No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Netherlands state practice for the parliamentary year 1981–1982
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009
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.
- Type
- Documentation
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1983
References
1. Para. 131: “Under the Chatter of the United Nations, the former Mandatory had pledged itself to observe and respect, in a territory having an international status, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race. To establish instead, and to enforce, distinctions, exclusions, restrictions and limitations exclusively based on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which constitute a denial of fundamental human rights is a flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter.”
2. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 89 pp. 2–4.
3. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-third Session, 4 May - 24 July 1981, GAOR, 36th Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/36/10), especially p. 351 et seq.
4. Statement of 10 November 1981, Zesendertigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties [Thirty-sixth Session of the UN General Assembly], Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs vol. 127 (1982, hereafter: Zesendertigste Zitting), pp. 561–562; summary in Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.45 pp. 2–4.
5. Basle, 16 May 1972, Trb. 1973 No. 43.
6. Stb. 1936 No. 98.
7. NJ 1974 No. 361, 5 NYIL (1974) p. 290.
8. Article 33: “Nothing in the present Convention shall affect existing or future international agreements in special fields which relate to matters dealt with in the present Convention.”
9. Article 10: “A Contracting State cannot claim immunity form the jurisdiction of a court of another Contracting State if the proceedings relate to a right in movable or immovable property arising by way of succession, gift of bona vacantia.”
10. “(a) the presence in the territory of the State of the forum of property belonging to the defendant, or the seizure by the plaintiff of property situated there, unless
— the action is brought to assert proprietary or possessory rights in that property, or arisis from another issue relating to such property;
or
— the property constitutes the security for a debt which is the subject-matter of the action;
…
(c) the domicile, habitual residence or ordinary residence of the plaintiff within the territory of the State of the forum unless the assumption of jurisdiction on such a ground is permitted by way of an exception made on account of the particular subject-matter of a class of contracts;”
11. Brussels, 27 September 1968, Trb. 1969 No. 101.
12. “(b) the nationality of the plaintiff;”
13. Reference is here made to 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 1–289.
14. NJ 1969 No. 484, 1 NYIL (1970) p. 225.
15. Trb. 1969 No. 55.
16. Memorandum of 1 July 1982, Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17485 No. 3 pp. 1–10.
17. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 317; 11 NYIL (1980) p. 197; 12 NYIL (1981) p. 173.
18. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-third Session, 4 May - 24 July 1981, GAOR, 36th Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/36/10), especially p. 6 et seq.
19. Statement of 4 November 1981, Zesendertigste Zitting, pp. 556–558; summary in Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.40 pp. 12–15.
20. Willemstad, 31 March 1978, Trb. 1978 No. 61.
21. Reply of 19 October 1981, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 p. 189.
22. Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 310; 10 NYIL (1979) p. 323; 11 NYIL (1980) p. 199; 12 NYIL (1981) p. 177.
23. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 31 p. 3 para. 28.
24. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 36 p. 8 para. 28.
25. Statement of 10 February 1982, Hand. II 1981/82 p. 1935.
25a. Letter of 28 January. 1982, courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
26. Convention of 15 May 1972, Trb. 1973 No. 84; Treaty of 11 May 1974, Trb. 1974 No. 184; Convention of 27 January 1977, Trb. 1977 No. 63; Agreement of 4 December 1979, Trb. 1980 No. 14.
27. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 1–4.
28. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 332; 12 NYIL (1981) p. 188; 13 NYIL (1982) p. 183.
29. Reply by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, of 14 May 1982, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 pp. 2013–2015.
30. Trb. 1965 No. 218.
31. Statement of 23 June 1981, Bijl.Hand. II 1981 - 16947 (R 1181) No. 3 pp. 7, 13–14.
32. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 - 12837 (R. 944) No. 6.
33. Statement of 23 June 1981, Bijl.Hand. II 1981 - 16947 (R 1181) No. 3 pp. 14–15.
34. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17501 No. 1 p. 12.
35. Trb. 1952 No. 105.
36. Under the 1952 visa agreement between the Netherlands and South Africa, South Africans wishing to visit the Netherlands for a period not exceeding three months were not obliged to obtain a visa.
37. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 16759 No. 5 p. 3.
38. Trb. 1960 No. 40.
39. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 16759 No. 5 p. 2.
