Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:44:54.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Relations in the Netherlands Constitution of 1983

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

E. A. Alkema
Get access

Extract

On 17 February 1983, a new revised Constitution (Grondwet) entered into force for the Netherlands. It did not bring about radical changes and left the constitutional structure essentially unchanged. Because they may serve as a framework for the later analysis of the revised provisions on foreign relations, some of these lasting features will be outlined here.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , December 1984 , pp. 307 - 331
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. English text in XXX NILR (1983) p. 387.

2. See Bergamin, R. J. B. and van Maarseveen, H. Th. J. F., “Constitutional Law” in Fokkema, D. C. et al. eds., Introduction to Dutch Law for Foreign Lawyers (Deventer, 1978) p. 381 et seqGoogle Scholar;

3. In literature this tenet was already defended by Asser, T. M. C., Het bestuur der buitenlandsche landsche betrekkingen (Amsterdam, 1860) p. 276 et seqGoogle Scholar.

4. Cf., Art. 142 of the Constitution.

5. Wheare, K. C., Modern Constitutions (London, 1966) pp. 15–18Google Scholar.

6. Burkens, M. C. B., “The Complete Revision of the Dutch Constitution” XXIX NILR (1982) pp. 324–336Google Scholar.

7. Wheare, , op.cit., (n. 5) p. 18Google Scholar.

8. Burkens, o.c. (n. 6) p. 235Google Scholar.

9. Ibid.

10. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (Ministry of the Interior), Proeve van een nieuwe grondwet (The Hague, 1966)Google Scholar.

11. Staatscommissie van advies inzake de Grondwet en de Kieswet, Eerste Rapport, Tweede Rapport en Eindrapport, (The Hague respectively 1968, 1969 and 1971). The Commission is also called the Cals-Donner Commission after its presidents, J.M.L.T. Cals and A.M. Donner.

12. Nota inzake het grondwetsherzieningsbeleid, Parl. Doc. 1973–74 12944 Nr. 2.

13. Simons, D., “De grondwetsherziening” in Donnei, A. M. et al. eds., De grondwetsherziening Staatsiechtcongres 1981 (Nijmegen, 1981) p. 16 and pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

14. Stb. 1983, 70.

15. Kortmann, C. A. J. M., De grondwetsherziening 1983 (Deventer, 1983)Google Scholar. Heringa, A. W. and Zwart, T., Grondwet 1983, (Zwolle 1983)Google Scholar. Donner, A. M., “Over de algemene herziening (1983) van de Nederlandse grondwet” in Libei Amicorum Frédéric Dumon (Antwerpen, 1983) pp. 759–773Google Scholar.

16. Kortmann, , op.cit., (n. 15) p. 34Google Scholar.

17. Ibid. p. 35; former Art. 57.

18. Burkens, , op.cit., (n. 6) p. 331 and 335Google Scholar.

19. Plus 10 additional articles.

20. Plus 29 additional articles.

21. Art. 23; former Art. 208.

22. Former Art. 209.

23. Burkens, op.cit., (n. 6) p. 331Google Scholar.

24. See Alkema, E. A., Studies over Europese grondrechten. (Deventer, 1978) p. 242Google Scholar.

25. E.g,., the right to life and the prohibition of torture and of forced labour.

26. Duynstee, F. J. F. M., Grondwetsherziening 1953 (Deventer, 1954)Google Scholarvan Raalte, E., “De regeling der buitenlandse betrekkingen in de Nederlandse Grondwet” and van Panhuys, H. F., ”De regeling der buitenlandse betrekkingen in de Nederlandse Grondwet” 34 Meded. Ned. Ver. Internationaal Recht (1955)Google Scholar; idem, “The Netherlands Constitution and International Law” 47 AJIL (1953) pp. 537–558; idem, ‘The Netherlands Constitution and International Law, A Decade of Experience” 58 AJIL (1964) pp. 88–108; Erades, L. and Gold, Wesley L., The Relation between International Law and Municipal Law in the Netherlands and in the United States. (Leyden, 1961)Google Scholar; Lammers, J. G., ’Municipal Aspects of Treaty-Making by the Kingdom of the Netherlands” in van Panhuys, H. F. et al. eds., International Law in the Netherlands Vol. 1 (Alphen a.d. Rijn, 1978) pp. 333–369Google Scholar and L. Erades, ’International Law and the Netherlands Legal Order” ibid. Vol. III (1980) pp. 375–434.

27. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) also published in Algehele grondwetsherziening, eerste lezing. Vol. Vb Wetgeving en bestuur – buitenlandse betrekkingen (The Hague, 1983)Google Scholar.

28. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 15.

29. Kortmann, , op.cit., (n. 15) p. 306 n. 136Google Scholar citing Supreme Court 31 August 1972, NJ 1973, 4. Similarly Brinkhorst, L. J. and Lammers, J. G.. “The Impact of International Law on the Netherlands Legal Order” in Fokkema, D. C. et al. eds., op.cit., (n. 2) p. 537 n. 6Google Scholar.

30. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 5.

31. The translation “international rule of law” for ”Internationale rechtsorde” seems unfortunate. More proper is the translation also used for the former provision viz. ”international legal order”. Its meaning is firstly that in the Dutch constitutional system national sovereignty is not considered to be an absolute standard and secondly it implies an endeavour towards an international system based on universally valid legal norms, Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 7 p. 5.

32. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 3 p. 9.

33. Parl. Doc. 1978–79 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 6 pp. 6–8.

34. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 8.

35. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 15; see also van der Pot, C. W., Handboek van het Nederlandse Staatsrecht, revised by Donner, A. M., 11th edn. (Zwolle, 1983) p. 457–8Google Scholar.

36. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 16.

37. See, however, the debates in the 1st Chamber during which Andriessen, M.P. stressed that sometimes a worldwide approach might be preferable to a European one, Parl. Proc. I 1980–81 pp. 218 and 236.

38. Cf., the reply to a question of Mrs. Haas-Bergei, M.P. Parl. Proc. II 1977–78 p. 1581.

39. See for a previous sale of two submarines to Taiwan, Sik, Ko Swan, “The Dutch-Taiwanese Submarines Deal – Legal Aspects” XIII NYIL (1982) p. 125–141Google Scholar.

40. Art. 65(1) supra (n. 10) p. 13 and p. 151.

41. Art. 72(1) supra (n. 11) Final Report p. 180.

42. Flinterman, C., “Het Opperbestuur van de Buitenlandse Betrekkingen” NJB 1978 pp. 794–803Google Scholar.

43. Parl. Doc. 1978–79 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 6 p. 5.

44. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 7 p. 7.

45. See the discussion in the 2nd Chamber Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 4087 and in the 1st Chamber Parl. Proc. I 1980–81 p. 187 et seq. See for the role of Parliament Duynstee, F. J. F. M., Het staatsrecht der buitenlandse betrekkingen, Preadvies voor de vergelijkende studie van het recht van België en Nederland (Zwolle, 1958) p. 16Google Scholar.

46. Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 4082.

47. See in general Erades, , op.cit., (n. 26) p. 433Google Scholar and Alkema, E. A., “The Application of Internationally Guaranteed Human Rights in the Municipal Order” in Kalshoven, F. et al. eds., Essays on the Development of the International Legal Order (Alphen a.d. Rijn, 1980) p. 181, particularly p. 194Google Scholar.

48. By virtue of Art. 13 para. 4 of the Bailiff's Regulation, see Erades, , op.cit., (n. 26) p. 380Google Scholar.

49. Trb. 1980. 129.

50. Parl. Doc. 1980–81,15049 (R 1100) (1st Chamber) Nr. 19.

51. Parl. Doc. 1977–78, 15049 (R 1100) p. 36; see also Lammers, , op.cit., (n. 26) pp. 366 et seqGoogle Scholar.

52. de Jong, H. G., “Het begrip ‘Verdragen’ in de Nederlandse Grondwet” Themis, R. M. (1979) pp. 484 et seqGoogle Scholar. and Lammers, , op.cit., (n. 26) 336 seqGoogle Scholar.

53. Similarly Art. 1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

54. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 10 pp. 2–3.

55. See the literature quoted in n. 26 supra.

56. Op.cit.,(n. 15) p. 255.

57. See van Asbeck's, F. M. note at Supreme Court 25 January 1952,1 Ars Aequi (1951–1952) p. 109Google Scholar and Erades, , op.cit., (n. 26) p. 390Google Scholar.

58. Op. cit., (n. 15) p. 254.

59. Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 4441. This only concerns the approval not the conclusion of treaties, Parl. Doc. 1980–81 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 19 pp. 2–3.

60. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 (R 1100) Nr. 14.

61. Stb. 1950 K 84. The Minister of Foreign Affairs declared, however, that the Act approving the Agreement still could be amended by Parliament in order to warrant previous approval of future implementing decisions, Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 4089.

62. Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 3915.

63. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15800 Ch. V and X Nrs. 56 and 58, see also the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 16 May 1980 in XIII NYIL (1982) pp. 211–212.

64. Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 4504.

65. Only on two occasions has this provision been applied so far: the Act approving the European Defense Community, Stb. 1954, 25 and the Act approving the treaty with the Indonesian Republic about Western New Guinea, Stb. 1962, 363.

66. See supra Part 2; Kortmann, , op. cit., (n. 15) p. 256 n. 101Google Scholar, remarks that if after its approval a treaty proves to be conflicting with the Constitution, it has to be approved as yet with a qualified majority or to be denunciated.

67. See supra n. 29.

68. Parl. Doc. 1978–79 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 6 p. 11.

69. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 7 pp. 10–11.

70. Parl. Doc. 1983–84 17980 A; also published in NJB 1984 pp. 469 et seq. The request for the advice was prompted by an article of van de Griendt, G. J. and Smeets, J. H., “Internationaalrechtelijke aspecten van de stationering van kruisvluchtwapens in Nederland.” Marineblad (1983) pp. 31–33Google Scholar.

71. Cf., Duynstee, , op. cit., (n. 26) ad Art. 63 p. 40Google Scholar, who maintains that any transfer of sovereignty would constitute a deviation of the Constitution.

72. de Boer, J. and de Winter, R. E., ““Enkele sleutel” voor kruisraketten past niet op de Grondwet” NJB (1984) pp. 450–53Google Scholar.

73. In the sense of Art. 1 para. 1 of the Charter, U. N.. Dekker, I. F. et al. , “De plaatsing van Amerikaanse kruisvluchtwapens in Nederland” NJB (1984) pp. 441–47Google Scholar. The authors also referred to Arts. 97 and 98 of the Constitution on military service and the (authority over the) armed forces. Art. 97 para. 1 reads: ’All Dutch nationals who are capable of doing so shall have a duty to co-operate in maintaining the independence of the State defending its territory” (italics added, EAA).

74. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 7 p. 14.

75. Sometimes the term has been translated as “decisions made by organizations based on international law”, 58 AJIL (1964) p. 108Google Scholar.

76. Supreme Court 10 April 1979 NJ 1979, 374 and 18 January 1980 NJ 1980, 463.

77. Pres. District Court Zwolle 23 March 1981 RvdW/KG 1981, 32; see Drzemczewski, A. Z., European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law. (Oxford, 1983) p. 92Google Scholar and Meuwissen, D. H. M., De Europese Conventie en het Nederlandse recht, (Leyden, 1968) pp. 347 et seqGoogle Scholar.

78. Cf., Brinkhoist, and Lammers, , op.cit., (n. 29) p. 566Google Scholar.

79. Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (Ministry of the Interior), Adviezen van politieke en maatschappetijke organen over vernieuwing van grondwet en kieswet, juni 1968 – juli 1969. Serie Naar een nieuwe Grondwet Nr. 3 (The Hague, 1969) pp. 67 et seqGoogle Scholar.

80. Parl. Doc. 1978–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 6 p. 13.

81. Case 51/76 of 1 February 1977, VNO tegen Inspecteur van invoerrechten en accijnzen Jur. 1977 p. 113.

82. See Art. 189 EEC-Treaty.

83. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 10 p. 10.

84. Supreme Court 8 November 1968 NJ 1969,10; XVI NILR (1969), p. 97 note Erades.

85. Parl. Doc. 1978–79 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 6 p. 14 and 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 7 p. 18.

86. Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p. 4441 jo. p. 4433.

87. Cf., Brinkhorst, and Lammers, , op.cit., (n. 29) p. 570Google Scholar.

88. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 3 p. 12; Supreme Court 6 March 1959, NJ 1962, 2.

89. Parl. Doc. 1978–79 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 6 p. 15.

90. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 14.

91. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 10 pp. 9–10.

92. See part 1 supra.

93. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 3 pp. 234.

94. The term “statutory regulations” in Art. 94 encompasses not only Acts of Parliament but also subordinate legislation.

