Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:55:26.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Netherlands state practice for the parliamentary year 1978–1979

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

R.C.R. Siekmann
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Documentation
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 11 , December 1980 , pp. 193 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1980

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. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 174, 10 NYIL (1979) p. 314.

2. Bulletin of the European Communities 1978 No. 3 pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

3. Human Rights and Foreign Policy, Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague 1979 pp. 88–90Google Scholar; also: Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15571 No. 2 pp. 65–7.

4. Cf., 7 NYIL (1976) p. 231.

5. Reply of 10 May 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 2295; see also, Aanh. Hand. I 1978/79 p. 116.

6. Note of 16 May 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 V No. 133 p. 3.

7. Statement of 27 February 1979, Hand. II 1978/79 p. 429.

8. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 317 et seq.

9. Report of the ILC on the Work of its Thirtieth Session 8 May – 28 July 1978, GAOR, 33rd Session, Suppl. no. 10 (A/33/10), p. 271 et seq.; also in ILC Yearbook 1978 vol. II Part Two, especially p. 111 et seq.

10. Article 23 reads:

1. When two or more States unite and thus form a successor State, the State debt of the predecessor States shall pass to the successor State.

2. Without prejudice to the foregoing provision, the successor State may, in accordance with its internal law, attribute the whole or any part of the State debt of the predecessor States to its component parts.

Article 24 reads:

1. When a part or parts of the territory of a State separate from that State and form a State, and unless the predecessor State and the successor State otherwise agree, an equitable proportion of the State debt of the predecessor State shall pass to the successor State, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1 apply when a part of the territory of a State separates from that State and unites with another State.

Article 25 reads:

When a predecessor State dissolves and disappears and the parts of its territory form two or more States, and unless the successor States otherwise agree, an equitable proportion of the State debt of the predecessor State shall pass to each successor State, taking into account all relevant circumstances.

11. Article 19 reads:

A succession of States entails the extinction of the obligations of the predecessor State and the arising of the obligations of the successor State in respect of such State debts as pass to the successor State in accordance with the provisions of the articles in the present Part.

Article 20 reads:

1. The succession of States does not as such affect the rights and obligations of creditors.

2. An agreement between predecessor and successor States or, as the case may be, between successor States concerning the passing of the State debts of the predecessor State cannot be involved by the predecessor or the successor State or States, as the case may be, against a creditor third State or international organization [or against a third State which represents a creditor] unless:

(a) The agreement has been accepted by that third State or international organization; or

(b) the consequences of that agreement are in accordance with the other applicable rules of the articles in the present Part.

12. Statement of 30 October 1978, Drieëndertigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties [Thirty-third Session of the U.N. General Assembly], publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs vol. 123 part II (1979) pp. 362–363 (hereafter abbreviated: Drieëndertigste Zitting); summary in Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.31 pp. 6–7.

13. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 323.

14. The relevant passage in the London declaration reads: “The Nine have affirmed their belief that a solution to the conflict in the Middle East will be possible only if the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to give effective expression to its national identity is translated into fact which would take into account the need for a homeland for the Palestinian people.” The relevant passage in the Paris declaration reads: “Ils rappellent toutefois, ainsi qu'ils l'ont indiqué dans leur déclaration du 29 juin 1977, qu'il ne saurait y avoir d'établissement d'une paix juste et durable au Proche-Orient que dans le cadre d'un règlement global. Un tel règlement doit être fondé sur les résolutions 242 et 338 du Conseil de Securité et traduire dans la réalité le droit du peuple palestinien à une patrie.”

15. Memorandum of 11 May 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 V No. 90b p. 5.

16. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 332.

17. Act of 5 December 1957, Stb. 1957 No. 493.

18. Bijl. Hand. I 1978/79 – 14804/14839 No. 52 pp. 3–4.

19. (EC) OJ No. L 39/40 of 14 February 1976.

20. Statement of 27 June 1979, Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 5802–5803.

21. (EC) OJ No. L 73/18 of 19 March 1976.

22. Memorandum of 1 November 1978, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15357 No. 3 pp. 18–19.

23. Reference is here made to p. 44 of the Explanatory Report to Resolution (69)29 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, of 26 September 1969.

