No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
The Netherlands are a party to the Hague Convention of 1902 on marriage and to the Geneva Convention of 1954 relating to the status of refugees. Hungary is a party to the former, but not to the latter. The Hague Convention declares that the capacity to marry of the parties is generally determined by their personal law (i.c. the law of their nationality), whereas the Geneva Convention provides that tile personal status of refugees shall be governed by the law of their domicile (or residence); this status includes the capacity to marry.
Now if Hungarian refugees, living in Holland, wish to marry there these rules may lead to opposed results: in some cases the Hungarians do not comply with the provisions of Hungarian internal law although they fulfil the requirements of Dutch internal law. Which conflicts rule has to be applied? That of the Hague Convention or that of the Geneva Convention?
The author demonstrates that neither Dutch law nor the law of nations contains rules providing for a solution of this conflict of treaty-rules. He concludes that Dutch authorities should act in favorem matrimonii and apply the law admitting the marriage.
page 248 note 1 Tr. 1954 no. 88Google Scholar, goedgekeurd bij de wet van 22 maart 1956, Stb. 137Google Scholar. voorts, ZieTr. 1957 no. 21.Google Scholar
page 248 note 2 Nederland bekrachtigde op 3 mei 1956. Het verdrag trad voor ons land in werking op 1 aug. 1956.
page 249 note 1 H.R. 25 mei 1906, W. 8383.
page 249 note 2 Praeadvies Ned. Jur. Vereniging, , Handelingen N. J. V. 1937Google Scholar I, eerste stuk, 9 e.v., ook in Verzamelde Geschriften, II, 24 e.v.Google Scholar
page 250 note 1 H.R. 25 mei 1906, praec., Kosters, waarover, Bulletin Institut Intermédiaire International, 1923, 22Google Scholar; Erades, , Waar volkenrecht en Nederlands staatsrecht elkaar raken, 85 e.v.Google Scholar
page 250 note 2 Vgl. Brades, , Mededelingen van de Ned. Ver. v. Int. Recht, no. 35, 7.Google Scholar
page 251 note 1 1953, 401–453: The conflkt of law-making treaties. Litteratuur aldaar biz. 406 n.1, waaraan toe te voegen Vitta, La validité des traités internationaux (Bibliotheca Visseriana XIV, 1940), 172 e.v.Google Scholar; Rousseau, , Principes généraux du droit international public, I, 765 e.v.Google Scholar; François, , Handboek van het volkenrecht, I, 653Google Scholar; dez., Grondlijnen van het volkenrecht, 329.Google Scholar
page 251 note 2 Droit des gens, II, 17, par. 315.Google Scholar
page 251 note 3 T.a.p. 443.Google Scholar
page 251 note 4 Verdross, , Völkerrecht, derde druk, 130Google Scholar; François, I, 653Google Scholar; Vitta, , 172Google Scholar; Verzijl, , Revue de droit international, 1935, 320.Google Scholar
page 252 note 1 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , I (achtste druk), 894Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, , British Yearbook of Int. Law, 1936, 60Google Scholar e.v. Zie voorts de schrijvers vermeid door Vitta, 173 in de noot.
page 252 note 2 Vgl. Jenks, , t.a.p. 436 e.v.Google Scholar
page 252 note 3 Oppenheim I (achtste druk), 895; zie ook Lauterpacht's Report on the law of treaties, Un. Nations doc. A/CN. 4/63, blz. 198 e.v.; British Yearbook of Int. Law, 1936, 54 en 1954, 54.Google Scholar
page 253 note 1 Hoe een Staat, die partij bij beide verdragen is, zal oordelen, laat ik in het midden.