1. De Martens, N.R.G., Vol. 20, p. 355; Trb. 1955 No. 161.

2. Stb. 1869 No. 139.

3. Stb. 1963 No. 536. Art. 66: “Legal regulations in force within the Kingdom shall not apply if this application should be incompatible with provisions, binding on anyone, of agreements entered into either before or after the enactment of the regulations”.

4. U.N.T.S. No. 11610; Trb. 1969 No. 115. For the content of Article 16, see under Held.

5. Summarised in E.L.D. (1976) pp. 392–3.

6. De Martens, N.R.G. 3rd series, Vol. 6, p. 480; Stb. 1912 No. 285, p. 3.

7. Trb. 1954 No. 116; Trb. 1955 No. 10.

8. Summarised in E.L.D. (1977) pp. 223, 229.

9. For part of the text of the declaration, see under Held.

10. De Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, Vol. 2, p. 243; Stb. 1909 No. 120.

11. On 8 October 1976, the Amsterdam District Court granted a similar request by B., a Surinamese national resident in Surinam (N.J. (1976) No. 555). The Court held the 1905 Civil Procedure Convention applicable, since there was no evidence that Suriname no longer felt bound by the Convention. The declaration of intent was not referred to. For more details of the present question and the declaration of intent, see Soek, J.W., “Legal aid and aliens in Netherlands law”, 23 N.I.L.R. (1976), pp. 53–54Google Scholar, and Bos, M., “Surinam's road from self-government to sovereignty”, 7 N.Y.I.L. (1976) pp. 151–153.Google Scholar

12. The final paragraph of the declaration reads as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Surinam desires that this letter be circulated to all members of the United Nations and the United Nations' Specialised Agencies, so that they will be effected with notice of the attitude of the Government of the Republic of Surinam.”

13. Art. 855 (2) Code of Civil Procedure says that aliens do not have the right to cost-free access to the courts, or to access at a reduced tariff, unless it has been stipulated otherwise by express agreement.

14. Article 20: “The nationals of each of the Contracting States have equal titles to the privilege of cost-free legal assistance in all the other Contracting States with their own nationals, provided they obey the laws of the State where cost-free legal assistance is requested.”

15. With a note by P. den Boer.

16. Summarised in 45 Belastingbeschouwingen (1976) pp. 172–173Google Scholar and 31 Vakstudienieuws (1976) pp. 777–779Google Scholar with annotations. Discussed by Feseveur, F.J. in 105 Weekblad voor Fiscaal Recht (1976) pp. 759–762Google Scholar. Described and annotated by den Hollander, L.Ph. and Christiaanse, J.H. in 26 A.A. (1977) pp. 502–512.Google Scholar

17. 200 U.N.T.S. p. 4; Trb. 1951, No. 139. Art. 19 reads: “Officials of the Organisation … shall be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by the Organisation in their capacity as such officials.”

18. Summarised in E.L.D. (1975) pp. 249, 254, 305. Similarly, the Judgment of the Crown in the Wardair Canada Ltd. Case (Royal Decree of 20 December 1973 No. 54), which is discussed in an article entitled “La Naissance d'Eurocontrol et les Développements à propos des Tarifs de cette Organisation” [The birth of Eurocontrol and developments with respect to the tariffs of this Organization] by Diederiks-Verschoor, I.H.Ph. in 11 European Transport Law (1976) pp. 842–853.Google Scholar

19. Trb. 1971 No. 40.

20. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Budget for 1977 for the Ministry of Justice includes the following information (Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 - 14.100 VI No. 2 p. 51): “During the year 1975, 171 appeals were made under Article 34 of the Aliens Act (in 1974: 164). On 1 March 1976, 94 of the 171 appeals were pending. The remaining 77 were settled as follows: In accordance with the advice given by the Afdeling Contentieux of the Raad van State, 20 appeals were dismissed, 10 appeals were declared non-receivable and, in two cases, the contested decision was reversed. Further, 16 appeals were withdrawn after a residence permit was granted within the framework of regularisation, 22 appeals were withdrawn after a residence permit was granted on the grounds of fresh evidence or changed circumstances, and 7 appeals were withdrawn after the appellants had decided to leave the Netherlands.”

