1. Memorandum of 28 October 1976, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14100 V No. 11 p. 9.

2. Statement of 3 November 1976, Hand. II 1976/77 p. 942.

3. Text in GAOR, 29th Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/9610/Rev.1), and in ILC Yearbook 1974 vol. II Part One, pp. 157–332.

4. Doc. A/CONF.80/C.1/L.35; also in Doc. A/CONF.80/15, Annex 2 p. 27, para. 95(a). The amendment was accompanied by a consequential amendment to Article 2 (“Use of terms”), reading as follows: “Add to the text of article 2, paragraph 1, a subparagraph reading as follows: ‘multilateral treaty open to universal participation’ means an international agreement open to participation by at least all States Members of the United Nations.”

At the 26th meeting of the Committee of the Whole of the Conference the amendment was withdrawn; see Report of the United Nations Conference on succession of States in respect of treaties, Doc. A/CONF.80/15 of 22 June 1977, Annex 2 p. 29, para. 97.

5. Provisional Summary Record of the Twenty-third Meeting of the Committee of the Whole, Doc. A/CONF.80/C.1/SR.3 2 of 22 April 1977 p. 14.

6. See also GA Res. 31/53 of 1 December 1976 and SC Res. 384 and 389 of 22 December 1975 and 22 April 1976 respectively.

7. Statement of 3 March 1977, Hand. II 1976/77 pp. 3576, 3584.

8. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 175.

9. The resolutions were adopted by the General Assembly on 26 October and 9 November 1976 (31/6 A-K).

10. Statement of 9 November 1976, Verslag over de Eenendertigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties (Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 117, 1976, hereafter to be cited Eenendertigste Zitting) p. 299; also in Doc. A/31/PV.58, GAOR, Thirty-first Session, vol. II p. 938.

11. Article XXI (c) reads: “Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed … (c) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

12. Cf., for its introduction in Parliament: 8 NYIL (1977) p. 205.

13. See the final Committee Report, Bijl. Hand. II 1977 – 14006 No. 7 p. 2.

14. Note of 29 August 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1977 – 14006 No. 8 p. 2.

15. Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 315.

16. At a later stage of the discussion this aspect was elaborated as follows: “… The recommendations in question must, of course, be carried out by a substantial majority of General Assembly members, if they are to effect their purpose. As a rule, it will also be essential for these Members to include those states whose participation in the implementation is decisive for the effect of the proposed sanctions… ” Bijl. Hand. II 1977 – 14007 No. 8 p. 5.

17. Art. 2 of the Bill refers to “decisions or recommendations by organs of inter-governmental organizations [“organizations based on international law”], or international accords concerning the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security or the promotion of the international legal order”.

18. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14006 No. 5 pp. 13–14.

19. Statement of 3 November 1976, Hand. II 1976/77 p. 946.

20. Note of 8 August 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1977–14513 No. 3 pp. 2–3.

21. Statement of 22 August 1977, Hand. II 1977 (OCV 1) p. 22.

22. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 163.

23. The meeting of the European Council of the Heads of Government of the nine Member States of the EEC was held in Brussels. See on the “European Council”, the communiqué of the Conference of the Heads of Government of the Community, 10 December 1974, in 12 CML Rev. (1975) p. 143.

24. Memorandum of 21 March 1977, Bijl. Hand. I 1976/77 No. 72b p. 11.

25. Bulletin of the European Communities 1977 No. 3 p. 70, para. 2.3.1.Google Scholar

26. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 163.

27. See for a summary of the statement of 23 August 1977, Bulletin of the European Communities 1911 No. 7/8 pp. 61–63, para. 2.2.6.Google Scholar

28. Full text of the Netherlands statement calling for a mandatory arms embargo under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Stc. of 26 August 1977 No. 166 pp. 1, 3.

29. Reply to written questions, 29 August 1977, Aanh. Hand. II 1977 No. 334 p. 681.

30. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76–13600 V No. 42.

31. EG-Memorandum inzake nood- en humanitaire hulp, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14100 V No. 21. Also in Stc. of 12 November 1976 No. 221 pp. 1–2.