40. Reply of 18 Feburary 1982, Aanh.Hand. 1981/82 p. 1285.
41. Trb. 1980 No. 111.
42. Stb. 1889 No. 74.
43. Stb. 1904 No. 122.
44. Cf., 12 NYIL (1981) p. 195.
45. Memorandum of 25 September 1981, Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17122 (R. 1193) No. 1 p. 2.
46. Through amendment of Article 27 and insertion of Article 27a.
47. Statement of 28 April 1982, Bijl. Hand. II 1981/82 - 17397 No. 3 pp. 6–7.
48. Convention of 15 May 1972, Trb. 1973 No. 84; Treaty of 11 May 1974, Trb. 1974 No. 184; Convention of-27 January 1977, Trb. 1977 No. 63; Agreement of 4 December 1979, Trb. 1980 No. 14.
49. 1 Q.B. 149.
50. 1 Q.B. 540.
51. NJ 1977 No. 75; NJ 1978 No. 190; NJ 1978 Nos. 314, 315.
52. Article 1: “For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives:
a. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970;
b. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971;
c. a serious offence involving an attack against the life, physical integrity or liberty of internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents;
d. an offence involving kidnapping, the taking of a hostage or serious unlawful detention;
e. an offence involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, automatic firearm or letter or parcel bomb if this use endangers persons;
f. an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence.”
53. Article 2: “1. For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, a Contracting State may decide not to regard as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives a serious offence involving an act of violence, other than one covered by Article 1, against the life, physical integrity of liberty of a person.
2. The same shall apply to a serious offence involving an act against property, other than one covered by Article 1, if the act created a collective danger for persons.
3. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence.”
54. Article 13: “1. Any State may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, declare that it reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1 which it considers to be a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence or an offence inspired by political motives, provided that it undertakes to take into due consideration, when evaluating the character of the offence, any particularly serious aspects of the offence, including:
a. that it created a collective danger to the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons; or
b. that it affected persons foreign to the motives behind it; or
c. that cruel or vicious means have been used in the commission of the offence.”
55. Article 4: “In conformity with Article 13 para. 1 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the right to refuse extradition in respect of any offence mentioned in Article 1, c, d, and e of the Convention, including an attempt at or participation as an accomplice in one of those offences, which it considers to be a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence and which has been committed during general internal disturbances.”
56. See, 12 NYIL (1981) pp. 191–192.
57. Article 15: “1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.
3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefore …”.
58. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 7–12, 38–39.
59. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 47, 48.
60. Convention of 27 January 1977, Trb. 1977 No. 63.
61. Article 1: “For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, none of the following offences shall be regarded as a political offence of as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives:”
…
(d) an offence involving kidnapping, the taking of a hostage or serious unlawful detention;”
62. Trb. 1981 No. 53.
63. Article 1: “a. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970;
b. an offence within the scope of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971;
c. a serious offence involving an attack against the life, physical integrity or liberty of internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents;
e. an offence involving the use of a bomb, grenade, rocket, automatic firearm of letter or parcel bomb if this use endangers persons;
f. an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence.”
64. Trb. 1981 No. 69.
65. Article 2: “1. For the purposes of extradition between Contracting States, a Contracting State may decide not to regard as a political offence of as an offence connected with a political offence or as an offence inspired by political motives a serious offence involving an act of violence, other than one covered by Article 1, against the life, physical integrity of liberty of a person.
2. The same shall apply to a serious offence involving an act against property, other than one covered by Article 1, if the act created a collective danger for persons.
3. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences or participation as an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an offence.”
66. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 27, 54–55.
67. Doc. H/PRO/3, note VIII (1980).
68. Stb. 1897 No. 42.
69. Article 33 para. 2 reads: “The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.
70. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 5–7.
71. Convention of 15 May 1972, Trb. 1973 No. 84; Treaty of 11 May 1974, Trb. 1974 No. 184.
72. Stb. 1967 No. 140.
73. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 59–60.
74. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 52, 67.
75. Reply of 24 May 1982, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 p. 2087.
76. Verslag over de 37e zitting van de Commissie der Verenigde Naties over de Rechten van de Mens [Report on the 37th session of the UN Commission of Human Rights], Geneva, 2 February - 13 March 1981, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
77. Cf., 13 NYIL (1982) p. 200.
78. Doc. A/36/18.
79. Statement of 6 October 1981, Zesendertigste Zitting pp. 504–505.
80. See for the text of the draft, Report of the ad hoc Committee on the drafting of an International Convention against Apartheidin Sports, Doc. A/36/36 Annex.
81. Reply of 4 May 1981, Doc. A/AC192/L.3 p. 13.
82. Bijl.Hand. II 1979/80 - 16094 No. 3 p. 3.
83. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 16094 No. 6 p. 15.