21. With note by J.H. van der Veen. Summarised in E.L.D. (1977) p. 321.

22. The 1952 Passport Regulations concerning Netherlands passports issued abroad, have not been published. They are materially the same as the 1952 Passport Regulations for the Netherlands [Paspoqrtmstruetie Nederland, 1952] which were published in Stc. 1952 No. 132 (amendments in Stcs. 1954 No. 126, 1958 No. 31 and 148, 1959 No. 227, 1972 No. 13 and 1973 No. 59). Article 82 of the Regulations reads: “If the applicant possesses a foreign nationality in addition to Dutch nationality and resides in the State of that other nationality, his application shall be refused.”

23. Before the 1972 amendment, Article 82 included the additional sentence: “This does not apply to a married woman whose husband possesses only Dutch nationality, is the holder of a valid Dutch passport, and lives at the same address as the applicant.”

24. CLXXIX L.N.T.S. p. 89; Stb. 1937 No. 17.

25. See 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 270–271.

26. Note by D.J. Gorter.

27. With comment by the Editors.

28. 139 U.N.T.S. p. 137; Trb. 1951 No. 131 amended by Protocol of 31 January 1967; 606 U.N.T.S. p. 267; Trb. 1967 No. 76. Article 1 (A): “For the purposes of the present Convention the term ‘refugee’ shall apply to any person who … (2) … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;…”

29. Article 23: “The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.”

30. 218 U.N.T.S. p. 255; Trb. 1954 No. 100. Article 1 reads: “Each of the Contracting Parties undertakes to ensure that nationals of the other Contracting Parties who are lawfully present in any part of its territory to which this Convention applies, and who are without sufficient resources, shall be entitled equally with its own nationals and on the same conditions to social and medical assistance … provided by the legislation in force from time to time in that part of its territory.”

31. Act of 13 June 1963, Stb. 1963 No. 284. Article 1: “Any Dutch national who is, or is likely to be, in such conditions that he is without sufficient resources to cover the necessary costs of subsistence, shall be granted assistcnce by the Burgomaster and Aldermen.”

32. Article 6(2): “Border-control officials shall not deny, except under special instructions of the Minister, the entry into the Netherlands of aliens who would otherwise be compelled to go to a country in regard to which they could refer to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of religion, political opinion, nationality, race, or the social group to which they belong.” Cf. Oostvogels, S.A.M., “Foreign deserters and asylum in the Netherlands”, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 177–8.Google Scholar

33. Article 33(1): “No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

34. Article 32(2): “The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before the competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.”

35. Article 15(1): “Aliens originating from a country where they have well-founded grounds to fear persecutions for reasons of religion, political opinion or nationality … may be admitted as refugees by Our Minister.”

36. Other judgments of the Supreme Court in cases involving extradition, in 1976, include: (a) 20 January 1976 (J.G. v. Public Prosecutor) N.J. (1976) No. 380. Summarised in D.D. (1976) No. 64 and E.L.D. (1977) p. 17. (b) 16 March 1976 (G.B.I.B. v. Public Prosecutor) N.J. (1976) No. 320 with note by Th.W. van Veen, summarised in D.D. (1976) No. 94 and E.L.D. (1977) p. 58. (c) 15 June 1976 (P.S. v. Public Prosecutor) N.J. (1977) No. 58, summarised in D.D. (1976) No. 167. (d) 22 July 1976 (J.G. v. Public Prosecutor) N.J. (1977) No. 197, summarised in D.D. (1976) No. 180. (e) 31 August 1976 (O.O. v. Public Prosecutor) N.J. (1976) No. 534 with note by Th.W. van Veen, summarised in D.D. (1976) No. 181 and E.L.D. (1977) p. 185. (f) 16 November 1976 (E.P.-M. v. Public Prosecutor), summarised in D.D. (1977) No. 25. (g) 7 December 1976 (J.H.V. v. Public Prosecutor), summarised in D.D. (1977) No. 39.

37. With note by Th.W. van Veen. Summarised in 7 D.D. (1977) No. 17.

38. Stb. 1968 No. 113. Article 7: “Extradition shall not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested, is regarded by the requested Party as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence.”

39. Articfc 11(1): “Extradition shall not be granted for offences of a political nature, including offences connected with such offences.”

