In recent years many countries have experienced acts of violence committed for political ends, which have been termed terrorist. Some such acts are committed entirely within one country with a view to affecting domestic policy in that country, as is the case with the much publicized activities of radical groups in Italy and West Germany; others have international implications. The country of commission may be a convenient stage for an act whose primary target is the government of another, as when Palestinians took Israeli athletes as hostages during the Munich Olympics in 1972. The action may be planned to involve other countries as well, perhaps with a view to influencing their relations with the country which is the terrorists primary target, as with the South Moluccans who have committed acts of violence in the Netherlands. Sometimes attacks are launched in one country from a base in another, as with the Palestinians' incursions into Israel. Whether the violence is national or international, the terrorists often seek and usually achieve dramatic publicity. Though the number of people physically affected may be small, the psychological impact may be considerable. Besides, these acts are seen as attempting to weaken the authority of a government, or a system of government. It is not surprising, then, that governments should wish to take, and to be seen to take, active steps to meet this challenge. The Council of Europe's Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (hereafter the European Convention) is one of a number of recent attempts at international co-operation in fulfilment of this wish.

Josef Jundeff was born in Poland. In 1952 he left that country and settled in West Berlin. On a visit to Israel in 1963 he met Sara, an Israeli woman residing in Israel. Josef and Sara married in Tel Aviv in 1965 and immediately after the wedding ceremony they left Israel and established their matrimonial home in West Berlin. There two boys were born to the Jundeffs in 1967. Two years later legal skirmishes started between husband and wife in Berlin. A short period of reconciliation followed. In January 1973 the wife finally decided to separate from her husband and, accordingly, she instituted divorce proceedings in the District Court (Landgericht) of West Berlin. Shortly thereafter, without obtaining her husband's consent or a judicial authorization, Sara took the children and brought them to Israel.

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

To enumerate the recognized manifestations of international law, several orders may be followed, depending on the criterion used. One criterion would be the distinction between written and unwritten manifestations. On this basis, the recognized manifestations of international law may be enumerated in the following order: (1) certain decisions of international organizations, (2) treaties, (3) certain judicial decisions – all being written manifestations – (4) custom, (5) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, (6) complementary natural law – all being unwritten. Another criterion, and a far more meaningful one, is that of hierarchy. Before setting forth the correct hierarchical order among the recognized manifestations of international law, hierarchy as such should briefly be discussed.

In the past year, the discussions concerning the theories of immunity have received a fair amount of attention both in the United States as well as in England. The general problem again became of interest in the USA at the time when the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 came into force on 10 January 1977, the enactment being the result of ten years of legislative work. This piece of legislation, which is important for international contract law, has adopted the principles of the relative immunity theory, after they had already been recognized in 1953 by the “Tate Letter” (see note 23) and were applied shortly thereafter by the Supreme Court. The purpose of the new legislation, which will also have important consequences in respect of the question concerning the immunity from execution, is to bring the problem of immunity, which has until now been governed by international law, within the scope of national law and practice.

Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that:

“No-one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

When the Security Council adopted fully mandatory and comprehensive sanctions against Southern Rhodesia in May 1968, it simultaneously created a new Committee. This so-called Watchdog Committee, according to the text of the resolution, was charged with examining the reports on the implementation of the resolution submitted by the Secretary General and with seeking information from States Members of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies. The information sought could relate to the trade of a state – even to the trade exempted from prohibition in the resolution – and to activities by nationals or in the territories of a state that might constitute an evasion of sanctions as the Committee might consider necessary for the proper discharge of its duty to report to the Security Council.

In his collected lectures, the late legal historian in the University of Groningen, Professor P.W.A. Immink, draws an interesting parallel between Old Germanic law on the one hand, and present-day international law on the other hand. His argument runs as follows.

Obstacles and uncertain points in the field of recognition and enforcement of judgments originating from other EEC countries constitute hidden barriers in the free trade area that the Common Market is intended to be. They may divert the trade flow from what it should be in such an area and affect the transparency of the Market. This fact explains why Article 220 of the Treaty of Rome 1957 obliges the Member Countries to start negotiations in order to bring about a convention to simplify the procedure of mutual recognition of judgments and arbitral awards.

John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, published in 1690, exerted a profound influence upon such great instruments on human rights as: The American Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776; The French Declaration on the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 26 August 1789; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948; and The International Covenants on Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 16 December 1966. The reflection of many ideas contained in the Two Treatises of Government in these Instruments on human rights is so obvious that it would be no exaggeration to say that Locke is their spiritual father, although so far this credit is not yet given to him explicitly.

The main purpose of the paper is to investigate the differences between the new international economic order (NIEO) advocated by the overwhelming majority of the members of the General Assembly and the existing order. To what extent are changes called for in the institutional and substantial legal rules that help to mould international economic relations on a world scale? Attention is paid especially to the principles on which these rules are based and to the modifications thereof that would be required for bringing about the NIEO.

The market impact of the Convention on civil litigation in the six original Member States was a matter of concern with several speakers. It was stressed in particular that the mere solution of jurisdictional problems may require extensive research of substantive issues, which possibly could lead to litigation at three national levels. If the possibility of submitting preliminary questions under the 1971 Protocol to the EC Court at Luxemburg is also taken into account, five judgments could even be required to settle the question which court in the Common Market is competent. Although perhaps inspiring lawyers' intellectual efforts, this situation would unfortunately increase the litigation costs to the parties. Moreover, the final text of the EC Draft on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations is progressing and the EC Court will be charged with ensuring the uniform interpretation of this convention as well. One can imagine questions being put to the European Court in each of the three stages of a dispute, viz., the jurisdiction phase, the applicable law, and the enforcement in another Member State.

After 30 years of negotiations, the Rhine river is still very polluted. Although the concentration of some pollutants has diminished during the past few years, the quantity of other harmful substances is still increasing. This lack of progress can be explained to a large extent by a set of peculiar circumstances which seems to be unique for the Rhine. The most important of these circumstances is the international dimension of the situation. The main stem of the Rhine flows through the sovereign territories of Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Netherlands. Its drainage area, moreover, also covers Italy, Austria, Luxemburg and Belgium. Obviously, no anti-pollution policy can hope to be effective until at least the most directly concerned of these eight States have reached agreement on common objectives and common measures. Reaching agreement, however, is complicated by the problem of conflicting uses which may be more intricate for the Rhine than for any other international river.

The international discussion about a new world economic order, which has been going on for many years now, has been complicated by the absence of clear and generally accepted ideas about the main features of such a concept. The word “order” itself has a wide variety of different meanings (e.g., natural versus imposed order) and in some quarters the mere terminology of “NIEO” has provoked opposition. Thus confusion, and sometimes suspicion, have contributed to hampering rational analysis and conclusions.

In September, an international symposium was held at Nijmegen in commemoration of the Peace of Nijmegen (1678). The conference was organized by the “Instituut voor intellectuele betrekkingen tussen Westeuropese landen van de 17e eeuw” of Nijmegen University. The lectures delivered by Swedish, Spanish, Italian, French, English, Dutch, Belgian, American and Austrian historians and archivists, will be published by the “APA-Holland Universiteits Pers”. Their contents, in so far as they are relevant to students of International Law, particularly to those who are interested in its history, will briefly be indicated here.