1. See Voskuil, C.C.A. “In memorian Professor W.L.G. Lemaire” this Review (1976) pp. 1, 2.Google Scholar

2. De openbare orde als grens aan het vrij verkeer van goederen, personeh en diensten in the EEC – Public policy as the delimitation of free traffic of goods, persons and services in the EEC, thesis Groningen 1977 (Alphen a/d Rijn) p. 4.Google Scholar

3. Openbare orde en rechtsvergelijking – Public policy and comparative law – in 't Exempel dwinght' – Example coerces – Essays presented to Kisch, Izaäk (Zwolle 1975) pp. 242, 243, sub no. 3.Google Scholar

4. “De onderbeheerstellingen en de nationalisaties van de Nederlandse bedrijven in Indonesië” (The trusteeships and the nationalizations of the Dutch enterprises in Indonesia) in RM Themis (Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn Themis) (1959) at pp. 360–361.Google Scholar

5. District Court of Maastricht, 11 January 1968, NJ 1969, no. 64.

6. On this judgment see also, in a critical sense, de Winter in WPNR (1971) no. 5113, and Jessurun d'Oliveira in his contribution to the Kisch, Volume supra n. 3 pp. 252–254.Google Scholar

7. Arminjon-Nolde-Wolff, , Traité de droit comparé I (Paris 1950)Google Scholar, Ch. II (Le droit comparé, instrument auxiliaire), no. 4 (Rôle educatif) and no. 5 (Rôle en tant qu'instrument de travail du praticien); which ‘praticien’ in my view comprises not only the ‘avocats’ mentioned by them, but equally ‘the judge who, interpreting his national law, administers justice’ (WPNR (1951) no. 4172 p. 2, lefthand column).

8. Oproepperikelen (summoning difficulties), RM Themis (1951) pp. 71, 95.Google Scholar

9. Act of 18 March 1953 (Stb. 122).

10. HR 14 May 1971, NJ 1971 no. 369.

11. District Court of The Hague 18 June 1967, Court of Appeal there 1 May 1969, Supreme Court 14 May 1971, in accordance with the opinion of the Advocate-General Berger, NJ 1971, no. 369 (note by Lemaire); Ars Aequi (1971) p. 361Google Scholar and WPNR (1974) no. 5255 p. 189, both with notes by Struycken.

12. Supreme Court 10 December 1976, NJ 1977, no. 275 (note by Schuhsz); Ars Aequi (1977) p. 197Google Scholar (note by Jessurun d'Oliveira); WPNR (1977) no. 5376 and (1978) nos. 5423–5425 (Joppe). Discussed by van der Ploeg, P.W. in this Review (1977) pp. 474–488.Google Scholar

13. Art. 3 reads: ‘A dispositive law or custom is not applied if in the given case its application would be obviously unfair on account of special circumstances’.

14. Bijlage Handelingen Eerste Kamer, 1979–1980 session – 7729, no. 59 p. 1.Google Scholar

15. See Asser-Scholten, , Algemeen Deel (General Part), 2nd ed. (1934), Ch. II, section 6 (Private International Law…) p. 215, third ed. (1974) p. 161.Google Scholar

16. At p. 9.

17. Preface to the text edition of the Benelux Convention concluded on 11 May 1951 for the introduction of a uniform law concerning private international law (Amsterdam 1957). The Ratification Bill was withdrawn on 11 October 1976, cf., this Review (1976) p. 248.Google Scholar

18. “Anticiperende interpretatie, een nieuwe interpretatiemethode?” (Anticipating interpretation, a new method of interpretation?), WPNR (1969), nos. 5031–5032 pp. 109, 121.Google Scholar

19. “De betekenis van het ontwerp B.W. voor de interpretatie” (The importance of the draft Civil Code for the interpretation) in Essays for Pitlo, A.Plus est en vous. Opstellen over recht en cultuur (Haarlem 1970) p. 43.Google Scholar

20. See Kisch, , “Het eerste zevental. Aantekeningen bij de artt. 1–7Google Scholar, Inleidende Titel van het ontwerp voor een nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek” (The first Seven. Notes to Arts. 1–7, Introductory Title, of the Draft for a new Civil Code), RM Themis (1955) pp. 137–138.

