1. The Conference was preceded by so-called Multilateral Preparatory Talks (MPT) held at Helsinki from November 1972 till June 1973. These Talks produced Final Recommendations for the future Conference concerning its organization, agenda and related instructions, participation, date, rules of procedure and financial arrangements. For text, see Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken 1912/13 [Yearbook of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs 1972/73] Annex 13. The Conference proper was to take place in three stages. The first stage consisted of a meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the participating States in July 1973 who adopted the rules of procedure, the agenda and the instructions of the working bodies of the Conference. Text of Final Communiqué of this first stage in Jaarboek etc. Annex 15. Stage two comprised the work of the specialized committees and sub-committees and started in September 1973. Ultimately, in the light of the recommendations drawn up by the Co-ordinating Committee, the Conference will meet for its third stage.

2. This refers to the instructions for the Committee on Conference agenda-item 1, i.e. “Questions relating to security in Europe”. See, for the text, Jaarboek etc. Annex 13. The principles listed are: sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; refraining from the threat or use of force; inviolability of frontiers; territorial integrity of States; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-intervention in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; equal rights and self-determination of peoples; co-operation among States; fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law.

3. Jaarboek etc. Annex 14, pp. 71–72.

4. Luchtvaartwet, Stb. 1958, No. 47.

5. The Bill uses the following definition: “Airlines: owners of concerns whose business wholly or partly consists of the transport of persons, animals or goods by aircraft.” See Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 12128 No. 2 p. 1. Art. 96(c) of the Convention reads: “ ‘Airline’ means any air transport enterprise offering or operating an international air service.” 15 U.N.T.S. p. 295.

6. Government Note to Parliament, 13 September 1973, Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 12128 No 6 p. 3.

7. TD/B/AC. 12/2/Add. 1, 9 August 1973, p. 27. See also infra, 16.1, p. 255

8. See also infra, 13.223, p. 250

9. Cf. 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) p. 141; 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 190; 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 309. As to the past parliamentary year see, inter alia, reply to written questions, 8 January 1973, Aanh. Hand.II 1972/73 No. 181 p. 365.

10. All three texts are included in Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 12215 No. 1.

11. The Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Second Chamber, 21 February 1973, Hand.II 1972/73 p. 628.

12. Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 12000 V No. 19, p. 2.

13. Sometimes the Dutch term ‘Statuut’ has been translated as ‘Statute’.

14. Reply to written questions, 30 July 1973, Aanh.Hand.II 1972/73 No. 1421 p. 2847. The statement was originally included in a Note of 2 July 1973 to the President of the Special Committee, OAS document OEA/Ser. P, CEESI/doc. 22/73.

15. G.A.O.R. 27th session, Supplement No. 10 (A/8710/Rev. 1).

16. Art. 6 of the draft reads: The present articles apply only to the effects of a succession of States occurring in conformity with international law and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

17. Article 26 reads: 1. On the uniting of two or more States in one State, any treaty in force at that date between any of those States and other States parties to the treaty continues in force between the successor State and such other States parties unless:

(a) the successor State and the other States parties otherwise agree; or

(b) the application of the particular treaty after the uniting of the States would be incompatible with its object and purpose or the effect of the uniting of States is radically to change the conditions for the operation of the treaty.

2. Any treaty continuing in force in conformity with paragraph 1 is binding only in relation to the area of the territory of the successor State in respect of which the treaty was in force at the date of the uniting of the States unless:

(a) the successor State notifies the parties or the depositary of a multilateral treaty that the treaty is to be considered as binding in relation to its entire territory;

(b) in the case of a multilateral treaty falling under article 12, paragraph 3, the successor State and all the parties otherwise agree; or

(c) in case of a bilateral treaty, the successor State and the other State party otherwise agree.

3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 apply also when a successor State itself unites with another State.

18. Article 15 reads: 1. When a newly independent State establishes its status as a party or as a contracting State to a multilateral treaty by a notification of succession, it shall be considered as maintaining any reservations which was applicable in respect of the territory in question at the date of the succession of States unless:

(a) in notifying its succession to the treaty, it expresses a contrary intention or formulates a new reservation which relates to the same subject matter and is incompatible with the said reservation; or (b) the said reservation must be considered as applicable only in relation to the predecessor State.

2. When establishing its status as a party or a contracting State to a multilateral treaty under article 12 or 13, a newly independent State may formulate a new reservation unless:

(a) the reservation is prohibited by the treaty;

(b) the treaty provides that only specified reservations, which do not include the reservation in question, may be made; or

(c) in cases not falling under sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

3. (a) When a newly independent State formulates a new reservation in conformity with the preceding paragraph the rules set out in articles 20, 21, 22 and article 23, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties apply.

