1. Statement in the Second Chamber, 30 November 1971, Hand. II 1971/72 p. 1417–1418.

2. Reply to written questions, 17 May 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 1417 p. 2855.

3. Statement in the Second Chamber, 14 October 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 300. Cf. also statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Second Chamber, 1 December 1971, Hand. II 1971/72 p. 1486.

4. Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Second Chamber, 25 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1374.

5. Statement in the Second Chamber, 1 December 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1490.

6. Communiqué to the press, 11 February 1972, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11500 V No. 56.

7. Statement during debate in the Second Chamber on the 1972 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, 1 December 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1491–1492.

8. Reply to written questions, 10 March 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 989 p. 1997.

9. Statement in the Parliamentary Standing Committee for development co-operation, 28 March 1972, Hand.II 1971/72 p. C 5.

10. Statement of 24 November 1971, text in: De Zesentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Ver-gaderingder Verenigde Naties (Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 100, 1972) p. 484.

11. Statement in the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, 29 August 1972, Hand.II 1971/72 p. B.50.

12. Statement in the Second Chamber, 14 October 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 301.

13. Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Second Chamber, 1 December 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1486. Cf. also: the Dutch support for the UN decision not to invite the G.D.R. to the UN Conference on the Environment at Stockholm, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 746 p. 1503 and Hand.II 1971/72 p. X 52; the Netherlands vote in the 24th World Health Assembly on admission of the G.D.R. into the WHO, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 866 p. 1743.

14. A/L 630, A/L 632, and A/L 633. Draft resolution A/L 630 was a 23-Power draft resolution sponsored by Albania and others. It asked the General Assembly to decide “to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the UN and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it” A/L 632 was introduced by 22 States, asking the Assembly to decide that any proposal which would result in depriving the Republic of China of representation in the UN is an important question under Article 18 of the Charter requiring a two-thirds majority vote. A/L 633 was a 19-Power proposal, which would have had the Assembly “affirm the right of representation of the People's Republic of China and recommend that it be seated as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council; affirm the continued right of representation of the Republic of China; and recommend that all UN bodies and the specialized agencies take into account the provisions of this resolution in deciding the question of Chinese representation. The first draft resolution was adopted; the other two were rejected.

15. Statement of 20 Octboer 1971, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11500 V No. 8. Cf. also reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 15 November 1971, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 358 p. 721; reply from the Prime Minister to written questions, 17 November 1971, Aanh. Hand.II 1971/72 No. 381 p. 769.

16. Statement of 24 November 1971, Hand.I 1971/72 p. 86.

17. Governmental Conference on the European Civil Service, Final Act of the Conference.

18. Reply from the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, also on behalf of the Minister of the Interior, to written questions, 23 November 1971, Aanh.Hand. II 1971/72 No. 407 p. 821.

19. Statement in the Second Chamber, 1 December 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1494–1495.

20. Statement in the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, 29 August 1972, Hand.II 1971/72 p. B 33.

21. Observations of 27 June 1972, A/8746 p. 41.

22. Statement of 29 August 1972 in the Standing Parliamentary Committee for foreign affairs, Hand.II 1971/72 p. B 32.

23. In their reply to written questions, 7 August 1972, the Ministers of Defence and of Justice denied the feasibility of exerting any criminal jurisdiction under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement in respect of a missile originating from U.S. military aircraft and falling on Netherlands territory. See Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 1891 p. 3803.

24. Memorandum by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister in charge of development co-operation, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11500 V No. 2 p. 11. A similar statement was given orally in the First Chamber, 16 May 1972, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 876.

25. Statement in the Second Chamber, 25 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1378.

26. Reply to written questions, 19 January 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 682 p. 1375.

27. Stc. 26 May 1972, No. 100 p. 3.

28. Statement in the Second Chamber, 10 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 964.

29. Statement by the Minister of Justice in the Second Chamber, 27 October 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 639.

30. Protocol of 6 May 1963, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1963), p. 2. Art. 1(1) of the Protocol reads: “The Court may, at the request of the Committee of Ministers, give advisory opinions on legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto”.

31. Reply to written questions, 23 March 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 1044 p. 2107.

32. Reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 10 April 1972, Aanh.Hand. II 1972/72 No. 1155 p. 2331.

33. Trb. 1971 No. 160.

34. One of these is the Protocol concerning the status of the commercial representations of the U.S.S.R. in the Netherlands, 14 July 1971, Trb. 1971 No. 163.

35. Memorandum of 19 April 1972, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11789 (R 851) No. 3 p. 4.

36. Comments of 24 April 1972, A/CN.4/253/Add.2. Also reproduced in G.A.O.R. 27th session, suppl. No. 10(A/8710/Rev. 1).

37. Ibid. Cf. also the explanatory memorandum to the 1972 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Bjjl.Hand.II 1971/72–11500 V No. 2 p. 15.

