations affect states which are not parties to them. Apart from the possible contention that these instruments contain provisions which are declaratory of existing international law, a full analysis should also take into account the possibility that some provisions may be regarded as evidence of the practice of states as an element of customary international law. In this connection see also note 20 below. In addition, it should be considered whether the said instruments are in the nature of “semi-legislative treaties.” Cf. McNair, The Law of Treaties 259 (Oxford, 1961). Various factors, e.g., the fact that the assignment of frequencies falls to a great extent outside the effective control of the I.T.U. (see below), make it doubtful that on this particular point they can be said to be of such a semi-legislative character. A thorough discussion of this question would carry us too far afield, particularly since it cannot be answered in the abstract.

18 According to S0rensen, loc. cit. 320, the very existence of such stations amounts to an actual or potential threat to the perfection and completeness of the system established within the framework of I.T.U.

19 Cf. S0rensen, loo. cit. 320, and Kraemer, 10 Jahrbuch fur Internationales Becht 206, at 214 (1962).

20 Administrative Radio Conference, Geneva, 1959, Recommendation No. 15. The Francois Commission noted that the prohibition in multilateral treaties of broadcasting on the high seas may indicate that the operation of broadcasting services must not be considered one of the freedoms of the seas, even in relation to states which are not parties to the said instruments. See the Report of the Commission, M.V.A., Handelingen II, Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 8, at p. 22. Compare also Søensen, loc. cit. 327.

21 On the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag state, see also Art. 6, Convention on the High Seas, Geneva, 1958; Art. 30, Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chicago, 1944, T.I.A.S., No. 1591. See, however, p. 320 below.

22 Sørensen, loo. cit. at 319-320. For a detailed survey see March Hunnings, loo. cit. 415-416.

23 Cf. Art. 10, European Convention of Human Eights, 213 U.N. Treaty Series 221; Art. 1, Draft Covenant on Freedom of Information, U.N. Doc. A/4341.

24 Cf. van Panhuys, Het Verdrag van Home, de Eeclame en de Commerciele Televisie (1962); Sørensen, loo. cit. 321, and the sources there mentioned.

25 K.R.O. (Roman Catholic), allied with the Soman Catholic Party; V.A.E.A. (Socialist), allied with the Labor Party; N.C.E.V. (Dutch Reformed), which supports the main Dutch Reformed political parties; A.V.E.O. (politically non-committed); V.P.E.O. (liberal Protestant).

26 Membership is coupled with a subscription to advance weekly sound and T.V. broadcasting programs surveys, copyright of which belongs to the broadcasting associations. It is therefore extremely difficult to say whether members actually favor the principles of the associations or merely wish to subscribe to the programs.

27 See, too, in this connection: “Nota betreffende het omroepbestel” (Governmental Memorandum on its broadcasting policy), Handelingen II, Bijlagen, 1964-65, 8099, No. 2.

28 see p. 307 above.

29 The French Government in fact in May, 1948, ordered the systematic jamming of Badio Andorra. After an action was successfully brought before the Tribunal Civil de la Seine for an injunction against the jamming, the Tribunal de Conflits of Paris held that this was an act of a governmental nature and thus escaped jurisdictional control, 56 Revue du Droit Public 423, at 432 (1950); Juris-classeur Périodique 1950, II, 5542; cf. Rousseau's Opinion for the E.E.M. (see note 75) and March Hunnings, loo. tit. at 417.

30 For measures to that effect taken by the French Government, see March Hunnings, loo. cit. 416-417.

31 Broadcasting from a vessel moored, or an installation situated, in the territorial sea would be of no avail, since, apart from some obligations mainly deriving from the duty to respect the right of innocent passage, the sovereignty of the coastal state extends to those waters. Cf. Art. 1, Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Geneva, 1958. See, too, M. van Goethem, Het Statuut van de Territoriale Zee, 1962, pp. 95-97 (Bruges, 1963); Kraemer, loc. cit. 210. Anchoring a ship for the purpose of broadcasting cannot be said to be innocent passage; see Art. 15, pars. 3 and 4 of the Convention cited.