21. “Neither custom nor fairness can exclude the applicability of a mandatory law”. See also Kisch, loc. cit.

22. See in this context also Supreme Court 11 May 1979, NJ 1979, no. 441 (note by Stein).

23. See supra n. 14.

24. In the sense of ‘legal statutory rule or provision’ the first of the four meanings which the word ‘law’ (wet) has in judicial usage; on this, see further Kisch, , loc. cit., supra n. 20, at p. 137.Google Scholar

25. In these two annotations Molengraaff's lecture “De naamloze vennootschap als geoorloofde ondernemingsvorm” (The limited liability company as a permissible form of undertaking), WPNR (1914) no. 2316 (appendix) and his later reflections would have deserved mention.

26. Mentioned by Verheul in his section 5 discussed above pp. 94, 95, but not here as well, in section 8: Asser-Scholten, , Algemeen DeelGoogle Scholar, Ch. 1, section 15 (Analogy. Refinement of Law. Legal principle). See Molengraaff bundel (Zwolle 1978) p. XXI.Google Scholar

27. Faure, (1760–1837), 5 03 1803Google Scholar: l'une est une dépendence nécessaire de l'autre. Les mots ordre public eussent seuls pu suffire, et l'addition qu'on a faite n'a pour objet que de donner à la rédaction de l'article toute la clarté dont elle est susceptible. En effet, tout ce qui concerne les bonnes moeurs intéresse l'ordre public; mais tout ce qui intéresse l'ordre public ne concerne pas les bonnes moeurs', in Locré, , La législation civile, commerciale et criminelle de la France, Tome 1 (Paris 1827) p. 617Google Scholar. In the Netherlands it was quoted largely in Van Hall, Handleiding tot de beoefening van het burgerlijk regt in Nederland (Amsterdam 1851) p. 29Google Scholar; and in Asser, Carel, Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlandsch burgerlijk recht, I, 1 (Zwolle 1878) p. 60Google Scholar and later editions, unfortunately not included in Asser-Scholte, , Algemeen DeelGoogle Scholar. See further the Essays presented to Kisch, supra n. 3 p. 398.Google Scholar

28. See further Dubbink, , “Het rechtvaardigheidsgehalte van het internationaal privaatrecht” (The content of justice in private international law) in Speculum Langemeijer (Zwolle 1973) p. 23.Google Scholar

29. “Het recht van het Recht”, published in his Collected Writings, vol. I (Zwolle 1949)Google Scholar, section 11. Authority. The authority of the judge, p. 60.

30. “Rechtsvinding in het internationaal privaatrecht” (1973)Google Scholar – in section 14, first paragraph.

31. Judgment of 8 March 1920, NJ 1921 p. 279, quoted in Kosters-Dubbink, , (2nd ed. 1961) p. 381.Google Scholar

32. Inleiding tot de Verklaring van het Burgerlijk Wetboek (Haarlem 1899) pp. 242, 243.Google Scholar

33. Schets van het Nederlands burgerlijk recht – I, 1 (Haarlem 1898) p. 63.Google Scholar

34. See Veegens-Oppenheim, (1916) p. 66.Google Scholar

35. This convention which was denounced by the Netherlands in 1977, as per 1 June 1979, Tractatenblad (1977) no. 57.Google Scholar

36. Supra n. 3 at p. 404; see ibid. pp. 403, 404.

37. 14 Terecht Gesteld, 1 (1979)Google Scholar, Groninger juridisch fakulteitsblad pp. 9, 10.

38. The abstentions were the Ukraine, Poland, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, White Russia, Yugoslavia, Saudi Arabia and the Union of South Africa. See the publication of the Dutch Foreign Ministry, no. 16, entitled: Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens (The Hague 1949) pp. 2 (Stikker) and 110 (Van Roijen).Google Scholar

39. Traité des loix (Paris 1689), VGoogle Scholar, III, Troisième Règie (‘Ne faire rien en son particulier qui blesse l'ordre public’); and Ch. XI (sub XL and XLII).