32. Statement of 26 October 1976, Eenendertigste Zitting p. 279; also in Doc. A/31/PV.41, GAOR, Thirty-first Session, vol. II p. 693.

33. The twenty-sixth session of the OAU Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs opened on 23 February 1976.

34. Statement of 3 November 1976, Hand. II 1976/77 p. 909.

35. Res. 1913 (LVII), para. 1, of 5 December 1974, text in ECOSOC, Official Records, Resumed Fifty-seventh Session, Resolutions, Suppl. 1A, E/5570/Add. 1 p. 3.

36. Commission on Transnational Corporations, Report on the Second Session (1–12 March 1976), ECOSOC, Official Records, Sixty-first Session, Suppl. No. 5, E/5782-E/C.10/16 p. 3, para. 10.

37. Decision 180 (LXI), para, (c) of 5 August 1976. Text in ECOSOC, Official Records, Sixty-first Session, Resolutions and Decisions, Suppl. No. 1, E/5889 p. 19.

38. Established under ECOSOC Res. 2041 (LXI) of 5 August 1976, para. 1(a). Text in ECOSOC, Official Records, Sixty-first Session, Resolutions and Decisions, Suppl. No. 1, E/5889 p. 17.

39. Resolution of 24 October 1970, to which is annexed the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

40. The Information and Research Centre on TNCs was established under ECOSOC Res. 1908 (LVII), para. 6 of 2 August 1974.

41. The “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development” are embodied in a “Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises”; text in OECD Press Release PRESS/A(76) 20, Paris, 21 June 1976.

42. See for its establishment, ECOSOC, Official Records, Fifty-ninth Session, Suppl. No. 12, E/5655 p. 5, para. 19.

43. Report of the Secretariat, of 30 December 1976, Transnational corporations: views and proposals of States on a code of conduct, E/C.10/19 pp. 11–13.

44. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14319 No. 1.

45. In modern Dutch legislative practice a preliminary draft is drawn up when, in the Government's view, the subject at issue requires profound discussion in as broad circles as possible before a formal bill is submitted to Parliament.

46. Voorontwerp van Rijkswet, annexed to Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14319 No. 1 (hereafter cited as Voorontwerp) p. 4.

47. Domicile or factual residence in the Kingdom for a specific period of time, such as five years, immediately preceding the application is one of the factual requirements for obtaining Netherlands nationality, as incorporated in Art. 8(c) of the preliminary draft, as well as in Art. 3 para. 3(2) of the Act in force (Netherlands Nationality Act (Wet op net Nederlanderschap en het ingezetenschap) of 12 December 1892, Stb. 1892 No. 268).

48. Art. 10 para. 1(b) reads, in part: “The request is dismissed:…(b) if [the applicant] is seriously suspected of endangering public order, good morals, public health or the security of the Kingdom”.

49. Voorontwerp, Commentary pp. 27–28, 29. Cf., the official commentary on the “Guidelines” for naturalization under Art. 5 of the Act of 12 December 1892, Stc. 27 April 1977 No. 81 p. 4.

50. Act of 8 September 1976, Stb. 1976 No. 465; see 8 NYIL (1977) p. 325.

51. Voorontwerp, Commentary pp. 2–3.

52. The figures covering the period 1961–1975 are given in a letter from the State Secretary for Justice to the First Chamber, with the reference Hoofdafdeling Privaatrecht No. 553/176. The 1976 figure is mentioned in a reply from the State Secretary to written parliamentary questions on the subject of nationality, 23 March 1977, Aanh. Hand. I 1976/77 No. 39 p. 77.

53. The relevant paragraphs of the Article read: “ 1. A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless…

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Constracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time: (a) that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person (i) has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from another State…

4. A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted by paragraph…3 of this Article except in accordance with law, which shall provide for the person-concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body”. Text in Trb. 1967 No. 124.

54. Voorontwerp, Commentary pp. 7–8.

55. The proposed draft Art. 1.2 para. 3 reads: “Extradition shall take place only by virtue of a treaty. Further rules on extradition shall be provided by Act”. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14200 No. 5 p. 22.