24. Protocol of 8 April 1965, (EC) OJ No. 152/13 of 13 July 1967; Trb. 1965 No. 130.

25. Reply of 17 July 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 3165.

26. Report of 2 November 1978, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 V No. 20 p. 2.

27. Statement of 2 November 1978, Hand. II 1978/79 p. 1030.

28. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 293.

29. During the 33rd session of the UN General Assembly, two draft resolutions were moved with regard to the question of Western Sahara. (Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 323) One of them, introduced by countries which support the efforts of the Polisario Front to acquire independence, emphasized the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination and independence, and the responsibility of the UN for decolonization of this territory. The other draft, from states which share the Moroccan and Mauretanian view on the question, dealt almost exclusively with OAU efforts to find a solution to the problem. They later became Resolutions 33/31A and B of 13 December 1978.

30. Reply of 12 July 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 3093.

31. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 388.

32. Para 1: “No person or entity, whether a body corporate or unincorporated, may search for, prospect for, explore for, take, extract, mine, process, refine, use, sell, export, or distribute any natural resource, whether animal or mineral, situated or found to be situated within the territorial limits of Namibia without the consent and permission of the United Nations Council for Namibia or any person authorized to act on its behalf for the purpose of giving such permission or such consent”; Para 3: “No animal resource, mineral, or other natural resource produced in or emanating from the Territory of Namibia may be taken from the said Territory by any means whatsoever outside the territorial limits of Namibia by any person or body, whether corporate or unincorporated, without the consent and permission of the United Nations Council for Namibia or of any person authorized to act on behalf of the said Council”.

33. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 166 et seq.

34. GA Res. 2145 (XXI) of 27 October 1966.

35. Cf., para. 4, reading: “The Security Council calls upon all States to ensure that companies and other commercial and industrial enterprises owned by, or under direct control of, the State cease all dealings with respect to commercial or industrial enterprises or concessions in Namibia”.

36. Reply of 6 March 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 1553–4.

37. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p.

38. Statement of 20 July 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 388.

39. Act of 12 December 1892, Stb. 1892 No. 268.

40. Reply of 15 March 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 1648.

41. Agreement of 2 November 1949, 69 UNTS p. 272 et seq.; Stb. 1949 No. J 570.

42. Reply of 5 February 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 1281, 1282.

43. Annex, on “Admission of aliens”, to the Letter from the Government to a Parliamentary Commission, of 8 August 1979, concerning Government policy on the consequences of the Arab boycott of Israel in the Netherlands, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 14986 No. 7 p. 7.

44. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15642 No. 4 p. 6.

45. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15642 No. 1 p. 4.

46. See, 10 NYIL (1979) p. 517 et seq.

47. Statement of 12 December 1978, Hand. II 1978/79 p. 2143.

48. Memorandum of 22 May 1979, Bijl. Hand. I 1978/79 – 14200 (R 1048) No. 95a pp. 5–6.

49. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 337 et seq.; 10 NYIL (1979) p. 485 et seq.; 514 et seq.

50. 359 UNTS p. 247 et seq.; Trb. 1965 No. 9.

51. 78 UNTS p. 278 et seq.; Trb. 1960 No. 32.

52. Stb. 1892 No. 268.

53. Full text in: De affaire-Menten 1945–1976 (The Menten case), vol. 2, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 14252 No. 19 pp. 716–21.

54. Idem, pp. 771–2.

55. NJ (1978) No. 26.

56. NJ (1978) No. 358.

57. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 14252 No. 17; also in Stc. of 5 March 1979 No. 45 pp. 1, 3.

58. Trb. 1957 No. 7.

59. Stb. 1897 No. 211.

60. Stb. 1951 No. 317.

61. Stb. 1875 No. 66.

62. Trb. 1965 No. 9.

63. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15322 No. 1 pp. 9–10.

64. Cf., 1 NYIL (1970) pp. 140–141.

65. Reply of 1 June 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 2725–6.

66. See, Letter of the State Secretary of Justice, of 28 February 1977, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/ 77 – 14385 No. 1 p. 2.

67. Note of the State Secretary of Justice, on Dutch policy in relation to aliens, of 28 June 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15649 No. 2 p. 25.

68. Human Rights and Foreign Policy, Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague 1979 pp. 133–4Google Scholar; also: Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15571 No. 2 p. 102.

