^{page 1 note 1} Cf. on this interesting topic inter alios Mosler, H., Die völkerrechtliche Wirkung bundesstaatlicher Verfassungen, in Festschrift für Richard Thoma, 1950, p. 129et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} Cf. Wery, , De ontwikkeling van India binnen de Britse Commonwealth en de samen-leving der volken (thesis), Leyden, 1948Google Scholar (The development of India within the framework of the British Commonwealth and of the Society of Nations), summary in English, p. 245/6.

^{page 2 note 2} Keith, , The Dominions as sovereign States, p. 54Google Scholar; cf. also Wery, , op. cit. p. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 3} Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law, 7th edition, I, p. 168.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 4} Op. cit., p. 135.

^{page 3 note 1} Cf. Horak, , Les limitations constitutionnelles au pouvoir de traiter dans les régimes fédéraux, Editions Cujas, Paris, p. 94.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} Cf. with regard to the Swiss cantons: Guggenheim, , Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, I, p. 275–277.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} Cf. Swiss Federal Tribunal in Random v. Weiss, referred to by Rice, AJIL, 1952, p. 648/9Google Scholar; Mosler, , op. cit. p. 164.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 4} Italics added.

^{page 3 note 5} Article IX of the Resolutions, AJIL, no. XXII, 1928, p. 331/2.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 6} Op. cit. p. 308.

^{page 4 note 1} See for examples infra, p. 5 and 9.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} The question whether a conferment of rights and duties on non-sovereign bodies which would be inconsistent with the Constitution invalidates the agreements, is only an aspect of the more general question of the validity of agreements concluded in excess of constitutional powers.

^{page 4 note 3} Cf. FAO-Constitution, Article II, paragraph 3.

^{page 4 note 4} Cf. François, , Handboek van het Volkenrecht (Manual of International Law), 1949, I p. 344/345Google Scholar, and Grondlijnen van het Volkenrecht (Basic Principles of the Law of Nations), p. 162.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 5} Cf. Wery, , op. cit, p. 192Google Scholar with reference to Miller, Hunter, The Drafting of the Covenant, I, 1928, p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} WMO-Constitution, Article 3.

^{page 5 note 2} N.R.G. 2e serie, 10, p. 133.

^{page 5 note 3} Cf. also our article in the present Review, 1955, p. 59 n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} Publications of the Court, Series A/B, 71, p. 127.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 5} N.R.G., 3e série, 1, p. 355.

^{page 6 note 1} Cf. ILO-Constitution, Article 3.

^{page 6 note 2} U.N. Treaty Series XV, p. 40Google Scholar (see for amendments Tractatenblad 1953, no. 130); Cf. on the general problems involved in the “federal clause” and its less desirable results for unitary States, Horak, , op. cit., p. 16, 81Google Scholaret seq.; Sören-sen, Max, Federal States and the international protection of human rights, AJIL, 1952, p. 195Google Scholaret seq., Tayler, , Federal States and Labour Treaties, 1935Google Scholar; Looper, ‘Federal State’ clauses in Multilateral Instruments, BYIL Vol. 32 (1955–'56), p. 162et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 1} Cf. Van Eysinga, , Prone ener inleiding tot het Nederlandsch tractatenrecht (Introduction to Netherlands Treaty-law), p. 118.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 2} Cf. also Van Asbeck, , Le statut actuel des pays non-autonomes d'outre-mer, Recueil des Cours, Académie de droit international (ADI), 1947, II, p. 408et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 3} Even if the Kingdom is reigned over by a Queen as is the case at present, it is customary in Holland to refer in juridical essays to the King.

^{page 8 note 1} Van Eysinga, , op. cit., p. 118Google Scholaret seq.; François, , Handboek, I, p. 243.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} François, , op. cit., p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} Van Asbeck, , The Netherlands Indies' foreign relations, p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} See, as for the Netherlands East Indies, Van Asbéck, , L'élément international aux Indes néerlandaises, Annuaire Grotius, 1935, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 5} François, , op. cit., I, p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} Cf. the examples mentioned by the present author in Nederlands Juristenblad, 1955, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 2} Cf. also Van Eysinga, , op. cit., p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Cf. in respect of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles, Stuyt's Repertorium, nos. 1043a, 1112a, 1575, 1610, 1641, 1646, 1647, 1721, 1722, 1784, 2057, 2197, 2199.

^{page 9 note 4} Cf. as regards Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles, Royal Decree of May 8, 1922, no. 5, Publicatieblad van Curaçao, 1922Google Scholar, no. 32 and, in relation to the Netherlands Indies, the Royal Decrees dated February 7, 1874, no. 17 and May 31, 1874, no. 27 mentioned by van Ginkel, Fievez de Malines, Overzickt van de internationaalrechtelijke betrekkingen van Nederlandsch-Indië (Survey of the relations of the Netherlands Indies under international law), p. 181.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 5} Ibidem, p. 183.