40. In re M.F. v. the State of the Netherlands, the legal questions submitted to the President of the District Court of The Hague were similar to those in re M.A. v. the State of the Netherlands, in which case judgment was delivered on 13 November 1975 (see 7 N.Y.I.L. 1976, pp. 327–328). The President reached a similar decision identical grounds (Judgment of 5 May 1976; Gids Vreemdelihgenrecht No. E-3).

41. With comment by the Editors.

42. Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1976) No. 2, with comment by the Editors; summarised in 30 Cahiers de Droit Européen (1977) p. 317.Google Scholar

43. Article 22 (2) of the Aliens Act.

44. 7 N.Y.I.L. (1976) pp. 325–326; summarised in E.L.D. (1976) p. 207.

45. Stb. 1963 No. 536.

46. B.G.B1. 1949 p. 1.

47. Note by Th.W. van Veen. Summarised in 6 D.D. (1976) No. 166 and E.L.D. (1977) pp. 232–3, 267–8.

48. Article 137 e: “(1) Any person who for reasons other than the provision of factual information (i) publishes an utterance which he knows, or which he has reasonable cause to suspect is insulting to another group of persons on account of their race, religion or beliefs, or which incites to hatred of or discrimination against other persons, or to violence against the person or property of others on account of their race, religion or beliefs; or (ii) distributes, or has in his possession with the intention of effecting distribution or publication, any object which he knows or which he has reasonable cause to suspect contains such an utterance, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding five thousand guilders.” Cf. also 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 431–433.

49. See 7 N.Y.I.L. (1976) pp. 330–1.

50. 660 U.N.T.S. p. 195; Trb. 1966 No. 237.

51. Summarised in 30 Cahiers du Droit Européen (1977) p. 325Google Scholar and E.L.D. (1977) p. 105.

52. 213 U.N.T.S. p. 221; Trb. 1951 No. 154. Article 9(1): “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

53. Article 9(2): “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and arc necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

54. With note by J.J. Bredius. Summarised in E.L.D. (1977) pp. 16 and 47 and 30 Cahiers du Droit Européen (1977) p. 324.Google Scholar

55. Article 3: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 8: “(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Article 10: “(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers… (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security … for the protection of health …”

56. Summarised in 6 D.D. (1976) No. 87 and E.L.D. (1977) pp. 100, 104, 105, 106.

57. On appeal in cassation, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, without having to consider the European Convention (Judgment of 19 October 1976, N.J. (1977) No. 18 with note by Th.W. van Veen; V.R. (1977) No. 47 with note by A. Herstel; summarised in 7 D.D. (1977) No. 1 and E.L.D. (1977) pp. 322, 359).

58. With note by W.F. Prins.

59. With note by J.R. Stcllinga. The case is also summarised in E.L.D. (1976) p. 540, and discussed by Stellinga, J.R. in “Mag een schoolbestuur de toegang tot de school verbieden aan kinderen, die het godsdienstonderwijs niet willen volgen?” [May a school governing body forbid children who refuse to attend divinity classes to enter the school?], Tijdschrift voor Openbaar Bestuur (1976) pp. 404–405.Google Scholar

60. 213 U.N.T.S. p. 262; Trb. 1952 No. 80. For the text of Article 2, see the Supreme Court's consideration.

61. For Articles 8 and 10, see supra n. 55.

62. Note by Th.W. van Veen. Summarised in E.L.D. (1977) p. 314.

63. Article 5: “(1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law;… (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;”

64. Résolution (65) 11 – Détention préventive. See Meuwissen, D.H.M. and Alkema, E.A. – Het Europese Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden [The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink, 1972, Schuurman & Jordens, Series No. 74, 2nd rev. ed., pp. 237–238.

65. Summarised in 6 D.D. (1976) No. 195 and E.L.D. (1977) pp. 321–2.

66. See supra n. 55.

67. With note by L.A.N.M. Barnhoorn.

68. 500 U.N.T.S., p. 95.

