In November 2010, the Netherlands Society of International Law (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, NVIR) celebrates its centenary. The NVIR was established in 1910 as the first national branch of the International Law Association (ILA). From 15 to 20 August 2010 the Netherlands Society will host the 74th Conference of the ILA, which is to be held in The Hague. It is for the fifth time that the ILA will have assembled in the Netherlands and the fourth time that The Hague has been chosen to host the ILA members from its 45 branches all over the world. The theme of the 74th Conference ‘De Iure Humanitatis, Peace, Justice and International Law’ very well reflects the present nature and essence of international law and its development from interstate law into law for humanity.

The relationship between public international law and the domestic law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is deeply rooted in the monistic tradition. According to the Dutch Constitution self-executing provisions of treaties and of resolutions of international organizations are binding upon natural and legal persons and have supremacy over national law, including the Constitution itself, Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation. In this article the ways in which the Dutch courts deal with self-executing provisions, non-self-executing provisions and rules of customary international law are explored. For a long time the developments in the relationship between international and Dutch law have been dominated by the question of how to balance the separation of powers and the duty of the courts to apply public international law. But since the 1990s yet another problem has been gaining attention. There is growing concern about the question whether legal and natural persons are adequately protected by the Constitution against instruments of public international law (such as, for instance, decisions by UN sanctions committees) which may interfere with their basic rights, such as the right to a fair trial.

There have been times when public and private international law were closely related. As a means to solve conflicts of sovereign jurisdiction, conflicts law used to be considered as an integral part of the law of nations. Even after Savigny shifted the focus of private international law from the spatial reach of national law to the geographical ‘seat’ of a legal relationship, it was still thought that its rules were, or should be, endorsed by the international legal community. At the beginning of the 20th century, however, public and private international law started to drift apart. It is now generally accepted that states have no mutual obligation with regard to the solution of conflicts cases: private international law is basically national law.

Nevertheless, most states are still prepared to adapt their conflicts-of-law rules to universal standards. National differences were mitigated by the acceptance of party autonomy, proper law exceptions, and a reduction of the nationality principle. The methodological gap caused by the American ‘conflicts revolution’ is gradually being bridged by a more flexible, policy-oriented approach in Europe, and by a return to ‘rules’ in the United States. These developments tend to promote the adoption of universal rules and principles. As academic disciplines public and private international law may have gone their separate ways, but they are still united by their common history, their objectives, and, increasingly, by the universal acceptance of their standards.

The ILA approach to the progressive structuring of international society, so typical of later 19th Century social optimism, has from the very first found a warm advocate in its oldest national branch, the NVIR. The idea to assemble legal luminaries and captains of industry into a single body might not be quite representative of the Dutch, rather compartmentalized, tradition of legal thinking, but even so, the NVIR, after a first abortive attempt in 1875, from its ‘re-launch’ in 1910 invariably met with a thoroughly welcoming intellectual climate in the Netherlands.

Over the past century, the Society's (board) members have not consistently proved themselves visionaries in their anticipation of, or reaction to, social change, be this in the domestic sphere or the international domain. Symptomatic of this were the fairly conservative views they held on such issues as Neutrality or the League of Nations in the 1920s; on the conflict with Indonesia, also regarding New Guinea, in the post-WWII years; on the Benelux experiment and the Schuman Plan in the 1950s; or on the decolonization process in the 1960s.

Even so, in the final analysis, the views represented by the NVIR have invariably been a welcome, indeed fairly refreshing contribution to the Dutch social debate. Also, and in spite of the progressive institutionalization and codification in the international arena auspicated by a wealth of intergovernmental bodies, ILA and the NVIR never did, nor will they presumably, fail in carving a very respectable niche of their own in aspiring to help the implementation of the Rule of Law in this world drawing nearer.

