Hans Kelsen is undoubtedly among the foremost jurists of this century. Roscoe Pound, himself not an insubstantial figure in the field, considered him “un questionably the leading jurist of the time”. Kelsen occupied himself in particular with three branches of law: constitutional law, legal philosophy, and international law.

If the trading system of the 21st century is to succeed in ‘raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production and trade in goods and services … in accordance with the objective of sustainable development’, it must be equipped to achieve these goals.

East Timor will soon achieve full independence and statehood. Its initial concerns as a newly independent state are political and economic stability. The current UN presence in East Timor should help ensure that the former concern is addressed so that the transition from a war torn non self-governing territory to a democratically elected government proceeds as smoothly as possible. The latter concern over East Timor's future economic stability is currently tied-up with continuing negotiations over the division of oil and gas revenues derived from a joint development arrangement, namely the Timor Gap Zone of Co-operation Treaty. This bilateral treaty was initially agreed in 1989 between Indonesia, which controlled East Timor from 1975 to 1999, and Australia. Its terms are currently being enforced on a provisional basis as agreed between the United Nations Transitional Administration of East Timor (UNTAET) and Australia while its future is being negotiated.

On 30 June 1995 the International Court of Justice delivered its Judgment in the East Timor case. The dispute before the Court involved proceedings instituted by Portugal against Australia in 1991 because of the conclusion of the so-called Timor Gap Treaty of 1989 between Australia and Indonesia. The Treaty concerns the joint exploitation of the continental shelf lying between the territory of East Timor and the northern coast of Australia (the so-called Timor Gap). Portugal asserted its position as the administering power of East Timor and claimed that Australia should have concluded and implemented the joint exploitation treaty with it rather than Indonesia.

The Netherlands' special relationship with the sea is widely known. For instance due to the prominent role of its merchant and naval fleet in particularly the 17th and 18th centuries or due to Hugo de Groot, one of the founding fathers of modern international law in general and the international law of the sea in particular. In present times the Netherlands no longer ranks among the main players in marine issues. As regards marine capture fisheries, the quantitative involvement of the Netherlands is still fairly sizeable in a European context, but not very significant on a global scale. This does not mean, however, that the involvement of the Netherlands in marine capture fisheries is a purely domestic affair. Fishing vessels flying the Netherlands flag do not just operate within the maritime zones of the Netherlands or other Member States of the European Union (EU) but also on the high seas and within the maritime zones of non-EU Member States. Also, Netherlands companies and individuals have (beneficial) ownership of vessels under foreign flag.

On 26 March 1986 the procedure of parliamentary approval of the so-called Cruise-missile Treaty between the Netherlands and the United States was concluded by a vote of approval by the First Chamber (Senate) of Parliament. Earlier, on 27 February 1986, the Second Chamber, after protracted debate, had given its approval. On 20 May 1986 the District Court of The Hague declared itself incompetent to hear a case brought by the ‘Stichting Verbiedt de Kruisraketten’ [Foundation for the Prohibition of Cruise Missiles, hereinafter FPCM] against the State of the Netherlands.

This chapter explores the footprint that temporary international legal regimes can leave on international law. Drawing on four different theories of state behaviour, it considers how temporary regimes can shape future permanent regimes. Under a rational design approach, temporary legal regimes influence future permanent regimes largely because they provide valuable experiences from which state actors learn. Under other theories of behaviour—historical institutionalism, constructivism, and behavioural international law—temporary legal regimes can have even more influence on permanent ones. Although these other three theories have important differences, all suggest that temporary regimes strongly shape the real and perceived possibilities for future permanent design choices. This chapter then looks at how these different theoretical approaches play out in case studies in refugee law, international criminal law, and international environmental law. While these case studies do not solely support any one theoretical account, collectively they demonstrate that temporary regimes can have outsized influence on permanent ones. This in turn has important implications for negotiators involved in regime design.

On 10 December 1979 the Governing Board of the International Energy Agency (IEA) met in Paris at ministerial level. The subject of discussion was the action to be taken to meet problems in the field of oil supply, and the implementation of the “Declaration” by the Western Summit Conference in Tokyo on this matter. On the basis of the decisions adopted during this meeting, which established, inter alia, individually identifiable oil-import ceilings, it has been remarked that the IEA had arrived at a “turning-point”. “After five years of, more or less global, non-binding arrangements, 1980 is the year in which it will have to be shown whether one can indeed arrive at a clear, more obligatory approach to the oil problem”. Whatever future developments there might be, this seems to be a good time to take a closer look at the IEA. The current war between Iraq and Iran, also re-emphasises the vulnerability of Western oil-supplies, and underlines the practical importance of the IEA. This article will deal mainly with some of the remarkable institutional aspects of the Agency, and the International Energy Program (IEP) which it manages. Before this, there will be a discussion of the background of the IEA and a short description of the core of the IEP: the crisis mechanism, and the other objectives. The article will be concluded with some observations on the relationship between the IEA and the European Communities (EC).