69. Article 32: “1. The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under Article 37 may be waived by the sending State. 2. Waiver must always be express. 3. The initiation of proceedings by a diplomatic agent or by a person enjoying immunity from jurisdiction under Article 37 shall preclude him from invoking immunity from jurisdiction in respect of any counter-claim directly connected with the principal claim. 4. Waiver of immunity from jurisdiction in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held to imply waiver of immunity in respect of th execution of the judgment, for which a separate waiver shall be necessary.”

70. The Local Court used the French text, which may be found in the Annuaire de la Commission du droit international, 1957, Vol. I, p. 121.Google Scholar

71. Mentioned by Rousseau, Ch. in “Chronique des faits internationaux”, 81 R.G.D.I.P. (1977) p. 310.Google Scholar

72. Article 138: “(1) Anyone who unlawfully trespasses upon a house, or the enclosed locality or premises occupied by another person,… is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding Df1. 600.– … (3) The penalties determined in para. 1 may be increased by a third, if two or more persons commit the offence in conjunction.”

73. Article 282; “(1) Anyone who wilfully deprives, or has deprived another of his liberty shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years.”

74. The demands and arguments of the Public Prosecutor MrAbspoel, J.J. are reported in 6 D.D. (1976) pp. 304–337Google Scholar, the defence counsel's plea in 6 D.D. (1976) pp. 447–458. The case is discussed by Lagerwaard, G.E. in “Het proces tegen de Zuid-Molukse bczetters van het Indonesische Consulaat-Gencraal te Amsterdam” [The Case of the South-Moluccan raid on the Indonesian Consulate-General in Amsterdam], 125 Algemeen Politieblad (1976) pp. 403–407.Google Scholar

75. For the text of Article 16, see under Held.

76. By an Exchange of Notes of 13 April 1973, the Dutch text of Article 16 (2) was modified to the effect that “the latter Party” was changed into “the debtor” (Trb. 1973 No. 74).

77. Artide 3 septies “1. It is forbidden:

a. to use a radio transmitter for the purpose of broadcasting verbal, tonal or visual programmes, for the benefit of the public, from a ship or aircraft outside any national territory;

b. to operate a radio transmitter for the aforementioned purposes;

c. to make available, or to instal a radio transmitter in the knowledge that it is to be used for the aforementioned purposes;

d. to make available a ship or aircraft in the knowledge that it is to be used for the aforementioned purposes.

2. It is forbidden to co-operate wilfully with an infringement of the aforementioned prohibitions by rendering assistance or providing opportunity, means, or information. The following shall in any case be deemed to be acts of co-operation:

a. making available material in behalf of the ship or aircraft orlthe transmitter-equipment;

b. the maintenance or repair of the ship or aircraft or the transmitter-equipment;

c. provisioning of the ship or aircraft;

d. conveying of persons and goods to or from the ship or aircraft, or making available the means for such conveyance;

e. making programmes or parts thereof, for the purpose of broadcasting;

f. commissioning the broadcasting of programmes or parts thereof, or mediating in obtaining such commissions.

3. Acts committed in case of emergency for the purpose of rendering assistance to the ship or aircraft or saving human lives are excepted from paragraph 2.

4. For the purposes of this Article a ship or aircraft includes any other floating or, airborn object.” Article 3 septies was inserted in the Telegraph and Telephone Act by the Act of 23 January 1974 providing for the Amendment of the Telegraph and Telephone Act. 1904, relating to the prevention of broadcasts transmitted from stations outside national territories (Stb. 1974 No. 25). Cf. 3 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 222–224 and 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 356–357.

78. European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories, 22 January 1965, Trb. 1965 No. 92. The Strasbourg Agreement was ratified by the Netherlands on 26 August 1974 and became operative on 27 September 1974 (Trb. 1974 No. 194) Article 1: “This Agreement is concerned with broadcasting stations which are installed or maintained on board ships, aircraft, or any floating or airborne objects and which, outside national territories, transmit broadcasts intended for reception or capable of being received, wholly or in part, within the territory of any Contracting Party, or which cause harmful interference to any radio-communication service operating under the authority of a Contracting Party in accordance with the Radio Regulations.”