(b) However, in the case of a treaty falling under the rules set out in paragraph 2 of article 20 of that Convention, no objection may be formulated by a newly independent State to a reservation which has been accepted by all the parties to the treaty.

19. Article 12 reads: 1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, a newly independent State may, by notification of succession, establish its status as a party to any multilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.

2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if the object and purpose of the treaty are incompatible with the participation of the successor State in that treaty.

3. When, under the terms of the treaty or by reason of the limited number of the negotiating States and the object and purpose of the treaty, the participation of any other State in the treaty must be considered as requiring the consent of all the parties, the successor State may establish its status as a party to the treaty only with such consent.

20. Statement of 29 September 1972, text in: De Zevenentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties (Ministry for Foreign Affairs publication No. 102), 1973, pp. 507–509.Google Scholar

21. Chapter XI of the United Nations, and G.A. Res. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.

22. Bijl.Hand.II 1972 - 12000 V No. 2 p. 23.

23. Ibid.

24. Letter of 31 October 1972, Bijl.Hand.II 1972 - 12000 V No. 8. Cf. also the statement of the Minister for Development Co-operation in the Second Chamber of 21 February 1973, Hand.II 1972/73 p. 632, and his reply to written questions, 30 July 1973, Aanh.Hand.II 1972/73 No. 1422 p. 2849.

25. Hand.II 1972/73 p. 1573.

26. G.A. Res. 2795 (XXVI) of 10 December 1971, para. 13, and G.A. Res. 2918 (XXVII) of 14 November 1972, para. 4.

27. Hand.II 1972/73 p. 1661. Cf. also the statement of the Netherlands delegate in the 55th session of ECOSOC on 5 July 1973, Stc. 25 July 1973 No. 141, pp. 1 and 3, and the reply by the Minister for Development Co-operation to written questions, 30 July 1973, Aanh.Hand.II 1972/73 No. 1422 p. 2849.

28. The statement of 24 April 1973 made by the Netherlands delegate to the 54th session of ECOSOC in the Co-ordination Committee reads, inter alia: “… The implementation of the Strategy should, however, not be the sole concern of the Economic and Social Council. Already, the United Nations is seized with the problem of the preservation and the enhancement of the human environment. Other problems of a world-wide nature, equally affecting both developed and developing countries, may emerge, problems of a long-term or of an emergency nature which may be summarized under the concept of collective economic security. The Council should be adequately strengthened to tackle these problems as well. And last, but not least, the Council should be revitalized to deal with its normal continuing functions in particular in respect of its powers of co-ordination for the whole of the UN system ….” (Text by courtesy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs).

29. Committee for Programme and Co-ordination.

30. Advisory Commission for Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

31. Statement of 6 October 1972, De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 307.Google Scholar

32. Draft resolution A/C.2/L.1246 submitted by Kenya and a number of other co-sponsors.

33. Statement by the Netherlands delegate in the Second Committee of the UN General Assembly on 6 November 1972, De Zevenenrwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 363–364.Google Scholar

34. Text of the draft principles in doc. E/CN.4/1077.

35. Act of 4 July 1957, Stb. 1957 No. 233.

36. E/CN.4/1112/Add. 6, 15 March 1973, p. 3.

37. The Article reads, inter alia: “1. Aliens originating from a country where they have cause to fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion may be admitted as refugees.

2. Admission cannot be refused except for important reasons connected with the public interest if refusal would force the alien concerned to return immediately to a country as meant in para. 1. …”

38. G.A. Res. 2312 (XXII) of 14 December 1967.

39. Statement of 1 February 1972, Hand.I 1971/72 p. 283. As to Dutch law on aliens with particular reference to refugees see 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 177–185.

40. Art. 104 provides, inter alia, that pending a decision on the application for renewal of a residence permit, persons who are refugees under the 1951 Convention may not be expelled.

41. Art. 32 reads: “1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

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 competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority;…” 189 U.N.T.S. p. 137.

42. See 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) pp. 200–201.

43. This implies the right of residence for an unlimited period of time. See 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 256.

44. See supra, n. 37.

45. Reply of 14 April 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1971/72 No. 1203 p. 2427.

46. On the crime of apartheid see infra, 11.3, p. 239

47. Statement of 17 October 1972, De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 391.Google Scholar

48. G.A. Res. 2106 A (XX) of 21 December 1965. Text also in Trb. 1966 No. 237 and 660 U.N.T.S. p. 195. Entry into force for the Netherlands: 9 January 1972, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 369.