69. Idem pp. 135–6 respectively 103–4.

70. In a note, reference is here made to Aanh. Hand. II 1969/70 no. 1627; Hand. II 1969/70 pp. 4355–75; Bijl. Hand. II 1970/71 – 10909; Aanh. Hand. II 1970/71 No. 100.

71. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 15474 No. 2 pp.8, 13.

72. “Wet in formele zin” means an Act of the King (Queen) and Parliament. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) pp. 219–20.

73. Memorandum of 10 November 1978, Bijl. Hand. I 1978/79 – 13932 (R 1037) No. 13a P. 4.

74. Report of 4 May 1979, Doc. CERD/C/48/Add. 5, Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken [Yearbook of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] 1978–1979, Annex 27 pp. 60B-64B. 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. The third report, of 3 March 1977, in Doc. CERD/C/9; cf., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 217.

75. Reply of 20 May 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 2559–60.

76. See, 10 NYIL (1979) p. 356 et seq.

77. Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 16–17.

78. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 360 et seq.

79. Report of the ILC on the Work of its Thirtieth Session, 8 May – 28 July 1978, GAOR, 33rd Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/33/10) p. 309 et seq.; also in ILC Yearbook 1978 vol. II Part Two, especially p. 124 et seq.

80. Article 35 para. 2 reads: “An obligation arises for a third international organization from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation in the sphere of its activities and the third organization expressly accepts that obligation.”

Article 36 para. 2 reads: “A right arises for a third international organization from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to accord that right either to the third organization, or to a group of organizations to which it belongs, or to all organizations, and if the third organization assents thereto.”

81. Article 36bis reads: “Third States which are members of an international organization shall observe the obligations, and may exercise the rights, which arise for them from the provisions of a treaty to which that organization is a party if:

(a) the relevant rules of the organization applicable at the moment of the conclusion of the treaty provide that the States members of the organization are bound by the treaties concluded by it; or

(b) the States and organizations participating in the negotiation of the treaty as well as the States members of the organization acknowledged that the application of the treaty necessarily entails such effects.”

82. Statement of 30 October 1978, Drieëndertigste Zitting pp. 363–366; summary in Doc. A/C.6/33/sr.31 pp. 7–10.

83. See p. 236 infra.

84. Statement by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and of Defence, 25 January 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 3 pp. 6, 16.

85. Act of 20 July 1814 (Stb. 1814 No. 85) p. 236; Stc. of 24 December 1971 No. 250 p. 7.

86. See p. 237 infra.

87. Convention of 13 February 1946, 1 UNTS p. 16 et seq.; Stb. 1948 No. I 224.

88. Statement by the Minister of Defence, 17 August 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 3467.

89. 413 UNTS p. 168 et seq.; Trb. 1962 No. 44.

90. 38 LNTS p. 296 et seq.; Stb. 1938 No. 25.

91. Statement of 13 February 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15488 No. 3 pp. 6–7.

92. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 201 et seq., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 229 et seq., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 379 et seq.

93. Report of the ILC on the Work of its Thirtieth Session, 8 May – 28 July 1978, GAOR, 33rd Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/33/10) p. 187 et seq.; also in ILC Yearbook 1978 Vol. II Part Two, especially p. 78 et seq.

94. Article 24 reads: “The breach of an international obligation by an act of the State not extending in time occurs at the moment when that act is performed. The time of commission of the breach does not extend beyond that moment, even if the effects of the act of the State continue subsequently.”

Article 25 reads:

“1. The breach of an international obligation by an act of the State having a continuing character occurs at the moment when that act begins. Nevertheless, the time of commission of the breach extends over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the international obligation.

2. The breach of an international obligation by an act of the State, composed of a series of actions or omissions in respect of separate cases, occurs at the moment when that action or omission of the series is accomplished which establishes the existence of the composite act. Nevertheless, the time of commission of the breach extends over the entire period from the first of the actions or omissions constituting the composite act not in conformity with the international obligation and so long as such actions or omissions are repeated.

3. The breach of an international obligation by a complex act of the State, consisting of a succession of actions or omissions by the same or different organs of the State in respect of the same case, occurs at the moment when the last constituent element of that complex act is accomplished. Nevertheless, the time of commission of the breach extends over the entire period between the action or omission which initiated the breach and that which completed it.”

Article 26 reads: “The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the event begins. Nevertheless, the time of commission of the breach extends over the entire period during which the event continues.”