79. On 25 May 1976, J.T. was sentenced by the Amsterdam Local Court to three weeks' imprisonment suspended for two years, and two fines of Df1. 1000.– each or alternatively forty days' detention for each of the fines, also for violation of Article 3 septies. (Institute's Collection No. 1072). In the period from 1 October 1975 to 1 February 1976, J.T. had on many occassions acted as the captain of the “Mi Amigo” and had, in that capacity, assumed responsibility for the ship in relation to nautical matters. The Court considered that, in view of the emergency situation that existed from 8 to 13 November 1975 when the ship was cast adrift by a strong gale, T.'s acts done in that period could not, under Article 3 septies, para. 3, be regarded as offences [misdrijven] within the meaning of paras. 1 and 2. The plea that T.'s acts in the period 8–23 November 1975, when the “Mi Amigo” was in British territorial waters, had not been committed “outside any national territory” in the sense of Article 3 septies, was held by the Court to be irrelevant because, on the one hand, Article 3 septies does not only concern acts committed outside any national territory and, on the other hand, the “Mi Amigo” was intended to broadcast programmes outside any national territory, and had actually begun so to do.

80. 450 U.N.T.S. p. 82; Trb. 1959 No. 124.

81. De Martens, N.R., Vol. 16, p. 773; Stb. 1839 No. 26.

82. Trb. 1957 No. 221.

83. Stb. 1963 No. 27.

84. Judgment of 19 December 1972; see 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 326–331. Discussed by Duintjer Tebbens, H. in W.P.N.R. (1976) pp. 540–541.Google Scholar

85. Cf., the Advisory Memorandum of Prof. Mr. M. Bos (pp. 32–33) submitted by the State: “The practice mentioned is, obviously, of primary importance for the assessment of the legal relationship between the Netherlands and Belgium. In addition to providing further evidence of Dutch obligations towards Belgium, it also proves that the Netherlands has obligations towards third States as regards the upkeep of the navigation channel in the Oostgat. The ships entering and leaving the Scheldt through this channel fly the flags of all the world's nations. This practice has, over the years, inspired confidence in their flag States that they could without risk sail by this channel to Antwerp and back.

The concept of arousing confidence, and the obligations arising therefrom, arc also known to the general law of nations. Systematically, this concept forms part of the wider concept of unilateral legal acts. The significance of this latter concept, in particular of unilateral declarations, was explained by the International Court of Justice in a few extremely important passages of its Judgment of 20 December 1974 on the Nuclear Tests Case between Australia and France. These passages are directly transferable to the situation with which we are hero concerned. Indeed, the long-standing practice of the Netherlands, especially in the area where the collision occurred, is, fully equivalent to a unilateral declaration made in public with an intention to be bound (see in this connection the most recent, comprehensive work on the legal act in international law by, Jacqué, , Eléments pour une théorie de l'acte juridique en droit international public (Paris, 1972), pp. 210–226Google Scholar) … The relevant passages – paragraphs 41–46 of the judgment in the Nuclear Tests Case [I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 268] – are included in Annex IV [of this Memorandum]. Only paragraph 46 will be reproduced here, since it has a summarizing nature:

‘46. One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their sourse, is the principle of good faith. Trust and confidence are inherent in international co-operation, in particular in an age when this co-operation in many fields is becoming increasingly essential. Just as the very rule of pacta sunt servanda in the law of treaties is based on good faith, so also is the binding character of an international obligation assumed by unilateral declaration. Thus, interested States may take cognizance of unilateral declarations and place confidence in them, and are entitled to require that the obligation thus created be respected’

Whether a State inspires such confidence in third States by words or by acts, makes no difference in international law.”

86. Discussed in European Law Review (1976) p. 583.Google Scholar

87. Stc. 1975 No. 42. Amended by Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, of 18 March 1975, Stc. 1975 No. 56. This Dutch Ministerial Decree resulted from the acceptance of Recommendation 15 of 25 November 1974 relating to sole and plaice of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, Trb. 1975 No. 27, pp. 18–21.

88. 486 U.N.T.S. p. 157; Trb. 1959 No. 114.