32 For a more detailed survey, see March Hunnings, loc. cit. at 410-412.

33 Ibid, at 410, note 2.

34 Eousseau, 68 Rev. Gén. de Droit Int. Public 952-956 (1964); March Hunnings, loc. cit. ±2,2.

35 March Hunnings, loc. cit. 423. Meanwhile the Territorial Waters Order in Council, 1964, was issued. See Developments in the Law of the Sea, 1958-1964, published by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Special Publication No. 6 (1965), p. 85. According to information received from the General Post Office through the kind intermediary of Mr. N. March Hunnings, there are three radio stations now operating from fixed structures within U. K. territorial waters, namely, Badio City (formerly Badio “Sutch“), Badio 390 (the successor to Badio Invicta) and Badio Essex. These are all continuing to transmit unauthorized broadcasts. The Postmaster General made a statement in the House of Commons on Dee. 8, 1965 (722 Pari. Deb. (H.C.) col. 425) admitting that the transmissions were being made from points within U. K. jurisdiction and warning that, if these did not cease, “prosecutions might follow.“

36 E.g., Belgium complained that Radio Caroline interfered with the broadcasts from Radio Brussels on the wave-length of 198 meters, Rousseau, loc. cit. 954. With respect to interferences by Radio Andorra, see March Hunnings, loc. cit. 417.

37 See E.E., Geneva, 1959, Art. 28, §6, Rule 962. See also p. 307 above.

38 March Hunnings, loc. cit. 413, adds that “ p i r a t e “ broadcasting stations may escape the copyright and performing rights laws and avoid paying income and other taxes. It should be noted that the owners of Radio Veronica and the Radio and T.V.Station Noordsee have deliberately complied with all obligations incumbent on Netherlands inland corporations in this respect.

39 The same is true of the European Convention; see Sec. 8 below.

40 Cf. Adm. Radio Conference 1959, Recommendation No. 16, and Council of Europe, Consultative Assembly Res. No. 422 (text in 14 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 436 (1965)).

41 See Handelingen II , p.83, but cf. statement referred to in note 142.

42 Handelingen I I , 1963-64, Appendix 330; M.V.A., Second Chamber, at 7.

43 Handelingen I, 1964-65, p.158. In the same sense the Advisory Report of the François Commission (see note 53 below), reproduced in Handelingen II, Bijl. 1963-64, 7643, No. 8, at 24. Professor Samkalden, who at that time was a member of the First Chamber and professor of the law of international organizations in the University of Leyden, is now Minister of Justice of The Netherlands. At the time that the report of the François Commission was drawn up, he was also a member of that Commission.

44 1955 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 21-22; 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 278, par. 2. Cf. McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 757-759. Freedom of exploration and exploitation is recognized in Arts. 1-5 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf, subject to the exclusive sovereign rights of the coastal state; freedom of scientific research is expressly laid down in Art. 5, par. 1, of that convention. The recognition that the high seas are open to use for military purposes in general seems to be implied in the failure of the Geneva Conference to adopt any prohibition of certain specified military uses. See 2 Official Records 22-24, 6 ibid. 137-141, 4 ibid. 43-48.

45 1955 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 22; 1956 IX.C. Yearbook (II) 278, par. 5.

46 Cf. Suy, Volkenrechtelijke Aspekten van de R.E.M. Affaire 29 (Louvain, 1965).

47 See the Explanatory Memoranda to the Scandinavian Acts discussed in Sec.7 below. See also the data given by March Hunnings, loo. cit. 418. 48 On this principle and its discussion in the International Law Commission and at the Geneva Conference, see McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 758- 763 (1962).