95. Article 18 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.

3. If an act of the State which is not in conformity with what is required of it by an international obligation has a continuing character, there is a breach of that obligation only in respect of the period during which the act continues while the obligation is in force for that State.

4. If an act of the State which is not in conformity with what is required of it by an international obligation is composed of a series of actions or omissions in respect of separate cases, there is a breach of that obligation if such an act may be considered to be constituted by the actions or omissions occurring within the period during which the obligation is in force for that State.

5. If an act of the State which is not in conformity with what is required of it by an international obligation is a complex act constituted by actions or omissions by the same or different organs of the State in respect of the same case, there is a breach of that obligation if the complex act not in conformity with it begins with an action or omission occurring within the period during which the obligation is in force for that State, even if that act is completed after that period.”

96. Article 27 reads: “Aid or assistance by a State to another State, if it is established that it is rendered for the commission of an internationally wrongful act, carried out by the latter, itself constitutes an internationally wrongful act, even if, taken alone, such aid or assistance would not constitute the breach of an international obligation.”

97. Article 19 para. 2 reads: “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.”

98. Statement of 30 October 1978, Drieëndertigste Zitting pp. 360–362; summary in Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.31 pp. 4–6.

99. Report of 4 July 1979, Bijl, Hand. II 1978/79 – 15677 No. 3 pp. 2–3.

100. See also, 10 NYIL (1979) p. 383 et seq.

101. Article 5 para. 1(b) reads: “Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over any of the offences set forth in article 1.

(a) …

(b) By which that State itself or an international organization of which the State is a member is to be compelled to do or abstain from doing anything.”

102. Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 16 December 1970, 10 ILM (1971) p. 133 et seq.; Trb. 1971 No. 50.

103. Article 5 para. 1(a) reads: “Each Contracting State shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over any of the offences set forth in article 1.

(a) That are committed in its territory or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State.”

104. Article 6 para. 1, 1st sentence, reads: “Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, the Contracting State in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall take the appropriate measures under its internal law so as to ensure his presence for the purpose of prosecution or extradition.”

105. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Annex to GA Res. 3166 (XXVIII) of 14 December 1973; 10 ILM (1974) p. 41 et seq.

106. Article 5 para. 2 reads: “each Contracting State shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences set forth in article 1 in the case where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article.”

107. Statements of 8 February 1978, Doc. A/33/39 pp. 39,46.

108. 575 UNTS (1966) p. 160 et seq.; Trb. 1966 No. 152. The ratification took place on 14 Sept. 1966.

109. The Bill designates the President of the District Court of The Hague as the competent authority.

110. Memorandum of 20 December 1978, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15423 No. 3 p. 3.

111. Drieëndertigste Zitting, Part II p. 23.

112. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 14986 No. 7 p. 5.

113. Statement of 1 February 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15467 (R 1114) No. 3 pp.4–5.

114. Verslag over de Achttiende Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties [Report on the eighteenth session of the UN General Assembly], Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 77 (1964) pp. 298–9.

115. Verslag over de Twintigste Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties [Report on the twentieth session of the UN General Assembly], Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 81 (1966) p. 329.

116. Memorandum sent by letter of 21 June 1968 to the Chairman of the Special Committee on Peace-Keeping Operations, Doc. A/AC. 121/18.

117. Doc. A/AC. 121/30 of 27 August 1979 pp. 4–5.

118. SC Res. 444 of 19 January 1979.

119. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 1 p. 1.

120. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15519 No. 1 p. 1.

121. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15519 No. 2 p. 1.

122. Questions and Replies in preparation of oral discussions, 25 January 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 3 pp. 34.

123. Statement of 25 January 1979, Report of a discussion of the Standing Parliamentary Committees for Foreign Affairs and for Defence, with the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and of Defence, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 4 p. 9.