38. Stb. 1969 No. 536. See also infra p. 435.

38a. See infra p. 435.

39. Reply to written questions, 1 October 1971, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 89 p. 183. Cf. also the discussion in the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Environmental Questions, 24 May 1972, Hand. II 1971/72 p. X 15.

40. Reply to written questions, 28 March 1972, Aanh.Hand.I 1971/72 No. 109 p. 225.

41. Statement in the Second Chamber, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1234.

42. Reply to written questions, 6 March 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 944 p. 1899.

43. Stc. 23 December 1971, No. 249 p. 3.

44. Trb. 1969 No. 139.

45. Art. 6 of the agreement reads: (1) For the sole purposes of this Agreement the North Sea area is divided into the zones described in the Annex to this Agreement. (2) The Contracting Party within whose zone a situation of the kind described in Article 1 occurs, shall make the necessary assessments of the nature and extent of any casualty or, as the case may by, of the type and approximate quantity of oil floating on the sea, and the direction and speed of movement of the oil. (3) The Contracting Party concerned shall immediately inform all the other Contracting Parties through their competent authorities of its assessments and of any action which it has taken to deal with the floating oil and shall keep the oil under observation as long as it is drifting in its zone. (4) The obligations of the Contracting Parties under the provisions of this Article with respect to the zones of joint responsibility shall be the subject of special technical arrangements to be concluded between the Parties concerned. These arrangements shall be communicated to the other Contracting Parties. (5) In no case shall the division into zones referred to in this Article be invoked as a precedent or argument in any matter concerning sovereignty or jurisdiction.

46. Art. 7 reads: A Contracting Party requiring assistance to dispose of oil floating on the sea or polluting its coast may call on the help of the other Contracting Parties, starting with those which also seem likely to be affected by the floating oil. Contracting Parties called upon for help in accordance with this Article shall use their best endeavours to bring such assistance as is within their power.

47. Memorandum of reply concerning the bill of approval, 26 January 1972, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11014 No. 5 p. 2.

48. It may be recalled that the Netherlands is a co-sponsor of the seven-Power proposal (A/AC. 138/55) which contains specific provisions both on the limits and on the régime of what is there called “the coastal State priority zone”.

49. Doc. A/AC.138/SC.I/L.9. A revised text was later submitted as working document for the Main Committee and its Subcommittees, doc. A/AC. 138/86 of 16 March 1973.

50. Debate in the Second Chamber, 18 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1168–1170. Cf. also the reply from the Government to written questions, 23 November 1971, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 411 p. 829.

51. Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1168–1170.

52. See supra n. 38.

53. Reply to written-questions, 16 December 1971, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 519 p. 1045.

54. The text of the resolution is reproduced in Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 652 p. 1313 et seq.

55. The Committee's Statute was adopted by the Agreement of Berne, 29 April 1963, Trb. 1964 No. 104.

56. Established by the Netherlands-German Frontier Treaty, 8 April 1960, Chapter 4. (508 U.N.T.S. p. 14).

57. Reply to written questions, 13 January 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 652 p. 1314–1315.

58. Statement in the Special Political Committee, 15 November 1971, De Zesentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergaderingder Verenigde Naties p. 335.Google Scholar

59. Statement of 20 March 1972 at the 1157th meeting, E/CN.4/SR. 1152–1163, p. 78.

60. These two reports A/7720 (20 November 1969) and A/8052 (18 September 1970) were submitted by the Secretary-General in pursuance of General Assembly resolutions 2444 (XXIII), of 19 December 1968, and 2597 (XXIV), of 16 December 1969. The first mentioned resolution 2444 (XXIII) originated in resolution XXIII adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights, held in Teheran in spring 1968. See the two reports by the Secretary-General, and also: Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, sales no. E.68.XIV.2, chapter III.

61. Comments of 10 August 1971, A/8313/Add. 1.

62. 8 U.N.M.C. (1971) No. 4 p. 41. The subject of “model rules” originated in resolution X adopted by the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran 1968, and recommending that model rules of procedure be prepared for the guidance of the UN bodies dealing with violations of human rights. At the request of the Commission on Human Rights the UN Secretary-General had drawn up a tentative preliminary draft of such rules: E/CN.4/1021/rev. 1.

63. Comments of 15 November 1971, E/CN.4/1071/Add.2 p. 5.

64. Review of the role of the International Court of Justice, report of the Secretary-General, A/8382.

65. By courtesy of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The various parts of the reply may be found in the above UN report.