49 Cf. 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 10, par. 52.

50 See the proceedings in the International Law Commission and at the Geneva Conference. In the Commission no express pronouncement on the freedom to undertake nuclear tests was made, the Commission stating in its report the general principle that “States are bound to refrain from any act which might adversely affect the use of the high seas by nationals of other States,” 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (II) 278. For the discussion of this principle see ibid. 10 and 11, and 1956 I.L.C. Yearbook (I) 32-35. Soviet-sponsored amendments to include in the convention an interdiction of nuclear tests on the high seas failed. See 4 Official Records 43-49, 2 Hid. 22-24. A Polish proposal to include in Art. 2 of the Convention on the High Seas the above pronouncement of the I.L.C. was also rejected, as it was considered to be aimed exclusively at the prohibition of nuclear tests on the high seas. 4 ibid. 56. Finally, a more generally phrased British amendment was adopted, which, according to its drafters, embodied the test of reasonableness. Ibid. 41. Cf. McDougal and Burke, op. cit. 759-760, 762.

5l McDougal and Burke take the same view. See op. cit. 763.

52 M.v.A., Second Chamber, pp. 8-9.

53 The François Commission was set up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Dec. 30, 1953. Its task is to advise the Government on questions of international law, particularly on drafts prepared by the International Law Commission and submitted to the governments of Members of the U.N. for comment. The present members of the Commission, which includes members of Parliament, professors of public international law, legal advisers of the government and other experts, are: Prof. J.P.A. François (Chairman), Prof. F. M. van Asbeck, Dr. N. S. Blom, Prof. M. Bos, Judge L. Erades, Dr. H. Fortuin, Jonkheer M. van der Goes van Naters, M. P., Prof. P. J. G.Kapteyn, Prof. Gezina H. J. van der Molen, Rear Admiral M. W. Mouton, Prof. H. F. van Panhuys, Prof. C.L. Patijn, Prof. W. Riphagen, Prof. B. V. A. Holing, Prof. P. Sanders, Dr. C. W. van Santen, Mr. H. E. Scheffer, General J. D. Schepers, Prof. H. G. Schermers, Prof. G. J. Scholten, Prof. A. M. Stuyt, Prof. A. J. P. Tammes, Mr. D. J. Veegens, Miss J. C. H. H. de“Vink, M. P. See also note 43 above. The issues discussed in this article were submitted to the Commission by the Government for its advice after severe eritieism had been leveled at the North Sea Installations Bill as initially drafted. The Commission's Report was annexed to the M.v.A., Handelingen II, Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 8. In the text reference is made to pp. 8-9 thereof. For a French translation of the Report, see 12 Netherlands International Law Review 202 (1965). 54 Cf. M.v.T., Handelingen II, Bijl., 7643, No. 3, p. 3.

55 Thus, according to the Netherlands Government, the erection of structures serving the interests of a recognized use of the high seas, such as buoys for sea and air navigation, installations for scientific research and fixed fishing-gear (Arts. 13 (1), Geneva Convention on Fishing), would be allowed by international law, so far as they do not unreasonably interfere with navigation and other protected activities on the high seas. M.v.A., cited in note 52, p. 9.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid. at p. 1; see also M.v.T., p. 4.

58 M.V.A., Second Chamber, p. 7.

59 Ibid, at pp. 7 and 9. Cf. also Handelingen II, pp. 82-83.

60 M.V.A., Second Chamber, p. 7.

61 Ibid., p. 9.

62 François, 18 Internationale Spectator 120, at 121-122 (1964); see also below, p. 322 and pp. 332 et seq.

63 Advisory Commission Report 22-23.

64 Nederlands Juristenblad 672, at 673-674 (1964).

65 1 Gidel, Le droit international public de la mer 502-503 and 506 (1932). The Government did not agree with this view, although stating at the same time that it knew of no rule of international law that activities harmful to international or national interests should never be interfered with. M.v.T., p. 4. See also note 55 above.

66 See Sec. 9 below.

67 The 8. S. Lotus case, Judgment of Sept. 7, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, particularly at p. 18 et seq. The distinction drawn by the Court might be compared to the distinction drawn by Bin Cheng between “jurisaction” and “jurisf action,” see 12 Current Legal Problems 181-182 (1959).