According to the author, the answer to the question raised above is that neither a pure nor a semi-presidential system is to be recommended but rather a strong parliamentary system with an executive, the European Commission, whose democratic legitimacy is rooted in citizen involvement through parliamentary elections organized on the basis of political platforms presented by Euro-parties centred around well defined divisive issues. That would make the executive fully answerable towards the universally elected Parliament. In such a constellation, the accountability of the Council of Ministers should, as long as it remains the most prominent part of the Union legislature, be strengthened through devices such as transparency, mutual accountability between the Council and Parliament, and codes of ethics outlining the duties and responsibilities of individual Council members. As for the European Council, it should not be allowed to take over legislative or executive responsibilities but should continue to fulfil its role of driving the Union forward politically.

Although this sets out to be an annual survey, it may also include material which dates from a different parliamentary year from that given in the heading. This has proved to be inevitable in those cases when texts do not become available to the editor until long after their original date of drafting; written submissions to international organizations made by the Netherlands representatives frequently fall into this category.

Most of the information is derived from the Reports of Parliament which are available in Dutch on <www.overheid.nl/op/index.html>. The Yearbook surveys are also available in a consolidated way in a database on <www.asser.nl/pil/index.htm>.

One of the most interesting regulations to appear in the 1979 volume of the Official Journal of the European Communities was Council Regulation (EEC) No. 954/79 of 15 May 1979 concerning the ratification by Member States of, or their accession to, the United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences.

Iraq and Iran would certainly not come at the top of everyone's list of States which are particularly concerned with the implementation of international law. However, as is the case in virtually all international conflicts, to justify their actions in the Gulf War, these States have also adopted positions based on arguments of international law. In a complicated conflict such as this, it is by no means easy to assess the validity of such justifications, as this contribution attempts to do, if only because the facts are extremely difficult to determine objectively. For purposes of international law, this problem regarding the facts can be partially avoided by analysing the conflict mainly on the basis of the viewpoints raised during the discussions of the conflict in the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. Moreover, only the first stage of the conflict up to 1980 is examined here.

When democracies wage war, they ‘know’ that they have the law on their side. The same holds true when they condemn war. But what if democracies take divergent legal positions to one and the same war? Relying on governmental and public ‘Iraq’ discourses in the United States and Germany, this article argues that governments can no longer define the law in isolation from their societal environments. The critical relation of ‘politics,’ ‘law,’ and ‘democracy’ is increasingly established not only in the political centers of states but also in the periphery: in the public discourse. This discursive process of international law becoming ‘public’ cannot be ignored. However, the patterns of meaning of international law vary remarkably. While there is public politics of international law in democracies, a per se ‘democratic’ politics of international law is hardly recognizable.

Questions of international law arising in connection with the “Agreement Establishing the Caribbean Free Trade Association” (Carifta); when Carifta Territories seek to conclude an association agreement in particular, questions of capacity considered in the light of the dependency of the majority of Carifta Territories (section 2), in the light of Articles 30—Relations with International Organizations— and 32(2) —Association— (section 3), and in connection with the existence of a Commonwealth Caribbean Heads of Government Conference (section 4).

On 18 September 2013, a team of Greenpeace activists attempted to board the Prirazlomnaya oil platform, situated within the Russian exclusive economic zone, intending to disrupt drilling activities and raise awareness of Arctic environmental issues. This action resulted in the subsequent arrest of 30 individuals associated with the protest, as well as that of the Arctic Sunrise, a Greenpeace support vessel sailing under the Dutch flag. The plight of the so-called ‘Arctic 30’ dominated global headlines until their release under a general amnesty by Russia in December 2013. Meanwhile, the arrest of the vessel prompted the commencement of arbitral proceedings by the Netherlands against Russia, a process that had yet to be concluded at the time of writing. In November 2013, however, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea upheld a Dutch petition for provisional measures, including the release of the vessel and its crew subject to the payment of a bond. In so doing, the Tribunal faced the issue of non-participation by a respondent state for the first time, while also developing arguably a ‘back-door’ position on prompt release. In the meantime, aspects of the legality of environmental activism at sea remain somewhat uncertain which, given that a considerable number of protest vessels are registered to the Netherlands, may engage the litigative attention of the Dutch authorities in future incidents.

This survey covers the treaties, international agreements, and other international instruments mentioned in the ‘Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden’ – Treaty Series of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (abbr.: Trb.). Its purpose is to record the legal consequences of such agreements and instruments for the Netherlands, and Netherlands State acts in respect of them, such as signature, parliamentary approval, ratification, entry into force, provisional application, extension or limitation of territorial application, termination and abrogation. Signature by the Netherlands, however, is mentioned separately only if, in the case of multilateral treaties, such signature has taken place on a date different from the official date of conclusion of the treaty.