40. Het beginsel der openbare orde in het internationaal privaatrecht (The principle of public order in private international law), thesis (University of Amsterdam 1917) p. 17.Google Scholar

41. Braam, , thesis Dissertatio iuridica inauguralis De legum nostrarum civilium cum legibus peregrinis conflictu (Groningen 1821)Google Scholar, section 13; see further the Essays presented to Kisch, supra n. 3 pp. 397–400.Google Scholar

42. See Kollewijn, , Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse wetenschap van het internationaal privaatrecht tot 1880 (History of the Dutch science of private international law until 1880) (Amsterdam 1937) p. 242Google Scholar, and particularly also the important study by Meijers, , “L'histoire des principes fondamentaux du droit international privé à partir du moyen âge spécialement dans l'Europe occidentale” in: 49 Recueil des Cours (1934) III pp. 543–686Google Scholar; Gutzwiller, Max, Geschichte des Internationalprivatrechts. Von den Anfängen bis zu den grossen Privatrechtskodifikationen (Basel, Stuttgart 1977) p. 324;Google Scholar

43. See Meijers, , ed., Recueil de lots modernes concemant le droit international privé (Leyden 1947)Google Scholar and Asser Institute, Statutory Private International Law (Oslo 1971).Google Scholar

44. See Jitta, Josephus, La méthode du droit inemational privé p. 6Google Scholar; id., Internationaal privaatrecht, section 25; Kosters, , Het Internationaal burgerlijk recht in Nederland (Haarlem 1917) pp. 167–168.Google Scholar

45. See Transactions of the N.J.V. (Dutch Lawyers' Association) (1979) nos. 32, 62, 71.Google Scholar

46. Supreme Court 9 February 1979, NJ 1979, no. 546 (note by Schultsz), Ars Aequi (1979) p. 268Google Scholar (note by Jessurun d'Oliveira); 20 April 1979, Rechtspraak van de Week 1979, no. 62Google Scholar; 4 May 1979, NJ 1979, no. 547 (note by Schultsz).

47. In 39 Jherings Jahrbücher für die Dogmantik des bürgerlichen Rechts (1898) pp. 1–4Google Scholar (Vorbemerkung) and 4–112 (Erste abhandlung. “Die Lehre vom ordre public/Prohibitivgesetze”; included in Lenel, & Lewald, , eds. Abhandlungen zum internationalen Privatrechts von Franz Kahn, I (München Leipzig 1928) pp. 161–254Google Scholar. On Kahn: Zitelmann, Ernst (1852–1923) in Zeitschrift für Internationales Privat- und Offentliches Recht (1905) p. 1.Google Scholar

48. See previous note, last-mentioned collection, Preface.

49. Ibid.

50. Supra n. 31, (1st ed. 1917) at p. 168.

51. Op.cit., supra n. p. 5 p. 167.

52. See further Kisch, Essays supra n. 3 pp. 391–397.Google Scholar

53. See van Brakel, , Grondslagen en Beginselen van Nederlandsch Internationaal Privaatrecht 3rd ed. (Zwolle 1953)Google Scholar, sections 50 and 79. The question – dealt with by Hijmans only under ‘public policy’, by Van Brakel also under ‘rights acquired’ – can also be treated under ‘aliens law’. This is done by Kosters-Dubbink, , Ch. XI (Public policy) p. 379Google Scholar (German foreign currency legislation), 380 (gold clauses), 390 (foreign nationalization and expropriation laws); Ch. XVI (aliens law) p. 555 (Russia).

54. General Assembly, Resolution (1802/XVIII), adopted on 14 December 1962.

55. Apart from what I observed about it in Ars Aequi (1960) p. 295Google Scholar, concerning the legal position of purchasers at tobacco sales in Bremen in September 1959.

56. See Asser-Scholten, , Zakenrecht (Property Law), 6th ed. (1927) p. 99Google Scholar; In this edition Scholten writes – after having established that ownership has never been ‘completely unrestricted (unqualified)’: ‘But in addition it should be said that since the French revolution still the notion existed that ownership was “inviolable et sacré”, and the sence of justice of these days hardly accepted a restriction of it’. On this droit inviolable et sacré, see also Asser-Beekhuis, , Zakenrecht, 9th ed. (special part, second section (1963)) p. 16Google Scholar and 10th ed. (second part, (1977)) p. 19; and Pitlo-Brahn, (with de Groot and Visser), Zakenrecht, 7th ed. (1977) p. 136.Google Scholar

57. Cf., Asser-Scholten, , Algemeen Deel (General Part), ‘And every lawyer, when giving his opinion, renders a judgment which he would “possibly” render if he were a judge’, 3rd ed. (1974) p. 134.Google Scholar

58. Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 30(1) and the note thereto in Van Rossem-Cleveringa, 4th ed. (1972): ‘it is a good thing that the law takes care that even the semblance of partiality shall be avoided, although unfairness in judicial decisions is not to be feared in the Netherlands’.