^{page 9 note 6} Ibidem p. 183.

^{page 10 note 1} The local government was responsible towards a Representative Body, elected on a basis of universal suffrage for men and women. Cf. Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen in de V.N., Publications Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no. 41, p. 46 and Dr. Van Helsdingen, De Staatsregeling van de Nederlandse Antillen van 1955 (The 1955 Constitution of the Netherlands Antilles), p. 14 et seq. The late Professor Kranenburg has compared the measure of self-government granted to Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles under the Interim Orders with the status of Canada after the acceptance of the Durham-report, cf. De nieuuie structuur van ons Koninkrijk (The new structure of our Kingdom), 1955, p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} See for the English translation of the Interim Order for the Netherlands Antilles U.N. Doc. A/C. 4/200, dated 01 8, 1952.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 3} The Netherlands title of the Charter is “Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden”. The English translation of the Charter, accompanied by an explanatory note, is to be found in U.N. Doc. A/AC 35/L206, dated April 7, 1955, in the publication of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred to in note 1 above, p. 46. The English translation of the Charter is to be found also in this Review, p. 107 et seq. The present section is confined to a brief outline of the new legal order. Readers who want to know more details are referred to the above-mentioned explanatory note and other publications such as W. H. van Helsdingen, La Charte du Royaume des Pays-Bas, Revue Juridique et Politique de l'Union Française, No. 4, Oct./Dec. 1956, p. 641 et seq.; Van Panhuys, , Das Statut des Königreichs der Niederlande, in Kraft getreten am 29. Dez. 1954, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 1955, Vol. 16, no. 2, p. 304Google Scholaret seq. Cf. also Logemann, The Constitutional Status of the Netherlands Caribbean Territories in Developments towards self-government in the Caribbean, The Hague, 1955, p. 46Google Scholaret seq. and Kranenburg, op. cit.

^{page 11 note 1} Article 5, paragraph (2); in accordance with the first paragraph of that provision some specified matters in relation to the organization of the Kingdom have been delegated to the Grondwet; amendments to the Grondwet relating to Kingdom affairs are, therefore, subject to special procedures (Art. 5, (3); Art. 45).

^{page 11 note 2} The question referred to in the text is controversial, cf. Kranenburg, , op. cit. p. 58et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} Italics have been added in anticipation of our remarks to be made in section 6 of the present paper.

^{page 11 note 4} Cf. Publication Netherlands Ministry (referred to above), p. 63.

^{page 11 note 5} Art. 43 of the Charter.

^{page 12 note 1} Art. 2 (1).

^{page 12 note 2} Ibidem.

^{page 12 note 3} Art. 2.

^{page 12 note 4} Cf. the instructive scheme drawn up by Van Asbeck, Rec. ADI, 1947, II, p. 364et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 5} Art. 7 and 10 (1); cf. also Publication of Netherlands Ministry (referred to above), p. 66. In particular cases an ordinary Minister may participate with advisory vote in the deliberations of the Council of Ministers, cf. Article 10 (2).

^{page 13 note 1} Art. 12 (1).

^{page 13 note 2} Art. 12 (2 to 5).

^{page 13 note 3} Cf. inter alia Art. 14 et seq.

^{page 13 note 4} Cf. Kranenburg, , op. cit., p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 5} Presently the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in matters of the Caribbean territories but the Charter leaves open the possibility of establishing that jurisdiction, cf. Logemann, , op. cit., p. 63/4.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 1} Cf. on the distinction between “citizen” and “subject” as a general pheno-nienan in “colonial” States, Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit., p. 587/8.Google Scholar See about the special position under the Charter of the local population in Surinam and the Neth. Antilles, the so-called “landskinderen”, Logemann, , op. cit., p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 2} Art. 49 to 51 inclusive.

^{page 14 note 3} Art. 38.

^{page 14 note 4} Cf. Publication of Netherlands Ministry (referred to above), p. 62.

^{page 15 note 1} Cf. about the new constitutional provisions on the conduct of foreign affairs, including the treatymaking powers, our article in AJIL, Vol. 47, no. 4, 10 1953, p. 537Google Scholaret seq.: The Netherlands Constitution and International law. The provisions of the Netherlands Constitution (Grondwet) dealing with international affairs also apply to treaties to be concluded after the entering into force of the Charter, because the latter has delegated this subject-matter to the Grondwet (cf. Art. 5 in conjunction with Art. 3 (b) of the Charter).

^{page 15 note 2} Cf. Art. 61 of the Grondwet.