84. Trb. 1964 No. 15 and 1969 No. 241.
85. Bijl.Hand. II 1980/81 - 15396 (R 1110) No. 6 pp. 5–7.
86. Statement of 29 April 1982, Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17398 No. 3 pp. 3–4.
87. Reply to written questions, 11 March 1982, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 p. 1501.
88. Trb. 1964 No. 15 and 1969 No. 241.
89. Bijl.Hand. I 1981/82 - 15396 (R 1110) No. 18b pp. 1–2.
90. Article 1 para. 1: “Each State Party shall abolish the death penalty in its territory and shall no longer foresee the use of it against any individual subject to its jurisdiction nor impose nor execute it.”
91. Article 2 para. 2: “Nevertheless, the competence of the Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the Covenant to receive and consider communications, resulting from a declaration in accordance with article 41 of the Covenant, shall not be effective in relation to the present Protocol unless the State Party concerned has made a statement recognizing such competence in respect of article 1 of the present Protocol.”
Article 3: “The present Protocol shall also supplement the Optional Protocol of 19 December 1966 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966, provided that the competence of the Committee pursuant to the Optional Protocol shall not be effective in relation to the present Protocol unless the State Party concerned has made a statement recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction also in respect of article 1 of the present Protocol.”
92. Reply of 1 September 1981, Doc. A/36/441 pp. 12–13.
93. Trb. 1978 No. 178.
94. Trb. 1978 No. 177.
95. NJ 1954 No. 788.
95a. Article 9: “The rights of association and assembly of residences is recognized.”
96. NJ 1970 No. 156.
97. Reply of 23 April 1982, Hand. II 1981/82 pp. 1861–1862.
98. Stc. No. 166 of 1 September 1981 p. 7.
99. Trb. 1951 No. 114.
100. Trb. 1953 No. 11.
101. Reply of 1 December 1981, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 pp. 639–640.
102. Paramaribo, 23 January 1981, Trb. 1981 No. 35.
103. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17058 No. 4 p. 1.
104. Art. 12: “…[This Agreement] shall enter into force on the first day of the second month following the day on which the States Parties to this Agreement have informed each other in writing that the necessary formalities for entry into force have been fulfilled in their respective countries.”
105. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17058 No. 5 p. 2.
106. Cf., 12 NYIL (1981) p. 216; 13 NYIL (1982) p. 218.
107. Doc. A/35/312 and Corr.1 and Add. 1 and 2 and Add.2/Corr. 1.
108. Reply of 6 October 1981, Doc. A/36/553/Add.1 pp. 5–11.
109. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 360; 11 NYIL (1980) p. 221; 12 NYIL (1981) p. 222; 13 NYIL (1982) p. 222.
110. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-third Session, 4 May - 24 July 1981, GAOR, 36th Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/36/10), especially p. 265.
111. Article 20 para. 3: “When a treaty is a constituent instrument of an international organization and unless it otherwise provides, a reservation requires the acceptance of the competent organ of that organization.”
112. Article 24 para. 4: “The provisions of a treaty regulating the authentication of its text, the establishment of the consent of States to be bound by the treaty, the manner or date of its entry into force, reservations, the functions of the depositary and other matters arising necessarily before the entry into force of the treaty apply from the time of the adoption of its text.”
113. Statement of 4 November 1981, Zesendertigste Zitting pp. 558–560; summary in Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.40 pp. 15–17.
114. Convention of 27 January 1977, Trb. 1977 No. 63; Agreement of 4 December 1979, Trb. 1980 No. 14.
115. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 15971 (R 1133)/15972 No. 10 pp. 39–40, 58.
116. Exchange of letters concerning the Netherlands participation in the MFO in the Sinai, of 2/4 March 1982, Trb. 1982 No. 61.
117. 20 ILM (1981) p. 1190.
118. Statement of 24 February 1982, Hand. II 1981/82 pp. 2345–2346.
119. Reply of 26 May 1982, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 p. 2105.
120. London, 2 November 1973, Trb. 1975 No. 147.
121. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17033 (R 1189) No. 7 p. 6.
122. Trb. 1981 No. 40.
123. Treaty on principles governing the activities of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, of 27 January 1967, Trb. 1967 No. 31.
124. Art. IV para. 2 reads, inter alia: “The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes.”
125. Memorandum of 11 September 1981, Bijl.Hand. 1981/82 - 17104 (R 1191) No. 1 p. 5.
126. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17104 (R 1191) No. 1 p. 7.
127. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) p. 201; 9 NYIL (1978) p. 229; 10 NYIL (1979) p. 379; 11 NYIL (1980) p. 227; 12 NYIL (1981) p. 230; 13 NYIL (1982) p. 229.
128. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-third Session, 4 May - 24 July 1981, GAOR, 36th Session, Suppl. No. 10 (A/36/10), especially p. 351 et seq.