59. Address on 16 September 1963, Mercatura honesta, Eerbare handel, Enige beschouwingen over den samenhang tussen handelsrecht en hondelsmoraal (Honest trade. Some reflections on the relation between commercial law and commercial morality), (Groningen 1964) p. 44Google Scholar. On this point, incompatibility of functions, my listeners were not grateful to me for the address, either orally or in writing.

60. Faltas, , ‘The Netherlands all-round in the armaments industry’ (subtitled: ‘Philips practically always scores’) in Hervormd Nederland, (25 08 1979) p. 7.Google Scholar

61. Veegens, , note to Supreme Court 26 03 1971Google Scholar, Administratief-rechtelijke Beslissingen (1971) no. 135.Google Scholar

62. See also Kranenburg, , Van der Pot, and Donner, all quoted by me in Publiekrechtelijke Opstellen (Essays on Public Law), presented to Van der Pot (Zwolle 1950) p. 360 (n. 4)Google Scholar; see further my contribution in Vrijheid en Recht (Liberty and Law), Essays presented to s'Jacob (Zwolle 1975)Google Scholar, “Fides-Honestum-Humanitas” p. 371.Google Scholar

63. Supra pp. 92, 93.

64. Supra pp. 106, 107.

65. Das moderne Kriegsrecht des civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Nördlingen 1866; 2nd ed. 1874)Google Scholar; id., Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisirten Staten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (Nördlingen 1868)Google Scholar, translated into fourteen languages. From the latter work I quote from Book I, section 5: “Die civilisirten Nationen sind vorzugsweize berufen und befähigt, das gemeine Rechtsbewustsein der Menschheit auszubilden, und die civilisirten State voraus verpflichtet, die Forderungen desselben zu erfüllen. Deshalb sind sie vorzugsweize die Ordner und Verträter des Völkerrechts. Das Wesen der Civilisation besteht, wie schon der grosse Dante erklärt hat, in der harmonischen Ausbildung universeller Menschlichkeit, der Humanität. Das Völkerrecht ist eine der edelsten Früchte der Civilisation, denn es ist seinem Wesen nach eine menschliche Ordnung. Der Anspruch der europäischen und amerikanischen Staten, vor den andern Völkern die Träger und Schirmer des Völkerrechts zu sein, wäre eine eitle Anmassung, wenn derselbe sich nich die höhere Civilisation jener Staten gründete.”

66. See Abhandlungen aus dem Internationalen Privatrecht, Second Treaties III para. 8 in n. 40 Jherings Jahrbücher für die Dogmatik des bürgerlichen Rechts (1899) pp. 1, 18, 42 (n. 1), 43Google Scholar; included in Lenel, & Lewald, , eds., Abhandlungen etc. supra n. 47 pp. 255, 268, 269 (n. 58).Google Scholar

67. Het beginsel der openbare orde in het internationaal privaatrecht (The principle of public policy in private international law), thesis University of Amsterdam, (1917) (The Hague 1917) pp. 54, 55.Google Scholar

68. See Röling, , 9 Internationale Spectator (1955) pp. 121, 122Google Scholar; in detail in his “Europees volkenrecht of Wereld-volkenrecht?” (European international law or world-wide international law?), in VIRO Yearbook 1957–1958Google Scholar; and International Law in an Expanded World (Amsterdam 1960) p. XVGoogle Scholar and Ch. III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII–XI.

69. See successively, according to the date of publication: Kokkini-Iatridou, , WPNR (1978) no. 5448 p. 553Google Scholar, Riphagen, , RM Themis (1979) p. 308Google Scholar and d'Oliveira, Jessurun, in NJB (1979) p. 577.Google Scholar

70. Amsterdam, Free University, 31 May 1968.