^{page 15 note 3} Art. 25 (1).

^{page 15 note 4} Art. 25 (2).

^{page 16 note 1} Art. 26.

^{page 16 note 2} Cf. on this question inter alios Borchard, International contractual claims and their settlement, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} See p. 6.

^{page 17 note 1} Even if the right of secession would have been granted, that would not have meant that the countries should be considered sovereign States. Mosler, Unlike, op. cit, p. 133Google Scholar, we do not believe that the right of secession implies sovereignty. A supposed right to become a sovereign State is not identical with being a sovereign State.

^{page 17 note 2} Memorie van Antwoord, Rijksbegroting 1953 (Memorandum in reply, Budget of the State, 1953), Chapter XIII B, p. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} Cf. in a negative sense, in relation to the term “self-determination” as used in Art. 1, sub 2 of the Charter of the U.N.; U. N. Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), Vol. VI, p. 296Google Scholar; Roethof in his remarkable study on the subject (Het zelfbeschikkingsrecht der nationaliteiten, 1951, p. 66Google Scholar) basing himself on the “travaux préparatoires” comes to the conclusion that the term, though having a restricted scope, does entail the right of secession of colonial overseas territories.

^{page 18 note 1} Proceedings Second Chamber 1952–1953, p. 504.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} Ibidem, p. 1431, 1953–1954.

^{page 18 note 3} Art. 55 of the Charter.

^{page 18 note 4} Cf. on the question whether this procedure is consistent with the purport of the Grondwet as amended in 1948, our article referred to on page 10, note 3, p. 313; more elaborately Kranenburg, op. cit. p. 81 et seq.

^{page 18 note 5} Cf. UN Doc. Official Records, Tenth Session, supplement 16, A/2908, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 1} Proceedings Second Chamber 1952/3, p. 505.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 2} See for political arguments militating against the granting of an explicit right of secession, Subrahmanyam, The right of secession, Indian Quarterly, Jan. 1946, II, no. 1, p. 29.

^{page 19 note 3} Infra, p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 4} A similar question arose in the course of the 19th century as regards the legal nature of the federal Constitution of the U.S., cf. Subrahmanyam, , loc. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 5} Cf. inter alia Art. 2 of the Charter on the Transfer of Sovereignty; Treaty Series UN, 1950, Vol. 69 I, no. 894, p. 206/7.Google Scholar For the purpose of the present paper it is not necessary to discuss the Indonesian thesis asserting that the sovereignty over New Guinea is supposed to rest with Indonesia.

^{page 20 note 1} Memorie van Antwoord (Memorandum of reply), 07 7, 1954, p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 2} See for a different opinion Kranenburg, op. cit., p. 89 et seq.

^{page 20 note 3} Cf. Art. 12 (6) of the Charter.

^{page 20 note 4} Cf. Statement by Mr. Kernkamp, Proceedings Second Chamber 1953–1954, p. 1427.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 5} Cf. Judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case concerning the Lighthouses in Crete, Series A/B, 71 passim.

^{page 21 note 1} Cf. Constitutional Developments in the Commonwealth, Central Office of Information, 1950, I, p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 2} Cf. about this status as a general phenomenon, Van Asbeck, Rec. ADI, 1947, II, p. 369.

^{page 21 note 3} Memorie van Antwoord (see note 1, supra p. 20), p. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 4} The Kingdom possesses all the features which are deemed inherent in a federal State by Netherlands authors who recently have made interesting analyses of this subject-matter; cf. Huart-Engelsman, , R. M. Themis, 1950, p. 58Google Scholar; it has as well much in common with the Union between Denmark and Iceland as established in 1918, cf. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, op. cit, p. 163, n. 3.

^{page 21 note 5} Cf. Van Asbeck, Onderzoek naar den juridischen wereldbouw (Inquiry into the legal structure of the world), p. 4.

^{page 22 note 1} Proceedings First Chamber 1954–1955, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 2} Cf. Wery, , op. cit., p. 246.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 3} Phillips, Hood, The constitutional law of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, 1952, p. 640.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 4} Notes on colonial constitutional changes 1940–1951, Col. Office, 1951, p. 24et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 5} Cf. Phillips, Hood, op. cit., p. 641.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 6} Ibidem.