56. See Art. 4 of the Act of 9 March 1967 (Stb. 1967 No. 139).

57. Art. 4 para. 2 of the Constitution reads: “The admittance and expulsion of aliens and the general conditions on which extradition treaties can be concluded with foreign Powers, will be determined by law”.

58. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14200 No. 3 p. 7.

59. Stb. 1973 No. 228; 4 NYIL (1973) pp. 437–440.

60. Bijl. Hand. II 1971/72 – 11866 No. 3 p. 7.

61. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14200 No. 3 p. 8.

62. Statement of 26 January 1977, Hand. II 1976/77 pp. 2771–2772.

63. Report of the Group of Experts on the Draft Convention, Annex to Doc. A/10177 Corr., of 29 August 1975.

64. Ibid. p. 18.

65. Ibid. p. 16.

66. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, Trb. 1951 No. 131.

67. Art. 3 para. 1, GA Res. 2312 (XXII) of 14 December 1967.

68. Art. 2 para. 3 of the OAU Convention governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, of 10 September 1969, 8 ILM (1969) p. 1288.

69. Art. 10 para. 1, Act of 9 March 1967, Stb. 1967 No. 139.

70. It appears from the next paragraph of the statement that the reference here is to the provision as adopted by the Committee of the Whole, Doc. A/CONF.78/C.1/L.104/Add. 1 of 2 February 1977 pp. 23–24.

71. Draft Art. 4, as reworded in the light of the discussions of the Kxperts, reads: “A person seeking asylum at the frontier or in the territory of a Contracting State shall be admitted provisionally to or permitted to remain in the territory of that State pending a determination of his request, which shall be considered by a competent authority”. See Report p. 22.

72. The amendment to Art. 3 para. 1 reads: “No person entitled to the benefits of this Convention who is in the territory or at the frontier of a Contracting State shall be subjected by such Contracting States to measures such as return, expulsion or rejection at the frontier, which would compel him to return to or remain in a territory where his life or freedom would be threatened for any of the reasons stated in Article 2”. Doc. A/CONF.78/C.1/L.44 p. 5.

The amendment to Art. 4 reads: “1. A person seeking asylum at the frontier of a Contracting State, if refusal to admit him would result in the return of such a person to a country in respect of which he has put forward a prima facie claim of persecution, shall be admitted provisionally to the territory of that Contracting State.

2. A person already in the territory of a Contracting State who requests asylum shall be permitted to remain in the territory of that Contracting State pending a determination of his request by a competent authority.

3. A person requesting the benefits of this Convention shall not, for the purposes of the law of the Contracting State, be deemed to be in the territory of the Contracting State considering his request pending its determination by a competent authority, unless he otherwise has permission to remain”. Doc. A/CONF.78/C.1/L.45 p. 3.

73. Statement of 1 February 1977, Verslag van de koninkrijksdelegatie naar de plenipotentiaire conferentie inzake territoriaal asiel [Report of the Kingdom Delegation to the Plenipotentiary Conference on Territorial Asylum], Annex 12. Cf., 6 NYIL (1975) pp. 276–277.

74. Art. 1 (A.2) of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Trb. 1951 No. 131.

75. Art. 15 para. 1 of the Act of 13 January 1965, Stb. 1965 No. 40. The reasons given in both the instruments are: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or the holding of a political opinion.

76. Art. 10 para. 1(b) of the Aliens Act grants (the right of) residence for an unlimited period to aliens admitted as refugees.

77. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14100 VI No. 2 pp. 49–50.

78. The so-called Sanctions Bill, cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 205.

79. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76–14006 No. 3 p. 8.

80. See Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14006 No. 4 p. 9.

81. Memorandum of Reply, 23 May 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14006 No. 5 pp. 15–16.

82. Doc. A/C.3/31/L.4. On 13 December 1976 the draft resolution was adopted by the General Assembly (31/80).

83. Annex to GA Res. 3068 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973.

84. See Art. 3 of the Convention, which reads: “International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of the State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they: (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the commission of the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention: (b) Directly abet, encourage or co-operate in the commission of the crime of apartheid”.