68 This practice eventually led to a generally accepted rule of international law, now codified in Art. 24 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 52 A.J.I.L. 834 at 840 (1958). Its first paragraph runs as follows: ” I n a zone of the high seas contiguous to its territorial sea, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) Punish infringement of the above regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.“ On the relevance of the regime of the contiguous zone to the question in issue see also pp. 321-322, and 327 below.

69 The first states to take any action in this respect, that is, the United Kingdom and Venezuela, claimed “sovereignty” over the submarine areas in question. President Truman, however, in his famous Proclamation of Sept. 28, 1945, preferred a different and, in fact, more cautious terminology, by referring to the subsoil and seabed on the continental shelf contiguous to the United States as “appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control.” Moreover, in the Preamble, the principle of “self-protection” was invoked. Thus it appears that, though the term “sovereignty“ is not used, all the three aspects of that notion, as listed above, are mentioned. On these examples see Mouton, 85 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 368-369 (1954, I ).

70 See Art. 22 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 52 A.J.I.L. 842 at 847 (1958).

71 See, for example, Arts. 5, 12 and 13 of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, ibid, at 843, 845.

72 On this Agreement, see Sec. 8 below.

73 6 Netherlands International Law Review 118 (1959).

74 V. V., Handelingen II, 7643, No. 5, p. 9 and M.v.A., p. 15.

75 [1948] Appeal Cases 531; 15 Annual Digest and Reports of International Law Cases 115, No. 37 (1948); 42 A.J.I.L. 953 (1948). See also Waldoek's Advisory Opinion, p. 35; this is one of the five Advisory Opinions that were given to the R.E.M. by various experts in international law: a joint Opinion by Professors Henri Rolin and Frans de Pauw (June 26, 1964) and separate Opinions by Dr. C. John Colombos (Oct. 14, 1964), Professor David H. N. Johnson (Oct., 1964), Professor Charles Rousseau (Nov. 1, 1964) and Sir Humphrey Waldock (Nov. 4, 1964). The text of the opinions was distributed by R.B.M. to those who they thought might be interested. In addition, the joint Opinion by Rolin and de Pauw was published in the Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, Aug. 1, 1964.

76 On this case see Rousseau, 67 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 161-162 (1963); Waldoek's Opinion, p. 34; and SoTensen, loc. cit. 330-331.

77 Art. 5 stipulates that the installations and devices referred to in the convention, though under the jurisdiction of the coastal state, do not possess the status of islands. This provision accords with generally held views; see Higgins and Colombos, The International Law of the Sea 109 (4th ed.), and McDougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans 397.

78 M.v.A., Second Chamber, pp. 13 and 16; M.v.A., First Chamber (Handelingen I,Bijl., 1964-65, No. 7643, 18*), p. 4.

79 M.v.A., Second Chamber, p. 17 (left-hand col.).

80 See van Panhuys, 1964 Nederlands Juristenblad 565.

81 In this connection cf. also François Advisory Commission Report 23 (left-hand col.).

82 Handelingen II, 1964-65, p. 105; M.v.A., First Chamber, p. 8.

83 See Summary Records, Committee IV, U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records (A/Conf. 13/42), Vol. VI, pp. 76, 86, 88-91.

84 1964 Nederlands Juristenblad 685. Prof. Bos is Professor of Public International Law in the University of Utrecht. He is also a member of the Francois Commission (see note 53 above).

85 On Art. 24 see note 68 above.

86 18 Internationale Spectator 120 (1964); see also p. 315 above. Prof. François, formerly Professor of Public International Law at the Netherlands School of Economics at Botterdam and former Legal Adviser to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, is now Secretary General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. He is also Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Questions of International Law, referred to in note 53 above, which bears his name.

87 Competence to license must, of course, be exercised in conformity with the law of the high seas. The licensing state must thus ensure that no obstacles are caused to navigation.

88 See Art. 1 of the Norwegian Act of June 22, 1962; Art. 2 (bis) of the Belgian Act of May 14, 1930, as amended on Dee. 18, 1962. A translation of these Acts, as well as of those mentioned in the next note, together with some of the Explanatory Memoranda, was provided by the Nederlandse Organisatie van Tijdschrift-TJitgevers, Amsterdam. See also March Hunnings, loc. tit. 419 421.