124. Statement of 1 February 1979, Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 2967, 2992.

125. See p. 336 et seq. infra.

126. Stb. 1922 No. 43.

127. See p. 336 et seq. infra.

128. Act of 10 July 1952, Stb. 1952 No. 408.

129. Act of 27 April 1903, Stb. 1903 No. 111. A notification in the sense of Article 71 of the Code of Military Criminal Law would mean that, for the UNIFIL contingent, a “time of war” within the meaning of the Code of Military Criminal Law would be deemed to exist until the end of the mission, and that persons against whom force of aims was or might be used were assimilated to the enemy. On 9 March 1979, the Minister of Defence informed the Second Chamber that, after taking the advice of the Minister of Justice, he had decided not to issue such a notification, weighing all the prevailing circumstances and resultant (legal) consequences and having regard to the nature of the task to be performed in Lebanon and, on the other hand, the degree of discipline and motivation of the members of the contingent. That decision would have to be reconsidered in the case of a fundamental change of circumstances. (Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 13; see also: Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 1989).

130. Royal Decree of 13 August 1979, Stb. 1979 No. 450, AB (1979) No. 497; MRT (1979) pp. 514–515; see also, Wijziging Vrijwilligersaanwijzingbeschikking Vredesdetachement UNIFIL of 13 September 1979, Stc. of 15 September 1979 No. 180Z p. 1.

131. Letter of 15 August 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 16 p. 2, also in Stc. of 15 August 1979 No. 157 p. 2.

132. Statement of 25 January 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15441 No. 4 p. 9.

133. Cf., on the same matter, 1 NYIL (1970) pp. 98–9, 2 NYIL (1971) p. 141.

134. Reply to written questions, 3 September 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 3579.

135. Doc. CD/PV.36 pp. 31–4.

136. Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 348 et seq.; 5 NYIL (1974) p. 251 et seq.; 6 NYIL (1975) p. 306 et seq.

137. Reply of 8 August 1979, Doc. CD/49. The questionnaire was drawn up on the basis of a Netherlands working paper, Doc. CD/41 of 25 July 1979.

138. See, Note of 19 June 1975, Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75 – 13461 No. 2 pp. 41–4.

139. Memorandum of 8 May 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 X No. 97a p. 15.

140. Trb. 1978 No. 176.

141. Convention of 6 July 1906 for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, De Masteus, NRG 3rd, series, vol. 2 p. 620, Stb. 1909 No. 14.

142. 15 LNTS p. 340 et seq.; Stb. 1910 No. 73.

143. 136 UNTS p. 45 et seq.; Trb. 1951 No. 134.

144. 138 UNTS p. 183 et seq.; Trb. 1953 No 2.

145. Memorandum of 16 January 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15462 (R 1113) No. 1 P. 2.

146. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 222, 9 NYIL (1978) p. 237 et seq., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 393 et seq.

147. Report of the ILC on the Work of its Thirtieth Session, 8 May – 28 July 1978, GAOR, 33rd Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/33/10) p. 28 et seq.; also in ILC Yearbook 1978 vol. II Part Two, especially p. 16 et seq.

148. Statement of 26 October 1978, Drieëndertigste Zitting pp. 358–60; summary in Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.31.

149. Cf., p. 151 infra.

150. Reply of 7 November 1978, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 568.

151. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) pp. 242–3; 10 NYIL (1979) p. 401.

152. Memorandum of 24 November 1978, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 V No. 21 p. 21 para. 97.

153. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 V No. 2 p. 77

154. Statement of 3 April 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15300 V No. 102 pp. 1, 3, 4, 5–6.

155. Agreement of 11 April 1979, Trb. 1979 No. 100.

156. Trb. 1971 No. 35; 1972 No. 30; 1972 No. 125; 1978 No. 82.

157. Memorandum of 7 September 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15722 No. 1 pp. 2–3.

158. Act of 4 May 1977, Stb. 1977 No. 313; see, 9 NYIL (1978) p. 386 et seq.

159. EC (OJ) L 258/35, of 21 September 1978.

160. EC (OJ) L 5/31, of 9 January 1979.

161. Art. 2: “The Netherlands Penal Code is applicable to anyone who commits a crime in the Netherlands.”

162. Memorandum of 22 June 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15641 No. 3 pp. 5–6.

163. Reply of 29 August 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 3547.

164. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 405.

165. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 5962.

166. Art. 2 of the International Declaration against Apartheid in Sports reads, inter alia: “States shall take all appropriate action to bring about the total cessation of sporting contacts with any country practising apartheid”.

167. Reply to written questions, 11 July 1979, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 3065.

168. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 247.

169. Treaty of 11 August 1966, Trb. 1966 No. 196.

170. Reply of 12 June 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 14206 No. 6 pp. 22–3.

171. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 247.

172. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 4790.