129. Article 4: “Without prejudice to the provisions of article 5:
1. A State, which has committed an internationally wrongful act, shall:
(a) discontinue the act, release and return the persons and objects held through such act, and prevent continuing effects of such act; and
(b) subject to article 22 of Part 1 of the present articles, apply such remedies as are provided for in, or admitted under, its internal law; and
(c) re-establish the situation as it existed before the breach.
2. To the extent that it is materially impossible for the State to act in conformity with the provisions of paragraph 1 of the present article, it shall pay a sum of money to the injured State, corresponding to the value which a fulfilment of those obligations would bear.
3. In the case mentioned in paragraph 2 of the present article, the State shall, in addition, provide satisfaction to the injured State in the form of an apology and of appropriate guarantees against repetition of the breach.”
Article 5: “1. If the internationally wrongful act is a breach of an international obligation concerning the treatment to be accorded by a State (within its jurisdiction) to aliens, whether natural or juridical persons, the State which has committed the breach has the option either to fulfil the obligation, mentioned in article 4, paragraph 1, under (c), or to act in accordance with article 4, paragraph 2.
2. However, if, in the case mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present article,
(a) the wrongful act was committed with the intent to cause direct damage to the injured State, or
(b) the remedies, referred to in article 4, paragraph 1, under (b), are not in conformity with an international obligation of the State to provide effective remedies, and the State concerned exercises the option to act in conformity with article 4, paragraph 2, paragraph 3 of that article shall apply.”
130. Article 13: “An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority”.
131. Article 22: “When the conduct of a State has created a situation not in conformity with the result required of it by an international obligation concerning the treatment to be accorded to aliens, whether natural or juridical persons, but the obligation allows that this or an equivalent result may nevertheless be achieved by subsequent conduct of the State, there is a breach of the obligation only if the aliens concerned have exhausted the effective local remedies available to them without obtaining the treatment called for by the obligation or, where that is not possible, an equivalent treatment.”
132. Zesendertigste Zitting, pp. 563–565; summary in Doc. A/C.6/36/SR.45 pp. 4–6.
133. Article 2: “Every State is subject to the possibility of being held to have committed an internationally wrongful act entailing its international responsibility.”
134. Article 8: “The conduct of a person or group of persons shall also be considered as an act of the State under international law if
(a) it is established that such person or group of persons was in fact acting on behalf of that State; or
(b) such person or group of persons was in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence of the official authorities and in circumstances which justified the exercise of those elements of authority.”
135. Article 5: “For the purposes of the present articles, conduct of any State organ having that status under the internal law of that State shall be considered as an act of the State concerned under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question.”
Article 7: “1. The conduct of an organ of a territorial governmental entity within a State shall also be considered as an act of that State under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question.
2. The conduct of an organ of an entity which is not part of the formal structure of the State or a territorial governmental entity, but which is empowered by the internal law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority, shall also be considered as an act of the State under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question.”
136. Article 9: “The conduct of an organ which has been placed at the disposal of a State by another State or by an international organization shall be considered as an act of the former State under international law, if that organ was acting in the exercise of elements of the governmental authority of the State at whose disposal it has been placed.”
137. Article 18 para. 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.”
138. Article 19: “1. An act of a State which constitutes a breach of an international obligation is an internationally wrongful act, regardless of the subject-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 mainte-nace of international peace and security, such as that prohibiting aggression;
(b) a serious breach of an international obligation of essentail 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.”
139. Article 21 para. 1: “There is a breach by a State of an international obligation requiring it to achieve, by means of its own choice, a specified result, if, by the conduct adopted, the State does not achieve the result required of it by that obligation.”
Article 23: “When the result required of a State by an international obligation is the prevention, by means of its own choice, of the occurrence of a given event, there is a breach of that obligation only if, by the conduct adopted, the State does not achieve that result.”
140. Article 22: “When the conduct of a State has created a situation not in conformity with the result required of it by an international obligation concerning the treatment to be accorded to aliens, whether natural or juridical persons, but the obligation allows that this or an equivalent result may nevertheless be achieved by subsequent conduct of the State, there is a breach of the obligation only if the aliens concerned have exhausted the effective local remedies available to them without obtaining the treatment called for by the obligation or, where that is not possible, an equivalent treatment.”
141. Reply of 8 May 1980, Doc. A/CN.4/328/Add.4 pp. 10–12.
142. Article 27: “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.”
143. Article 28: “1. An internationally wrongful act committed by a State in a field of activity in which that State is subject to the power of direction or control of another State entails the international responsibility of that other State.