89 See Art. 1 of the Swedish Act of July 27, 1962 (No. 400); Sec. 1, subsec. 3, of the Danish Telecommunications Act of April 12, 1949 (No. 188), as amended on June 22, 1962; Art. 1 of the Finnish Act promulgated on July 27, 1962. The laws enacted by the Scandinavian countries were the outcome of concerted action within the Nordic Council. They all came into force on Aug. 1, 1962. See March Hunnings, loc. cit. 419.

90 This seems at least to be the meaning of the French translation of the English translation of the relevant Arts. 1, 3 and 4 of the Norwegian Act which has been used by the authors (see note 88).

91 See Doc. CM. (64), p. 259; European Treaty Series, No. 53, reprinted in 59 A.J.I.L. 715; 14 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 434; and 4 Int. Legal Materials 115 (1965).

92 See p. 303 above.

93 See Art. 3. In both its personal and territorial scope, this provision is more restricted than the Scandinavian Acts discussed earlier. For a critical note, see van Panhuys, 18 Nienw Europa 41 (1965).

94 Recommendation 422; see also 59 A.J.I.L. 719 (1965) and 14 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 436 (1965).

95 For the history of the resolution on this issue, see Documents of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, No. 1887 (Jan. 27, 1965), No. AS (16) CR 23, point 9, AS (16) CR 24, point 8.

96 On the Lotus case, see P.C.I.J. Publications, Series A, No. 8, p. 23. On the whole problem, see also Sørensen (loc. cit. 327 et seq.), who doubts, however, whether the principle of universality is applicable here.

97 M.v.T., Handelingen II, Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 3, p. 4 (right-hand col.).

98 Handelingen II , 1964-65, p. 81 (right-hand col.).

99 M.v.A., Handelingen II, Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 7, p. 15 (left-hand col.). See the statement by the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Scholten, Handelingen II, 1964- 65, p. 83 (left-hand col.).

100 Mr. Scholten, Handelingen II, 1964-65, p. 82 (left-hand col.). Cf. M.v.A., Second Chamber, p. 2 (right-hand col.).

101 Ibid.

102 See, for instance, the Advisory Commission Report, Handelingen II , Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 8, p. 23 (right-hand col.), and the Statement by Mr. Scholten, Handelingen I, 1964-65, p. 165 (left-hand col.).

103 The translation of the text of the North Sea Installations Act is printed as an Appendix to this article. For a French translation, see 12 Netherlands International Law Review 209 (1965); a summary in French of the Memorandum of Reply is to be found ibid. 211.

104 See below under c.

105 See, for instance, M.v.A., Second Chamber, pp. 9-10.

106 Advisory Commission Report 24 (left-hand col.); for reference on the Dutch Continental Shelf Mining Bill, see 59 A.J.I.L. 515 (1965); it was enacted on Sept. 23, 1965, Staatsblad No. 428. As appears from a statement referred to below at p. 329, not all provisions of the North Sea Installations Act were intended to be applied to drilling platforms.

107 Mr. Scholten, Handelingen II , 1964-65, p. 79.

108 Ibid. 79-80; idem, Handelingen I, 1964-65, p. 162 (right-hand col.).

109 The reader should compare the explanations referred to in the preceding notes with the statements in M.v.A., First Chamber, pp. 9-10. 109 But see, to a slightly different effect, a statement made by the Minister of Economic Affairs in the course of the debate on the Continental Shelf Mining Bill, M.v.A., Second Chamber, Bijl., 1963-64, 7670, No. 6, p. 14.