95. See n. 48 supra.

96. Art. 99 of the Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie (Act on the organisation of the judiciary) of 1827 as amended in 1963 (Stb. 1963, 272) extending the grounds for squashing to ”violation of the law with the exception of the law of foreign states”, the term law including written as well as unwritten law.

97. Art. 8 of the Penal Code; see Erades, , op. cit., (n. 26) pp. 377 et seqGoogle Scholar. who also mentions Art. 13a of the Act of 1829 (as amended) on General Provisions of Legislation and Art. 38 of the Military Penal Code.

98. Kortmann, , op.cit., (n. 15) p. 257Google Scholar; cf., Lammers, , op.cit., (n. 26) p. 365Google Scholar.

99. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 3 p. 14. This was in line with the 1966 Draft (n. 10 supra) and the Cals Donner Draft (n. 11 supra).

100. Riphagen, J., “Het nieuwe Grondwetsartikel 60e en de leer van de onsplitsbare wilsverklaring” Nederlandse Gemeente (1953) p. 68Google Scholar.

101. Supreme Court 19 January 1962, NJ 1962, 107.

102. Judicial Department of the Council of State 31 July 1979 AB 1979, 539; XI NYIL (1980) p. 311.

103. Parl. Doc. 1979–80 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 7 p. 19.

104. Kortmann, , op.cit.,(n. 15) p. 258Google Scholar.

105. E.g., 4 May 1984 (Sinnema and V. d. Zwaag) RvdW 1984, 98 and 23 December 1983 RvdW1984, 16.

106. E.g, the decision quoted in n. 101 supra.

107. See B(urg) “s, F.H. v. d. note at Supreme Court 18 November 1981 AB 1982, 231Google Scholar; see also Jeukens’, H. J. M.note at the decision quoted in n. 102 supra in XXIX Ars Aequi (1980) p. 187Google Scholar. In its decision of 7 February 1984 9 NJCM-Bulletin (1984) p. 259 the Supreme Court apparently applies an abstract test based on Art. 94 of the Constitution; it did not refer to Art. 168 Gemeentewet (Municipal Corporations Act), see the note by Th. de Graaf ibid, pp. 262 et seq. See generally Heringa, A. W., “Toetsing van gemeentelijke verordeningen aan een ieder verbindende bepalingen van internationale menseniechtenverdragen” in van der Burg, F. H. and van der Ham, M. A. eds., Gemeentelijke vrijheden (Alphen a.d. Rijn, 1983)pp. 123–134Google Scholar.

108. Alkema, , op.cit., (n. 47) pp. 194 et seqGoogle Scholar.

109. See n. 76 supra. There is also much case-law about the “reasonable time” clause in Art. 6 para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, see Myjer, E., ““Reasonable time”-arrest” XXX Ars Aequi (1981) p. 302 andGoogle Scholar, most recently, District Court Leeuwarden 23 August 1983, NJ 1984, 289 and District Court Zutphen 31 January 1984, NJ 1984, 291.

110. Judgment of 24 October 1979 ECHR series A Vol. 33.

111. Ibid. R 75 p. 29.

112. H. v. Maarseveen, “Naschrift” en Later, G. E. M., “Repliek” both NJB 1980 p. 831Google Scholar.

113. Lammers, , op.cit., (n. 26) pp. 363 et seqGoogle Scholar. and Erades, op.cit., (n. 26) pp. 390 et seqGoogle Scholar.

114. Op.cit., (n. 3) p. 284.

115. Stb. 1961, 207.

116. Seen. 98 supra.

117. Parl. Proc. II 1979–80 p.. 4443.

118. Trb. 1982, 188.

119. Koitmann, , op.cit., (n. 15) p. 259Google Scholar.

120. Parl. Doc. 1977–78 15049 (R 1100) Nr. 3 p. 14.

121. Op.cit.,(n. 26) ad Art. 58 p. 19 and op.cit., (n. 45) p. 22.

122. Part 6.2 supra in fine.

123. See n. 70 supra; cf., Sarolea, H., “Plaatsing van kruisvluchtwapens onder uitsluitend Amerikaans commando schiet een gat in artikel 96 Grondwet” NJB 1984 pp. 463–64Google Scholar.

124. Art. 5 para. 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty reads: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them. […] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” (italics added, EAA).