2. An internationally wrongful act committed by a State as the result of coercion exerted by another State to secure the commission of that act entails the international responsibility of that other State.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the international responsibility, under the other articles of the present draft, of the State which has committed the internationally wrongful act.”
144. Article 29: “1. The consent validly given by a State to the commission by another State of a specified act not in conformity with an obligation of the latter State towards the former State precludes the wrongfulness of the act in relation to that State to the extent that the act remains within the limits of that consent.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if the obligation arises out of a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present draft articles, 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.”
145. Article 30: “The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an obligation of that State towards another State is precluded if the act constitutes a measure legitimate under international law against that other State, in consequence of an internationally wrongful act of that other State.”
146. Article 31: “1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act was due to an irresistible force or to an unforeseen external event beyond its control which made it materially impossible for the State to act in conformity with that obligation or to know that its conduct was not in conformity with that obligation.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the State in question has contributed to the occurrence of the situation of material impossibility.”
147. Article 32: “1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the author of the conduct which constitutes the act of that State had no other means, in a situation of extreme distress, of saving his life or that of persons entrusted to his care.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the State in question has contributed to the occurrence of the situation of extreme distress or if the conduct in question was likely to create a comparable or greater peril.”
148. Article 35: “Preclusion of the wrongfulness of an act of a State by virtue of the provisions of articles 29, 31, 32 or 33 does not prejudge any question that may arise in regard to compensation for damage caused by that act.”
149. Article 33: “1. A state of necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act of that State not in conformity with an international obligation of the State unless:
(a) the act was the only means of safeguarding an essential interest of the State against a grave and imminent peril; and
(b) the act did not seriously impair an essential interest of the State towards which the obligation existed.
2. In any case, a state of necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness:
(a) if the international obligation with which the act of the State is not in conformity arises out of a peremptory norm of general international law; or
(b) if the international obligation with which the act of the State is not in conformity is laid down by a treaty which, explicitly or implicitly, excludes the possibility of invoking the state of necessity with respect to that obligation; or
(c) if the State in question has contributed to the occurrence of the state of necessity.”
150. Reply of 28 April 1982, Doc. A/CN.4/351/Add.3 and Corr. 1 pp. 2–3.
151. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17543 No. 1 p. 2.
152. Cf., 11 NYIL (1980) p. 237.
153. Ontwapening, veiligheid, vrede — voontellen, besprekingen en besluiten 1977/80 [Disarmament, security, peace — proposals, negotiations and decisions 1977/80], Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs vol. 128 (1982) p. 425.Google Scholar
154. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 101 p. 1.
155. 20 ILM (1981) p. 1190.
156. Trb. 1969 No. 206.
157. Trb. 1982 No. 61.
158. Trb. 1980 No. 49.
159. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17197 No. 5 pp. 6–7.
160. Zesendertigste Zitting pp. 547–548.
161. Statement of 28 April 1982, Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 80 pp. 1, 2.
162. Statement of 6 May 1982, Hand. II 1981/82 p. 3253.
163. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 95 p. 7.
164. Reply of 16 February 1982, Aanh. Hand. II 1981/82 p. 1267.
165. Reply of 15 July 1982, Aanh. Hand. II 1981/82 p. 2517.
166. General Assembly resolution 2542 (XXIV).
167. General Assembly resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI).
168. General Assembly resolution 3281 (XXIX).
169. General Assembly resolution 35/56.
170. General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV).
171. Doc. E/CN.4/AC.39/1982/4.
172. See, 11 NYIL (1981) p. 253.
173. Statement of 4 March 1982, Hand. II 1981/82 p. 2497.
174. Statement of 1 April 1982, Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 V No. 77 p. 11.
175. The Hague, 25 June 1981, Trb. 1981 No. 204.
176. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17142 No. 7 pp. 2–3.
177. Trb. 1977 No. 141.
178. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 16902 (R 1168) No. 6 pp. 3, 4.
179. Trb. 1968 No. 126.
180. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 16902 (R 1168) No. 6 p. 8.
181. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 405, 11 NYIL (1980) p. 256.
182. Bijl.Hand. II 1981/82 - 17100 XVI No. 129 p. 2.
183. Cf., 1 NYIL (1970) p. 189; 2 NYIL (1971) p. 201; 9 NYIL (1978) p. 247; 11 NYIL (1980) p. 257; 12 NYIL (1981) p. 261; 13 NYIL (1982) p. 270.
184. Bijl.Hand. II 1974/75 - 13461 No. 2 p. 64.
185. Reply to written questions, 21 June 1982, Aanh.Hand. II 1981/82 pp. 2289–2290.