This is the national report for the Netherlands on the above-named topic for the VIIth International Congress on Procedural Law, Würzburg September 1983. General reporters for this subject are Prof. Dr. Mauro Cappelletti (European University Institute, Florence) and Prof. Dr. Bryant Garth (Indiana University, Bloomington). In their introductory note to the national reporters they focus their attention on “how the legal system is or is not adapting to the problem of the representation of diffuse interests and more generally (on) the problem of the vindication of these rights”.

On 2 May 2006, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its decision concerning the EC Insolvency Regulation. In this case the underlying issue was a conflict between an Italian court and an Irish court. Both of them ruled that the centre of main interests was in their own Member State. The facts were as follows.

Le contrôle parlementaire s'applique à l'administration tant nationale qu'internationale; en ce qui concerne l'administration nationale, il s'étend à la politique intérieure aussi bien qu'aux affaires étrangères.

The Brussels I Regulation No 44/2001 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereinafter referred to as the Brussels I Regulation) establishes a judicial area in Europe with uniform rules on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments. The Brussels I Regulation is now in force in all EU Member States, including Denmark. On 1 July 2007 a separate Agreement between the European Union and Denmark came into force, in which the Brussels I Regulation is declared applicable in the relationship between Denmark and the other Member States. Bulgaria and Rumania joined the European Union on 1 January 2007 and became bound by the Brussels I Regulation as part of the acquis communautaire.

Since 1 March 2001, family courts in the European Union (except Denmark) have been obliged to follow the rules of EC Regulation No. 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and in Matters of Parental Responsibility for Children of Both Spouses. The Regulation was meant to complement the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968, and that is why it has come to be known as the ‘Brussels II Regulation’. The Convention covers, roughly speaking, patrimonial matters – such as property, contracts and torts – while the Regulation deals with divorce and child custody. On 1 March 2002, another Regulation entered into force, replacing the Brussels Convention and therefore aptly called the ‘Brussels I Regulation’. However, ‘Brussels I’ does not apply in Denmark, and that means that the Brussels Convention is still in force as between Denmark and the other EU member states. To complicate matters further, another Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters continues to apply in all EU member states, as well as in Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Poland: the Lugano Convention of 1988. Its text is virtually identical to that of the Brussels Convention, but there are major differences between the Lugano Convention and the Brussels I Regulation. As far as patrimonial matters are concerned, the courts in Europe now have to juggle with three different sets of rules: the Brussels I Regulation, the Brussels Convention and the Lugano Convention.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, is the first UN human rights document to include civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. However, since that time a dichotomy between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights has characterized UN human rights activities. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted two separate human rights documents: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Two separate covenants were drafted as a result of western pressure. Western countries stressed the alleged difference in character of both categories of rights: civil and political rights could be implemented immediately while most economic, social and cultural rights could be implemented only progressively. In the Vienna Declaration, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993, the principle of the equality of all rights was, however, forcefully emphasized.

1. From May 20 to June 10, 1958 a Conference of Plenipotentiaries met at Headquarters of the United Nations in New York for the purpose of concluding a convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

After decades of virtual inactivity, the PCA's workload has significantly increased since the early eighties. In particular, the last view years have seen significant development. The nature of the PCA's work is diverse. In its capacity as designating authority under the UNCITRAL Rules, it deals with cases of a commercial and sometimes of a mixed state/non-state nature. Where it acts as Registry, the PCA's cases are usually of a mixed nature, and include several investment arbitrations. For the future, additional responsibilities on the basis of the revised UNCITRAL Rules would be a welcome development. A focus on specific niches, such as mass claims, would set the PCA apart from alternative institutes, which would further ensure a continuing role over the next decades.

When on 3 October 1957 the Russian astronaut Gagarin was launched into outer space and when twelve years later on 20 July 1969 the American astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the Moon, the enthusiasm of the world population for these two events was enormous.

Text of a speech, delivered on 16 February 1978 at a meeting of the Volkenrechtelijk Dispuut “Cedant Arma Togae” of the University of Utrecht.

I am going to start with a sentence in Dutch: ‘Och, het volkenrecht laat zich kneden, zoals men wil!!’ (‘Oh, you can mould public international law as you like!’).

For someone who has spent his whole career in the search for international order and stability it is a particular honour and pleasure to be giving this Memorial Lecture.