49. Communication by CERD of 28 January 1970, doc. CERD/C/R.12.

50. The report gives an example of such action by the central Government: “In this connection it should be noted that the annulment is under consideration of a by-law of the Municipality of Rotterdam of September 1972, already suspended by the central government, restricting the number of foreign workers as well as nationals of the Kingdom from Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles taking up residence in that municipality. The question is also being considered of whether the by-law is a violation of the Convention on Racial Discrimination.”

51. Stb. 1971 No. 96, operative as of 29 March 1971. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 431. On the occasion of the representation of the report at the UN the Netherlands delegate explained that while the Act of 18 February 1971 speaks of “discrimination on account of race” this is to include discrimination because of colour, nationality or ethnical orgin. NRC - Handelsblad of 10 September 1973.

52. This refers to the newly inserted Art. 429 quater of the Penal Code which reads: “Any person who, in the exercise of his profession or business, discriminates against a person on account of his race when proffering goods or services, or when fulfilling an offer, shall be liable to a term of detention not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding one thousand guilders.”

53. By its basic decision of 31 January 1919 in Lindenbaum v. Cohen, N.J. 1919 No. 161, the Supreme Court introduced a new, extensive, interpretation of Article 1401 of the Civil Code, defining tort. Under this interpretation behaviour in conflict with the due care for the person or property of others that is befitting in social relations justifies a claim in tort.

54. In fact Article 429 quater, see supra n. 52. On 13 November 1973 the Local Court (Kantongerecht) at Amsterdam took a decision in the first case under this provision: Some restaurant or nightclub allegedly had denied entry to people because of their colour. The case is sub judice before the Supreme Court.

55. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 431–433.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid.

58. Report of 12 March 1973, Jaarboek van net Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken 1972/1973. Annex 3.Google Scholar

59. Res. 3027 (XXVII) of 18 December 1972.

60. Prepared by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, A/8330 Annex 1.

61. Including draft articles. Doc. A/8330 Annex II.

62. A/9134, 29 August 1973 pp. 20–21, reproducing the comments of 1964 originally included in E/3925/Add. 1, 2 July 1964, pp. 10–11. Later the Netherlands Government submitted a new draft in which all preceding discussions on the subject had been taken into account. Cf. Additional Observations of 21 August 1973, A/9134/Add. 1 pp. 5–7.

63. E/CN.4/Sub.2/235/Add. 1, 10 January 1964.

64. Summary Records of the 1234th meeting on 30 March 1973, E/CN.4/SR 1217–1242 (22 June 1973), p. 281.

65. Statement of 13 September 1973, Hand.II 1972/73 p. 2544.

66. Bijl.Hand.II 1972 - 12000 V No. 2 pp. 22, 23. For previous statements about fact-finding and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights see 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 202 and 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 337.

67. See e.g. Arts. 9(2), 10(2) and 11(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

68. Note to Parliament, 27 January 1972, Bijl.Hand.II 1971/72 - 11689 No. 2 p. 6.

69. Trb. 1965 No. 92.

70. Telegraph and Telephone Act, Stb. 1904 No.7.

71. Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 11373, 11374, No. 8 and Annex II pp. 7–8 containing the opinion of Professor M. Bos of the University of Utrecht.

72. The proposed new Article 3 septies reads: “1. It is prohibited: (a) to use, on board a ship or aircraft outside any national territory, a radio electric transmitter for the purpose of emitting verbal, tonal or visual programs for the benefit of the public.” Cf. 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 224.

73. Art. 1 of theAgreements reads: “This agreement is concerned with broadcasting stations which are installed or maintained on board ships, aircraft, or any other 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.”

74. Reference is made here to Verzijl's article “The controversy regarding the so-called extra-territorial effect of the American anti-trust law”. 8 N.T.I.R. (1961) pp. 3–30 at pp. 9–11.Google Scholar

75. Note of 19 June 1973, Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 11373, 11374, No. 9 p. 6.

76. Statement of 27 June 1973, Hand.II 1972/73 p. 2124.

77. Art. 1(4)(a) Fisheries Act 1963 (Visserijwet).

78. Memorandum of reply to the Second Chamber concerning the proposed approval of the Convention on the Conduct of Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic of 1 June 1967, and the denunciation of a number of other international fisheries agreements, 4 December 1972, Bijl. Hand.II 1972 - 11385, 11386, No. 6 p. 2.