110 M.v.A., Second Chamber, pp. 9-10.

111 Mr. Scholten, Handelingen II, 1964-65, p. 77 (left-hand col.).

112 Ibid. 76 (left-hand col.).

113 Ibid. 73; Handelingen I, 1964-65, p. 160 (right-hand col.).

114 Above, p. 315.

115 Mr. Scholten, Handelingen II, 1964-65, p. 74.

116 Ibid.

117 M.v.A., First Chamber, p. 5 (right-hand col.).

118 Cf. the statement by Mr. Scholten, Handelingen I, 1963-64, p. 421: “ At this moment there lies before the Cabinet a Draft Bill according to which installations erected on that part of the continental shelf over which The Netherlands exercises sovereignty [italics added] may be considered as Netherlands territory for the purposes of the application of certain legislation.“

119 Bill of May 9, 1964, Handelingen II , Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, No. 2.

120 See its letter referred to in note 2 above.

121 Mr. K. Jansma, Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, May 14, 1964, p . 3 ; Prof. M. Bos, 1964 Nederlands Juristenblad 685 a t 688-689.

122 V.V., Handelingen II , Bijl., 1963-64, 7643, §3.

123 M.v.T., Second Chamber, passim.

124 Ibid. 5.

125 Cf. Arts. 12 and 24(3) of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Geneva, 1958, loc. cit., and Art. 7 (5) of the Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Seas, Geneva, 1958, 52 A.J.I.L. 851 a t 854 (1958).

126 See Professors Rolin and de Pauw's Legal Opinion. See also Prof. Johnson's Opinion, p. 8, par. 14, and Sir Humphrey Waldock's Opinion, pp. 25-26, par. 13. (On these Opinions, see note 75.) March Hunnings, loc. cit. 429-430, still seems to hold that the Netherlands Government unallowably based its action on the continental shelf doctrine

127 See p. 315 above.

128 François Advisory Commission Report 22 (right-hand col.).

129 Ibid.

130 See in particular Waldock, loc. cit. 30, par. 26; 36, par. 42 (see, however, also pars. 43 and 44).

131 See the François Advisory Commission Report 23 (left-hand col.).

132 Mr. Scholten, Handelingen I, 1964-65, pp. 165-167.

133 Mr. Scholten, Handelingen II, 1964-65, p. 75 (right-hand col.),

134 M.v.T., Second Chamber, p. 3 (left-hand col.).

135 It would seem that Professor Rousseau, in his Opinion (mentioned in note 75) at p. 20, considers the claim to protection of legal interests identical to that of vital interests.

136 Cf. M.v.A., Second Chamber, pp. 3 (right-hand col.) and 7 (right-hand col.).

137 Francois Advisory Commission Report 23 (right-hand col.),

138 See p. 320 above.

139 The system of delimiting marine areas followed in these cases was applied here. See note 125 above.

140 François Advisory Commission Report 23 (left-hand col.).

141 M.v.A., Second Chamber, p. 9 (right-hand col.).

142 M.v.T., p. 4 (right-hand col.).

143 Judge Huber in the Island of Palmas case (U.S.A. v. Netherlands), 22 A.J.I.L. 867 at 910 (1928), cited by Dr. Colombos in his Opinion delivered to the R.E.M. Co., p. 2.

144 Johnson, loc. cit. 8, par. 14.

145 François, loc. cit.; van Emde Boas, 7 Liberaal Réveil 131 (1963-64); idem, Haagsche Courant, June 23, 1964; Bouchez, Algemeen Handelsblad, May 21, 1964; François Advisory Commission Report 24 (right-hand col.).

146 Prof. Samkalden, Handelingen I, 1964-65, pp. 155-156 and 176. Cf. also V.V., Handelingen I, Bijl., 1964-65, 7643, No. 18, p. 3.

147 M.v.T , p. 3 (left-hand col.).

148 Francois Advisory Commission Report 24 (right-hand col.).

149 M.v.A., First Chamber, p. 3 (right-hand col.).

150 Staatsblad, Nos. 459, 460 and 461 of Dec. 8, 1964.

151 See New York Times, Dec. 18, 1964.

152 gee also 8 Netherlands International Law Review 149 (1961) and 112 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 16 (1964, II ) .

153 It should be remembered that foreign interests were involved not only because of the ownership of the platform but also since the damage (assessed at approximately six million guilders) was covered by insurance with foreign underwriters.

154 In addition, the reader may once again refer to McDougal and Burke, op. cit. 758-763.