85. The offences are listed in Art. 2 of the Convention.

86. I.e., the Commission on Human Rights.

87. Statement of 8 October 1976, Eenendertigste Zitting p. 445. Summary in Doc.A/C.3/31/SR. 12 pp. 7–8.

88. Art. 1.6 of the proposals reads: “1. Everyone has the right freely to manifest his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others, subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law. 2. In respect of the exercise of this right other than in buildings and private premises, the law may make regulations for the protection of health, in the interests of traffic and to combat or prevent disorder”. See Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76–13872 No. 5 p. 111.

89. Statement of 15 December 1976, Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2145.

90. Report of 3 March 1977, Doc. CERD/C/9 of 7 March 1977, Jaarboek van het Department van Buitenlandse Zaken [Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] 1976–1977, Annex 29 pp. 146B-150B.

The first report is dated 12 March 1973, Doc. CERD/C/R.50/Add.4; cf., 5 NYIL (1974) p. 217. The second report, of 18 March 1975, in Doc. CERD/C/4; cf., 7 NYIL (1976) p. 261.

91. GAOR, Thirty-second Session, Suppl. No. 18, A/32/18 of 19 August 1977 pp. 54–56.

92. Trb. 1964 No. 77. Art. 2 reads: “1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 4. The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society”.

93. Reply to written questions, 4 April 1977, Aanh. Hand. II 1976/77 No. 915 p. 1833.

94. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76–13932 (R 1037) No. 2 p. 2.

95. Annex to the Explanatory Memorandum, Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76 – 13932 (R 1037) No. 4 p. 62.

96. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76–13932 (R 1037) No. 3 p. 15.

97. The Dutch term “wet in materiële zin” [law in the material sense] means any binding rule of a general character, irrespective of its origin; it is contrasted with “wet in formele zin” [law in the formal sense], which means Acts of the Queen and Parliament.

98. Council of Europe Doc. H (70) 7 p. 9.

99. See, inter alia, the decisions of the Supreme Court of 25 June 1963 (NJ 1964 No. 239; annotation by Professor Röling, B.V.A. in 11 NILR (1964) pp. 300–303)Google Scholar, 24 January 1967 (NJ 1967 No. 272), 30 May 1967 (NJ 1968 No. 5), 7 November 1967 (NJ 1968 No. 75), and 15 April 1975 (NJ 1976 No. 23; 7 NYIL (1976) pp. 340–341).

100. See, inter alia, case 1860/63, 8 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1965) p. 205Google Scholar, and case 1983/63, ibid. p. 228. With regard to Art. 10, see also the report of the Commission in Five Soldiers v. the Netherlands, para. 157.

101. See decision of 18 June 1971, 14 Yearbook of the European Convention on human Rights (1971) p. 831.Google Scholar

102. Bijl. Hand. II 1977 – 13932 (R 1037) No. 8 p. 9..

103. See also pp. 217–218 supra.

104. Art. 12 reads: “1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necesary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the right and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant”

105. Act of 4 August 1947 (Sib. 1947 No. H 291).

106. Bijl. Hand. II 1946/47–424 No. 3 p. 6.

107. Supreme Court, 18 April 1961, NJ (1961) No. 273. The judgement was annotated by Professor Röling, B.V.A. in 9 NILR (1962) pp. 315–317.Google Scholar

108. Art. 5 para. 1 reads: “1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant”.

109. Art. 26 reads: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

110. Bijl. Hand. II 1977–13932 (R 1037) No. 8 pp. 15–16.

111. Reply to written questions, 24 January 1977, Aanh. Hand. II 1976/77 No. 587 p. 1171.

112. Act of 13 January 1965, Stb. 1965 No. 40.

113. Treaty of 11 April 1960, Trb. 1960 No. 40.

114. Regulation of the Ministerial Working Group for the Movement of Persons (Werkgroep voor het personenverkeer) of 8 December 1969, concerning the requirements for the entry of aliens, Benelux Doc. M/P (69) 1.

115. Memorandum of Reply to the First Chamber concerning the 1977 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Bijl. Hand. I 1976/77 No. 72b pp. 8–9.

116. Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken 1976-1977 pp. 197B–249B.Google Scholar

117. Cf., for its introduction in Parliament: 8 NYIL (1977) p. 205.

118. Bijl. Hand. II 1977–14006 No. 9 p. 1.

119. Art. 5 para. 1(2) reads: “Dutch penal law is applicable to Dutch nationals committing outside the Netherlands:…(2) an offence regarded as a misdriff in Dutch penal law and punishable under the law of the country where it lias been committed.”

120. Bijl. Hand. II 1977 – 14006 No. 9 pp. 2–3.

121. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. 5 p. 185 (A/CONF.62/WP.9/REV.1).

122. See 8 NYIL (1977) p. 186.

123. Art. 18 para. 1 reads: “1. Nothing contained in the present Convention shall empower any Contracting Party to submit to the dispute settlement procedures provided for in the present Convention any dispute in relation to the exercise of sovereign rights, exclusive rights or exclusive jurisdiction of a coastal State, except in the following cases: (a) when it is claimed that a coastal State has violated its obligations under the present Convention by interfering with the freedom of navigation or overflight, the freedom to lay submarine cables or pipelines or by failing to give due regard to any substantive rights specifically established by the present Convention in favour of other States; (b) when it is claimed that any other State, when exercising the aforementioned freedoms, has violated its obligations under the Convention or the laws and regulations enacted by a coastal State in conformity with the present Convention; or (c) when it is claimed that a coastal State has violated its obligations under the present Convention by failing to apply international standards or criteria established by the present Convention or by a competent international authority in accordance therewith, which are applicable to the coastal State and which relate to the preservation of the marine environment, provided that the international standards or criteria in question shall be specified.”

124. Statement of 23 August 1976, text in: Verslag van de Koninkrijksdelegatie naar de vijfde zitting van de Derde Zeerechtconferentie van de Verenigde Naties [Report of the Kingdom Delegation to the fifth session of the Third UNCLOS], vol. 1, Annex 2.

125. The relevant resolution of 30 October 1976 is reproduced in: Bulletin of the European Communities 1976 No. 10 pp. 23–24, para. 1503.

126. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14342 (R 1061) No. 2.

127. Act of 30 May 1963 (Stb. 1963 No. 312).

128. Art. 4 contains the so-called protection principle. It reads, inter alia: “The Netherlands penal law applies to anybody who has committed any of the following offences outside the Netherlands:…”

129. Art. 2 reads: “The Netherlands penal law applies to anybody who has committed any offence in the Netherlands.”

130. The North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. the Netherlands); see for the Judgment of the Court: ICJ Reports, 1969 p. 3 et seq.

131. Memorandum of 18 January 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14342 (R 1061) No. 3 p. 4. See also Municipal Legislation pp. 385–386 infra.

132. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) pp. 201–203, for the Netherlands commentary on draft Articles 10–15.

133. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-eighth session (1976), ILC Yearbook 1976 vol. II Part Two p. 74 et seq.

134. Art. 18 paras. 1 and 2 reads: “1. An act of the State which is not in conformity with what is required of it by an international obligation constitutes a breach of that obligation only if the act was performed at the time when the obligation was in force for that State. 2. However, an act of the State which, at the time when it was performed, was not in conformity with what was required of it by an international obligation in force for that State, ceases to be considered an internationally wrongful act if, subsequently, such an act has become compulsory by virtue of a peremptory norm of general international law.”

135. See Art. 66(a) of the Convention.

136. Art. 53 reads: “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.”

Art. 64 reads: “If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates.”

137. Art. 19 reads: “ 1. An act of a State which constitutes a breach of an international obligation is an internationally wrongful act, regardless of the object-matter of the obligation breached.

2. An internationally wrongful act which results from the breach by a State of an international obligation so essential for the protection of fundamental interests of the international community that its breach is recognized as a crime by that community as a whole, constitutes an international crime.