66. Statement of 11 November 1971, De Zesentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties p. 536.Google Scholar

67. Trb. 1971 No. 55 p. 62. Previous lists are to be found in Trb. 1956 No. 45 and Trb. 1965 No. 171.

68. Resolution of 9 November 1967.

69. Reply to written questions, 17 January 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 666 p. 1343.

70. See letters from the Soviet and U.S. representatives to the UN Secretary-General, A/8669 (20 March 1972) and A/8676 (30 March 1972). The suggestions were made public pursuant to General Assembly resolution 2835 (XXVI) of 17 December 1971, on “Comprehensive review of the whole question of peace-keeping operations in all their aspects”.

71. Statement in the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, 29 August 1972, Hand.II 1971/72 p. B 44. On 4 May 1972 the Netherlands representative to the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations made a statement which the summary records rendered as follows:

“…In his delegation's view, a main prerequisite for the efficacy of any operation was its ability to react swiftly to changes in the operational area. Its concern to ensure that peacekeeping operations instituted pursuant to a resolution or other form of authorization of the Security Council could be effectively carried out had led his Government to submit concrete proposals concerning the exercise of day-to-day operational management. By placing a limited amount of authority in the hands of the chairman of the ‘subsidiary organ’ established by the Council to direct a peace-keeping operation, a balance could be struck between the interests of the Security Council, which retained ultimate control over the operation, and the need for consistency, clarity and speed in instructions to the field commander. …

The Secretary-General, as ‘chief administrative officer’ of the United Nations, should, in order to be able to deal immediately with requests from the Security Council, maintain an up-to-date roster of available military personnel, contingents, facilities and services which Member States were willing to provide for peace-keeping operations and make the necessary arrangements to ensure their speedy deployment. He should also bear the responsibility for the administrative and logistic support of peace-keeping forces; to that end, it might be necessary to strengthen the Secretariat…”

72. Ibid.

73. Apparently referring to the Special Committee Report and the reports of the Working Group.

74. Statement of 28 October 1971, De Zesentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties, p. 526 et seq.Google Scholar

75. Statement of 25 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1374.

76. Statement in the plenary meeting, 18 November 1971, De Zesentwintigste lifting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties, p. 282.Google Scholar

77. See also 3 N.Y.I.L (1972) p. 134 et seq.

78. Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare, Geneva, 17 June 1925.

79. Statement of 18 November 1971, De Zesentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties, p. 280Google Scholar. Cf. also statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Second Chamber, 25 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1376.

80. See supra.

81. Statement during the 552nd plenary meeting, 23 March 1972, CCD/PV 552 p. 15 et seq.; also in Stc. 27 March 1972 No. 61 p. 3.

82. Art. IX runs as follows: “Each State Party to this Convention affirms the recognized objective of effective prohibition of chemical weapons and, to this end, undertakes to continue negotiations in good faith with a view to reaching early agreement on effective measures for the prohibition of their development, production and stockpiling and for their destruction, and on appropriate measures concerning equipment and means of delivery specifically designed for the production or use of chemical agents for weapons purposes.”

83. Statement during the 560th meeting, 27 April 1972, CCD/PV 560 p. 7.

84. Work Programme regarding negotiations on prohibition of chemical weapons, CCD/360, 20 March 1972, p. 10 et seq.

85. Statement during the 560th plenary meeting, 27 April 1972, CCD/PV 560 p. 10–11

86. Statement during the 572nd meeting, 27 July 1972, CCD/PV 572 p. 17.

87. Reply to written questions, 11 September 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 2044, p. 4109. Reference was made to an earlier statement of 12 February 1970, 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) p. 191. Cf. also the reply to written questions, 23 September 1970, 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 235.

88. Fourth International Tin Agreement, 1 July 1970, Trb. 1971 No. 84.

89. Note of 7 January 1972, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11203 (R.781) No. 10 p. 1. In a Government communication in Stc. of 26 June 1972 No. 121 mention is made of realization of the Dutch pledge. See also 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 236.

90. Annex V to the explanatory memorandum, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11.500 V No. 2 p. 46 et seq.

91. Ibid. p. 53.

92. Ibid. p. 54.

93. Statement of 6 October 1971, De Zesentwintigste Zitting van deAlgemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties, p. 345.Google Scholar

94. See also 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 183.

95. Statement in the Second Chamber, 30 November 1971, Hand.II 1971/72 p. 1402.

96. Reply from the State Secretary of Finance, also on behalf of the Minister in charge of development co-operation, to written questions, 30 March 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 1097 p. 2213.

97. Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the acting Minister in charge of development aid to the Parliamentary First Chamber Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, 16 May 1972, Bijl.Hand.I 1971/72 No. 74 c.

98. See 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 187.

99. See 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 256 and this Yearbook, infra p. 376–377.

100. Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72–11500 IX B No. 2 p. 11.

101. Id. p. 8.

102. Reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 13 July 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 1781 p. 3583.

103. Statement in the Second Chamber, 25 November 1971, Hand. II 1971/72 p. 1379.