^{page 22 note 7} Cf. Van Asbeck, , Rec. ADI, 1947, II, p. 393Google Scholar; Rolland, and Lampué, , Précis de droit des pays d'outre-mer, 1952, particularly p. 80Google Scholaret seq., p. 92 et seq., and Chapter III; Robinson, , The end of an Empire, in International Affairs 1954, p. 186Google Scholar; Colliard, Fédéralisme colonial et Union Française in La technique et les principes du droit public, II p. 653.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} See for the reasons why this solution was not seriously considered in the Netherlands territories, Logemann, , op. cit. p. 56/57.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} Cf. about the constitutional status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Wells, Henry in Developments towards self-government in the Caribbean, p. 73Google Scholaret seq. and Hayden, Sherman S. and Rivlin, Benjamin, Non-self-governing territories, Status of Puerto Rico, New York, Woodrow Wibon Foundation, 1954.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 3} Hayden, and Rivlin, , op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 4} Cf. Engers, Hoofdstuk XI van het Handvest van de V.N. (Chapter XI of the Charter of the U.N.), 1956, p. 163Google Scholar; see for desirable changes of the status of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Wells, , op. cit. p. 215et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 5} Cf. Engers, , op. cit., p. 160et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 1} There are exceptions to this general statement such as the right of foreign consuls to intercede with the local authorities on behalf of the former's compatriots.

^{page 24 note 2} See supra, p. 14.

^{page 24 note 3} See supra, p. 111

^{page 24 note 4} Cf. Art. 35 of the Charter.

^{page 25 note 1} It should be noted that in the Preamble of the Universal Postal Convention, apart from the Netherlands, Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles were mentioned as constituting one party together. Nothing prevents States, however, when concluding new treaties, from regarding Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles each as a distinct party, if this is deemed necessary.

^{page 25 note 2} Cf. Art. 64 in conjunction with Art. 60 (1) of the Netherlands Grondwet.

^{page 25 note 3} Cf. on the mutual relations of the British Dominions and Great Britain under the League Covenant, Phillips, Hood, op. cit., p. 691/2.Google Scholar

^{page 26 note 1} See above p. 14; the question may also be raised as regards agreements between the Kingdom and one or more of the Countries, but the Charter contains no reference to such agreements.

^{page 26 note 2} Op. cit. p. 137; cf. on the comparable question whether agreements between the Swiss Confederation and the Cantons and mutual agreements between the latter (the so-called “Konkordate”) are to be considered agreements of international law, Stützel, Die völkerrechtliche Handlungsfähigkeit des Einzelstaates im Bundesstaate, p. 42Google Scholaret seq. The question seems to be controversial; a difference is at any rate that to a certain extent Art. 3 of the Swiss Constitution declares the Cantons sovereign.

^{page 26 note 3} See for other examples Looper, , op. cit. p. 186Google Scholaret seq. and Liang, Yuen-Li, AJIL, 1951 p. 121et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 1} Tayler, , op. cit., p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Even though Congress may have the formal capacity to make treaties on matters which are otherwise in the exclusive control of the States, the question whether it has the power to implement such treaties may also be of importance. For that reason the issue raised by the case of Missouri v. Holland is mentioned.

^{page 27 note 3} 252 U.S. 416; in recent years this judgment has been the object of much criticism during the congressional debate on the so-called Bricker amendments.

^{page 27 note 4} Cf. Tayler, , op. cit., p. 147Google Scholaret seq. and Looper, , op. cit. p. 182.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 5} Tayler, ibidem, p. 128; the proposition, however, that the treaty-making powers of the Swiss Confederation are not subject to limitation, is not universally accepted, cf. Horak, , op. cit., p. 66et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 6} Cf. also Bülck, , Die neue Verfassung der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 1951, p. 115Google Scholar; Calhoun, , The ILO and the U.S. domestic law, 1953, p. 21/22Google Scholar, Looper, , op. cit., p. 183.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} Cf. Statement by the Netherlands Government with regard to the Convention concerning Holidays with Pay in Agriculture, dated June 26, 1952, Memorie van Toelichting, p. 4Google Scholar, Proceedings Second Chamber 1956–1957, 4598.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} Tayler, ibidem, p. 97.

^{page 28 note 3} General Assembly, Official Records, 8th Session, 1953Google Scholar, Annexes Item 33, p. 2, Doc. A/2428.

^{page 29 note 1} Engers, , opus cit., p. 74Google Scholar; UNCIO documents X, p. 440 and 561–562Google Scholar; cf. also Summaries and analyses of information transmitted to the Secretary General during 1953, p. 25–31Google Scholar, in particular, footnotes 15, 17 and 18.

^{page 29 note 2} Engers, ibidem, p. 76–78.

^{page 30 note 1} Official Records, tenth session, Supplement 19 (A/3116), p. 25Google Scholar; cf. on the entire development of the issue, Engers, , op. cit. p. 170et seq.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} Cf. Engers ibidem, p. 187.

^{page 30 note 3} Cf. Handbook of Final Clauses, UN Doc. St/Leg/l, p. 140et seq.Google Scholar