3. Subject to paragraph 2, and on the basis of the rules of international law in force, an international crime may result, inter alia, from: (a) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the maintenance of international peace and security, such as that prohibiting aggression; (b) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for safeguarding the right of self-determination of peoples, such as that prohibiting the establishment or maintenance by force of colonial domination; (c) a serious breach on a widespread scale of an international obligation of essential importance for safeguarding the human being, such as those prohibiting slavery, genocide and apartheid (d) a serious breach of an international obligation of essential importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the human environment, such as those prohibiting massive pollution of the atmosphere or of the seas.

4. Any internationally wrongful act which is not an international crime in accordance with paragraph 2, constitutes an international delict.”

138. Statement of 20 October 1976, GAOR, Thirty-first Session, Sixth Committee, Summary Record of the 22nd Meeting (A/C.6/31/SR.22) pp. 3–4; see also Eenendertigste Zitting pp. 590–592.

139. This draft later became GA Res. 31/103 of 15 December 1976, which was unanimously adopted without vote.

140. Art. 3(1)(b) of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, Trb. 1951 No. 75.

141. Statement of 29 November 1976, Eenendertigste Zitting pp. 605–606; summary in GAOR, Thirty-first Session, Sixth Committe, Fifty-sixth Meeting (A/C.6/31/SR.56) p. 6. Cf., 5 NYIL (1974) pp. 239–242. In GA Res. 31/103 the use of the word “innocent” in connection with “hostages”is restricted to the following preambular paragraph: “…Recognizing that the taking of hostages is an act which endangers innocent human lives and violates human dignity…”.

142. Annex to GA Res. 3166 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973.

143. GA Res. 3166 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973. The relevant operative paragraphs of the Resolution read: “4. Recognizes also that the provisions of the annexed Convention could not in any way prejudiee the exercise of the legitimate right to self-determination and independence in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations by peoples struggling against colonialism, alien domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination and apartheid;… 6. Decides that the present resolution, whose provisions are related to the annexed Convention, shall always be published together with it.”

144. Bijl. Hand. I 1976/77 No. 72b p. 3. This statement seems to imply a correction to what was said by the Netherlands delegate in his explanation of vote on GA Res. 3166, of 15 December 1973: “Let me now explain our affirmative attitude by indicating our understanding of the substance of the new Convention and the resolution to which it is annexed.

We consider the object and purpose of the Convention, under the terms of article 19 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to be embodied in the full wording of, inter alia, articles 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, and 11. We have noted and understood with sympathy that quite a large number of States was concerned that certain terms of the Convention might be interpreted in a manner, which could prejudice the lawful exercise of the Charter-hallowed right of peoples to self-determinatin and independence. Although we note that such an abuse could not legally exist in view of article 103 of the Charter of the UN, which solves any such potential conflict of law, we have no overriding objections to repeating this view expressis verbis in the resolution to which the Convention is attached.” See Verslag over de Achtentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties (Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 105, 1974) p. 548; see also Doc. A/PV.2202 p. 130.

145. Aanh. Hand. II 1975/76 No. 1381 p. 2743.

146. Cf., for relevant Netherlands judicial decisions: NYIL (1974) p. 358, (1975) p. 373, (1976) p. 348, (1977) p. 305.

147. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14007 No. 5 p. 11.

148. Cf., for the introduction of the Bill in Parliament: 8 NYIL (1977) p. 205.

149. Art. 2 reads, in part: “For the implementation of decisions or recommendations of organs of international organizations, and international accords relating to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security or to the furtherance of the international legal order, rules may be laid down…”.

150. Act of 5 July 1962, Stb. 1962 No. 295. Art. 2 provides that various kinds of restrictive measures with regard to the import and export of goods may be taken by Royal Decree if, in the opinion of the Government, such measures “are considered necessary in the interest of the national economy, the internal or external security of the country, or of the international legal order or if an international accord relating to that order so demands” (emphasis, added). In 8 NYIL (1977) p. 332 the term “internationale afspraken” was translated as “international agreements”. In view of the specific reasons which prompted the legislature to use the term “internationale afspraken” instead of “internationale overcenkomsten”, the phrase “international accords” seems to be a better translation.