89. Case 6/76. N.J. (1977) No. 3.

90. With note by P. den Boer.

91. Discussed in Weekblad voor Fiscaal Recht (1976), pp. 460–466Google Scholar. Summarised in 45 Belastingbeschouwingen (1976), pp. 98–99Google Scholar and 31 Vakstudienieuws (1976), pp. 306–309 with annotations.Google Scholar

92. Trb. 1966 No. 199.

93. Stb. 1969 No. 183.

94. Cf. van Wees, G.N.J., “Compensation for Dutch property nationalized in East-European Countries”, 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972), pp. 92–93.Google Scholar

95. Trb. 1973 No. 53.

96. Article 7 (1): “The profits of an enterprise of one of the two States shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other State through a permanent establishment situated therein …”

97. Institute's Collection No. 1052.

98. 7 N.Y.I.L. (1976) pp. 345–347. Summarised in 30 Cahiers de Droit Européen (1977) p. 316.Google Scholar

99. Probably the Court intended to refer to Art. 5 (1) (a): “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law; (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;”

100. Meuwissen, D.H.M., Alkema, E.A., Het Europese Verdrag tot bescherming van de Rechten van de mens en de Fundamentele Vrijheden [The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms], Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1972, Schuurman & Jordens Series No. 74, 2nd rev. ed., p. 10.Google Scholar

101. With note by J.R. Stellinga.

102. With note by Th.W. van Veen. Summarised in M.R.T. (1977) pp. 431–2 by W.H. Vermeer under the title “Oorlogsmisdadiger L.” [War criminal L.]. Described and critically analysed by Rüter, C.F. in 26 A.A. (1977) pp. 512–531.Google Scholar

103. Stb. 1943 No. D 61. Article 27 a: “1. Any person, who during the present war, in military, or public service of the enemy commits a war crime or a crime against humanity as defined in Article 6 (b) or (c) of the Charter annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, shall be liable to the penalty fixed for such crime, provided that the crime committed also contains the elements of a criminal offence under Dutch law.”

104. 82 U.N.T.S. p. 279; Stb. 1946 No. G 5. Article 6: “The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a)…; (b) War crimes: namely, violations of the law or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limitated to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated …”

105. Article 4: “(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 2–8 of the Penal Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Code of Military Criminal Law, the Dutch penal law is applicable to any one who, outside the European part of the Realm has committed: 1°. an offence defined in … one of the Articles 26, 27 and 27 a of this Decree …, if the offence as been committed against or with regard to a Dutch national or a Dutch legal person, or if a Dutch interest has been or may be prejudiced by it; … (2) The Dutch penal law is also applicable to Dutch nationals who, outside the European part of the Realm, have committed or are Committing any of the offences referred to in Article 1”. (Among these offences are those of Article 27a).

106. See n. 105.

107. Article 5: “(1) The Dutch penal law is applicable to Dutch nationals who outside the European part of the Realm have committed: 1° …; 2° an offence regarded as a serious offence [misdrijf] under Dutch criminal law and punishable under the law of the country where committed. (2) The accused is also liable to prosecution if. he acquired Dutch nationality after he committed the offence.”

108. Article 7: “Dutch nationality will be lost: … (4) by entering foreign military or State service without Our permission;”

109. Article 6: “It shall be declared by law who are Netherlander and who are residents”

110. The Court considered Article 5 (1) of the Penal Code (see n. 107) to be also applicable, but did not insist on this section, because it included one requirement in addition to those of Article 4 (2) B.B.S., viz., that the offence had to be punishable under the law of the country where committed (which requirement was fulfilled).

111. Cf. 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 433–435.

112. Annexed to G.A. Res. 2391 (XXIII).

113. Stb. 1968 No. 620. Article 2: “(1) Imports coming from [van herkomst uit] Southern Rhodesia other than to the [Dutch] customs area are prohibited.” Article 3 of the Decree prohibits exports to Southern Rhodesia other than from the Dutch customs area The Southern Rhodesia Imports and Exports Decree of 1966 prohibits exports to and imports coming from Southern Rhodesia from and into the Dutch customs area. Finally, there is the Act of 7 September 1973 concerning measures relating to Transfer of Payments to Southern Rhodesia. Sec 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972).p. 231 and 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 358.

114. Stb. 1935 No. 621.

115. Institute's Collection No. 1000. 7 N.Y.I.L. (1976), pp. 348–349.

116. Institute's Collection No. 1050.

117. N.J. (1976) No. 565. Summarised in D.D. (1976) No. 161 and E.L.D. (1977) p. 267.

118. Stc. 1957 No. 117.