This article reviews Dutch contributions to international law and focuses on the last 100 years to mark the centenary of the Netherlands Society of International Law. It poses the question whether this is a missionary burden, resulting from the constitutional duty incumbent upon the Dutch government to ‘promote the development of the international legal order’, or enlightened self-interest on the part of the Netherlands. The article briefly recalls the two Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 and Dutch initiatives for a third that had been planned for 1915 at a time when the Dutch pursued a policy of neutrality. It also reviews some Dutch initiatives in the context of the League of Nations and Dutch policy during the San Francisco Conference that established the United Nations in 1945. The German occupation and membership of the United Nations marked the real end of the Dutch policy of neutrality. From the outset, the Netherlands became an active participant in nearly all principal fields of the United Nations' activity. The article highlights a number of Dutch international law initiatives in the fields of human rights, development, peace and security, international humanitarian law, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. It concludes with final observations on the preoccupation of the Netherlands with international law.

This article discusses the manner in which the Netherlands has engaged with the development of international environmental law since the beginning of the 20th century. It deals with a number of selected topics by focusing on three themes which have at various times surfaced in during the past 100 years. These three themes are individuals matter, principles and pragmatism and European and international environmental law. The topics discussed are nature conservation, oganotins in anti-fouling paint, the whaling regime, climate change and water (river and oceans) law in Europe. The article concludes that the Netherlands continues to invest in the development of international environmental law and that its position is best characterized as pragmatically pro-environment and in support of sustainable development. The conclusions also point out that one theme runs through the development of international environmental law: a search for the ‘right’ institutions.

In this contribution attention is paid to the development of private international law in the Netherlands. The establishment of the Hague Conference on Private International law in 1893 is taken as a starting point. The development of the Conference is roughly sketched. In 1910 the Netherlands Society of International Law was founded, the first national branch of the ILA. An overview is given of the Society's preliminary reports dealing with matters of private international law. The codification of PIL was the subject of the Society's annual meeting in 1990, where the importance of a step-by-step codification was emphasized. The development towards codification is discussed. Codification had already started in 1981 and would come to an end in 2009 with the introduction of the bill on Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code. It may be expected that the bill will be adopted by Parliament in 2011. Attention is paid to this bill, which introduces the further codification and consolidation of the existing statutes on PIL and recombines them in Book 10 of the Civil Code.

International organisations are endowed with privileges and immunities to safeguard their independence, including, in particular, vis-à-vis their host state. This article first briefly considers the sources of privileges and immunities applicable to international organisations in the Netherlands, which is the host state of many international organizations. The article then focuses on the immunity of international organisations from the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. The article reviews the relevant national case law in which there have been important developments in recent years against the backdrop of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In respect of international organisations that enjoy immunity formulated in ‘functional’ (as opposed to ‘absolute’) terms, the article develops some general guidance to determine when that immunity applies. The article then considers the clash between an international organisation's entitlement to jurisdictional immunity and the rights of claimants to have access to the courts under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article suggests that whether the right to immunity prevails depends on the extent to which the particular organisation's functionality is at issue. In this light, the article critically examines the recent judgements in the incidental proceedings in the Srebrenica case against the United Nations. Finally, in terms of the procedural position of international organisations before the Dutch courts, the article suggests that to enjoy jurisdictional immunity, organisations would be well-advised to actively challenge the jurisdiction of the courts.

This article analyses the Dutch practice on the prosecution of international crimes with a view to determining whether this practice has been inspired by or has informed developments at the international level and more generally to analyzing how Dutch practice interrelates with international developments. The article singles out three episodes. First, a prelude of frustration in which the extradition of the German Kaiser was refused (1918-1920). Subsequently, two periods of engagement, which were to some extent inspired by international proceedings (1946-1951 and 1994-today). In these periods, Dutch courts demonstrated their commitment to the project of international criminal justice and they have produced insightful judgments which have even served as a source of law and a source of inspiration to contemporary international criminal law adjudication. The article has been written on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Netherlands Society of International Law.