151. See for a list of such decisions: Bijl. Hand. II 1968/69–9829 No. 6 Annex III and Bijl. Hand. II 1968/69–9829 No. 9 p. 2. See also 1 NYIL (1970) p. 126 n. 39.

152. Memorandum of Reply, 23 May 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77 – 14006 No. 5 pp. 14–15.

153. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 222.

154. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Twenty-eighth Session, 3 May-23 July 1976, GAOR, 31st Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/31/10) p. 23 et seq.; also in ILC Yearbook 1976 vol. II Part Two p. 4 et seq.

155. The full text of the waiver reads: “The Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Recognizing that a principal aim of the Contracting Parties is promotion of the trade and export earnings of developing countries for the furtherance of their economic development; Recognizing further that individual and joint action is essential to further development of the economies of developing countries; Recalling that at the Second UNCTAD, unanimous agreement was reached in favour of the early establishment of a mutually acceptable system of generalized, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory preferences beneficial to the developing countries in order to increase the export earnings, to promote the industrialization, and to accelerate the reates of economic growth of these countries; Considering that mutually acceptable arrangements have been drawn up in the UNCTAD concerning the establishment of generalized, non-discriminatory, non-reciprocal preferential tariff treatment in the markets of developed countries for products originating in developing countries; Noting the statement of developed contracting parties that the grant of tariff preferences does not constitute a binding commitment and that they are temporary in nature; Recognizing fully that the proposed preferential arrangements do not constitute an impediment to the reduction of tariffs on a mostfavoured-nation basis,

Decide: (a) That without prejudice to any other Article of the General Agreement, the provisions of Article I shall be waived for a period of ten years to the extent necessary to permit developed contracting parties, subject to the procedures set out hereunder, to accord preferential tariff treatment to products originating in developing countries and territories with a view to extending to such countries and territories generally the preferential tariff treatment referred to in the Preamble to this Decision, without according such treatment to like products of other contracting parties;

Provided that any such preferential tariff arrangements shall be designed to facilitate trade from developing countries and territories and not to raise barriers to the trade of other contracting parties;

(b) That they will, without duplicating the work of other international organizations, keep under review the operation of this Decision and decide, before its expiry in the light of the considerations outlined in the Preamble, whether the Decision would be renewed and if so, what its terms should be;

(c) That any contracting party which introduces a preferential tariff arrangement under the terms of the present Decision or later modifies such arrangement, shall notify the Contracting Parties and furnish them with all useful information relating to the actions taken pursuant to the present Decision;

(d) That such contracting party shall afford adequate opportunity for consultations at the request of any other contracting party which considers that any benefit accruing to it under the General Agreement may be or is being impaired unduly as a result of the preferential arrangement;

(e) That any contracting party which considers that the arrangement or its later extension is not consistent with the present Decision or that any benefit accruing to it under the General Agreement may be or is being impaired unduly as a result of the arrangement or its subsequent extension and that consultations have proved unsatisfactory, may bring the matter before the Contracting Parties which will examine it promptly and will formulate any recommendations that they judge appropriate.”

156. Art. 21 reads: “ A beneficiary State is not entitled under a most-favoured-nation clause to any treatment extended by a developed granting State to a developing third State on a non-reciprocal basis within a generalized system of preferences established by that granting State.”

157. GA Res. 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974. Art. 21 reads: “Developing countries should endeavour to promote the expansion of their mutual trade and to this end may, in accordance with the existing and evolving provisions and procedures of international agreements where applicable, grant trade preferences to other developing countries without being obliged to extend such preferences to developed countries, provided these arrangements do not constitute an impediment to general trade liberalization and expansion.”

158. Art. 18 reads in full: “Developed countries should extend, improve and enlarge the system of generalized non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory tariff preferences to the developing countries consistent with the relevant agreed conclusions and relevant decisions ad adopted on this subject, in the framework of the competent international organizations. Developed countries should also give serious consideration to the adoption of other differential measures, in areas where this is feasible and appropriate and in ways which will provide special and more favourable treatment, in order to meet the trade and development needs of the developing countries. In the conduct of international economic relations the developed countries should endeavour to avoid measures having a negative effect on the development of the national economies of the developing countries, as promoted by generalized tariff preferences and other generally agreed differential measures in their favour.”