79. See Jaarboek van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken 1967/1968 p. 182 et seq.

80. Resolution on special situations relating to coastal fisheries, Trb. 1959 No. 123, pp. 56–7; United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Off.Rec. vol. II, p. 144.Google Scholar

81. Reply of 21 September 1972, Aanh.Hand.II 1972 No. 23 p. 47.

82. Text by courtesy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Summary of the speech in doc. A/AC.138/SC.II/SR 48–62, 16 May 1973.

83. Reference was made to various proposals as formulated in docs. A/AC.138/SC.II/L 39, L 41, L 34 para. 2(3), L 40 and Con. 2, and L 24.

84. See supra: Two requirements for the future law of the sea.

85. Text by courtesy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

86. The Netherlands was not a member of the Working Group but took part in its work. This was possible because of the open-ended character of the group.

87. Reference is made here to the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea of 13 November 1972; text in 11 I.L.M. (1972) p. 1294 et seq.

88. A/AC.138/SC.III/L 35, 23 March 1973.

89. Signed at Oslo on 15 February 1972, Trb. 1972 No. 62.

90. Art. 5 reads: “The dumping of the substances listed in Annex I to this Convention is prohibited.”

91. I.e. the north-eastern part of the Atlantic including the North Sea.

92. Art. 3 reads: “The Contracting Parties agree to apply measures which they adopt in such a way as to prevent the diversion of dumping of harmful substances into seas outside the area to which the Convention applies.”

93. Memorandum by the Minister of Transport and Public Works, the Minister of Justice and the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 5 March 1973, Bijl.Hand.II 1972/73 - 12293 No. 3 pp. 4–5.

94. Bijl.Hand.II 1968/69 - 10098 No. 2. See for earlier statements concerning the bill: 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 153 and 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) p. 178.

95. Art. 2 reads: “1. The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. 2. The rights referred to in para. 1 of this Article are exclusive in the sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake these activities, or make a claim to the continental shelf without the express consent of the coastal State….”

96. Stb. 1965 No. 428.

97. Statement of 10 April 1973, Hand.II 1972/73 pp. 1388–1389.

98. Statement of 16 November 1972, De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 513–516Google Scholar. See also the observations submitted by the Netherlands in pursuance of G.A. Res. 3034 (XXVII), doc. A/AC.160/1 of 16 March 1973 p. 20.

99. 78 U.N.T.S. p. 278.

100. The Article reads: “Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Art. III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”

101. Comments of April 1973, text by courtesy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

102. A/C.3/L.1871, also as Annex I to A/8768. Submitted on 5 November 1971.

103. E/CN.4/L.1189, also as Annex II to A/8768.

104. At the request of the UN Secretary-General, in accordance with Res. 4(XXVII) of the Commission on Human Rights.

105. Reply of 15 September 1972, doc. A/8768/Add. 1, p. 2. During the subsequent voting on the drafts in the Commission on Human Rights and the ECOSOC the Netherlands abstained from voting. Cf. also the reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 26 April 1973, Aanh.Hand.II 1972/73 No. 795 p. 1595, and the explanation of vote on 18 May 1973 in the plenary meeting of the 54th session of ECOSOC.

106. See report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 24th session (2 May 7 July 1972), G.A.O.R. 27th session Supplement No. 10 (A/8710/Rev. 1) pp. 91–102.

107. Comments of 24 April 1972, ibid. pp. 119–120, or A/CN.4/253/Add. 2. Also reproduced in part in 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 323–324.

108. “1. The intentional commission, regardless of motive of: (a) A violent attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person; (b) A violent attack upon the official premises or the private accomodation of an internationally protected person likely to endanger his person or liberty; (c) A threat to commit any such attack; (d) An attempt to commit any such attack; and (e) Participation as an accomplice in any such attack, shall be made by each State Party a crime under its internal law, whether the commission of the crime occurs within or outside of its territory.”

109. Reference was made to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention on Special Missions and the ILC draft articles on the Representation of States in their relations with International Organizations.

110. Art. 2 paras. 2 and 3 read: “2. Each State Party shall make these crimes punishable by severe penalties which take into account the aggravated nature of the offence.

3. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over these crimes.”

111. Art. 5 reads: “1. The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall take the appropriate measures under its internal law so as to ensure his presence for prosecution or extradition. Such measures shall be immediately notified to the State where the crime was committed, the State or States of which the alleged offender is a national, the State or States of which the internationally protected person concerned is a national and all interested States.