159. Art. 11 reads: “1. Under a most-favourcd-nation clause the beneficiary State is entitled, for itself or for the benefit of persons or things in a determined relationship with it, only to those rights which fall within the scope of the subject-matter of the clause. 2. The beneficiary State is entitled to the rights under paragraph 1 only in respect of those categories of persons or things which are specified in the clause or implied from the subject-matter of that clause.”

Art. 12 reads: “1. The beneficiary State is entitled to the rights under article 11 for itself only if the granting State extends to a third State treatment which is within the field of the subject-matter of the most-favoured-nation clause.

2. The beneficiary State is entitled to the rights in respect of persons or things within categories under paragraph 2 of article 11 only if they (a) belong to the same category of persons or things as those which benefit from the treatment extended by the granting State to a third State and (b) have the same relationship with the beneficiary State as those persons or things have with that third State.”

160. Art. 15 reads: “The beneficiary State is entitled to treatment extended by the granting State to a third State whether or not such treatment is extended under a bilateral or a multilateral agreement.”

161. Full text of this statement of 13 October 1976 made in the Sixth Committee in Eenendertigste Zitting pp. 597–598. Summary in Doc. A/C.6/31/SR 16 pp. 2–3.

162. Statement of 14 October 1976 in the Sixth Committee, ibid. p. 602, quoted in 8 NYIL (1977) pp. 222. Summary in Doc. A/C.6/31/SR.18 p. 2.

163. Statement of 20 October 1976, ibid. pp. 588–590. Summary in Doc. A/C.6/31/SR.22 pp. 2–3.

164. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13100 V No. 2 p. 76.

165. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14100 V No. 2 pp. 58–59.

166. As to previous criteria see 4 NYIL (1973) p. 358.

167. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12600 V No. 2 p. 30.

168. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13100 V No. 2 p. 76. The text was repeated in Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76–13600 V No. 2 pp. 60–61. Cf., for a detailed elaboration of these criteria: Supplementary Note on Criteria for the Selection of Concentration Countries [Aanvullende Notitie Criteria Landenkeuze] sent by the Minister for Development Co-operation to the Second Chamber, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14100 V No. 22 pp. 2–5.

169. Standpunt van de Nederlandse regering intake de rol van de Gemeenschap op het gebied van de ontwikkelingssamenwerking [The position of the Netherlands Government re the role of the Community in the field of development co-operation], Bijl. Hand. II 1972/73–12000 V No. 3, Annex V. Cf., 5 NYIL (1974) pp. 256–257.

170. The Memorandum deals with the following eleven topics: Community aid within the framework of the Lomé Convention and the Mediterranean policy; Global aid; Agricultural policy and food aid; International trade policy; Raw materials policy; Debts; Emergency and humanitarian aid; Aid through private organizations (NGO's); Research policy; Bilateral technical and financial aid policies of Member States; Industrial co-operation and restructuring policy.

171. Memorandum van de Nederlandse regering inzake net ontwikkelingsbeleid van de EEG [Memorandum of the Netherlands Government on the develoiiment policy of the EEC], Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–13600 V No. 42 pp. 3–5.

172. Agreement for Co-operation in dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, Trb. 1969 No. 139.

173. Reference is here made to the first meeting of experts from the states parties to the Agreement of Bonn, held in Hamburg, 20–22 April 1977.

174. Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircrafts, 15 February 1972, Trb. 1972 No. 62.

175. Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, 4 June 1975, Trb. 1975 No. 29.

176. Letter to the Second Chamber, 16 August 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1977–14646 No. 1 pp. 2–3.

177. Nota betreffende de Internationale Culturele Betrekkingen, Bijl. Hand. II 1969/70–10916 No. 2.

178. Memorandum of 1 November 1976, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77–14206 No. 2.

179. The issue took place under the 1963 Decree on the Export of Strategic Goods. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 332.

180. Aanh. Hand. 11 1976/77 No. 1370 p. 2721.

181. Statement of 3 March 1977, Hand. II 1976/77 p. 3577.