2. Any person regarding whom the measures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article are being taken shall be entitled to communicate immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national and to be visited by a representative of that State.”

112. Art. 6 reads: “The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite him, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the laws of that State.”

113. These Articles read: Article 6:

1. Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, any Contracting State in the territory of which the offender or the alleged offender is present, shall take him into custody or take other measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may only be continued for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.

2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary enquiry into the facts.

3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national.

4. When a State, pursuant to this Article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the State of registration of the aircraft, the State mentioned in Article 4, paragraph 1(c), the State of nationality of the detained person and, if it considers it advisable, any other interested States of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary enquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this Article shall promptly report its findings to the said States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7:

The Contracting State in the territory of which the alleged offender is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State.”

114. Art. 12 Hague Convention; Art. 14 Montreal Convention.

115. A/9127 (28 August 1973).

116. Published in September 1972, i.e. one year before the latest war of October 1973.

117. Resolution of 9 November 1967.

118. Bijl.Hand.II 1972 - 12000 V No. 2 p. 12. Cf. also the statement by the Netherlands representative in the UN General Assembly, 7 December 1972, De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 239–241.Google Scholar

119. See 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 192.

120. Cf. 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 342.

121. “6. Invites Israel to declare publicly its adherence to the principle of non-annexation of territories through the use of force.”

122. “8. Calls upon all States not to recognize any such changes [in the occupied Arab territories in contravention of the Geneva Convention of 1949] and measures carried out by Israel in the occupied Arab territories and invites them to avoid actions, including actions in the field of aid, that could constitute recognition of that occupation.”

123. “9. Recognizes that respect for the rights of the Palestinians is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

124. De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 242–243.Google Scholar

125. Cf. written questions in the Second Chamber, Aanh.Hand.II 1972/73 No. 1121 p. 2247, and No. 1366 p. 2737.

126. Memorandum of reply to the First Chamber, Bijl.Hand.I 1972/73 No.78a p.1. The Commission, established 14 September 1973, submitted an interim report in December 1974. For the general Dutch view on the Rhodesian problem, see supra, 3.121. p. 203

127. E.g. statement of 29 April 1971 in the CCD, doc. CCD/PV/512 p. 15, 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 233, and statement in the UN General Assembly on 18 November 1971, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 347.

128. CCD/PV/608 (28 June 1973) pp. 9–10. For on-site inspection with regard to chemical weapons: see infra.

129. For the statements of the Netherlands in the CCD see CCD/PV/552 p. 15 et seq., CCD/ PV/560 p. 7 et seq., and CCD/PV/572 p. 17. Parts of the statements are reproduced in 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 348–354.

130. The Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed on 17 June 1925, 94 L.N.T.S. p. 65.

131. Statement of 6 November 1972, De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 256.Google Scholar

132. CCD/410, 31 July 1973.

133. Statement of 27 April 1972, CCD/PV/560 p. 10, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 352–353.

134. I.e. the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), the Treaty on the Prohibition of Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof (1971), and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972).

135. CCD/PV/617, 31 July 1973, pp. 7–8.

136. CCD/410, 31 July 1973, pp. 14.

137. Art. VI of the Convention, 10 I.L.M. (1971) p. 1179.

138. Statement of 23 August 1973, CCD/PV/624, pp. 14–15.

139. E/5263

140. Statement of 2 May 1973, during the 54th session of ECOSOC, De Economische en Sociale Raad van de Verenigde Naties in 1973 (Ministry for Foreign Affairs publication No. 104) pp. 216–217.

141. Norway finally did not accede.

142. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 355–357.

143. Memorandum of June 1972, later published as Annex V to the 1973 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Bijl.Hand.II 1972 - 12000 V No. 3, Annex V p. 17.

144. Statement of 5 July 1973, Stc. 24 July 1973 No. 141 pp. 1 and 3. Cf. also the statement by the Netherlands delegate in the Committee on Review and Appraisal (of ECOSOC) on 24 May 1973, De Economische en Sociale Raad van de Verenigde Naties in 1973 (Ministry for Foreign Affairs publication No. 104) p. 316.

145. The draft principle reads: “Relevant information must be supplied by States on activities or developments within their jurisdiction or under their control whenever they believe, or have reason to believe, that such information is needed to avoid the risk of significant adverse effects on the environment in areas beyond their national jurisdiction.”

146. Explanation of vote, 2 November 1972, De Zevenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 347.Google Scholar