No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009
1. Statement in the Second Chamber of Parliament, 4 March 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 pp. 3193–3194.
2. Cf. 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 202.
3. See the last report of the Group: TD/B/AC.1 2/4, of 1 August 1974.
4. This draft, after being slightly amended by the sponsors themselves, was later adopted by the General Assembly as resolution 3281 (XXIX) with 120 votes for, six against and ten abstentions. None of the proposals for more substantial amendments was adopted. Text in 14 I.L.M. (1975) p. 251 et seq.; and in: Verslag over de Negentwintigste Zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties (Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 109, 1975) p. 362 et seq.Google Scholar
5. “Economic as well as political and other relations among States shall be governed, inter alia, by the following principles:
…
(f) Peaceful coexistence;
…”
6. The Art. reads: “Every State has the right to engage in international trade and other forms of economic co-operation irrespective of any differences in political, economic and social systems. No State shall be subjected to discrimination of any kind based solely on such differences. In the pursuit of international trade and other forms of economic co-operation, evry State is free to choose the forms of organization of its foreign economic relations and to enter into bilateral and multilateral arrangements consistent with its international obligations and with the needs of international economic co-operation.”
7. The Art. reads: “All States have the right to associate in organizations of primary commodity producers in order to develop their national economies, to achieve stable financing for their development and, in pursuance of their aims, to assist in the promotion of sustained growth of the world economy, in particular accelerating the development of developing countries. Correspondingly all States have the duty to respect that right by refraining from applying economic and political measures that would limit it.”
8. The Art. reads: “1. It is the right and duty of all States, individually and collectively, to eliminate colonialism, apartheid, racial discrimination, neo-colonialism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation and domination, and the economic and social consequences thereof, as a prerequisite for development. States which practise such coercive policies are economically responsible to the countries, territories and peoples affected for the restitution and full compensation for the exploitation and depletion of, and damages to, the natural and all other resources of those countries, territories and peoples. It is the duty of all States to extend assistance to them.
2. No State has the right to promote or encourage investments that may constitute an obstacle to the liberation of a territory occupied by force.”
9. The Art. reads: “With a view to accelerating the economic growth of developing countries and bridging the economic gap between developed and developing countries, developed countries should grant generalized preferential, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory treatment to developing countries in those fields of international economic co-operation where it may be feasible.”
10. The Art. reads: “1. Every State has and shall freely exercise full permanent sovereignty, including possession, use and disposal, over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities.
2. Each State has the right:
(a) To regulate and exercise authority over foreign investment within its national jurisdiction in accordance with its laws and regulations and in conformity with its national objectives and priorities. No State shall be compelled to grant preferential treatment to foreign investment;
(b) To regulate and supervise the activities of transnational corporations within its national jurisdiction and take measures to ensure that such activities comply with its laws, rules and regulations and conform with its economic and social policies. Transnational corporations shall not intervene in internal affairs of a host State. Every State should, with full regard for its sovereign rights, co-operate with other States in the exercise of the right set forth in this subparagraph;
(c) To nationalize, expropriate or transfer ownership of foreign property, in which case appropriate compensation should be paid by the State adopting such measures, taking into account its relevant laws and regulations and all circumstances that the State considers pertinent. In any case where the question of compensation gives rise to a controversy, it shall be settled under the domestic law of the nationalizing State and by its tribunals, unless it is freely and mutually agreed by all States concerned that other peaceful means be sought on the basis of the sovereign equality of States and in accordance with the principle of free choice of means.”
11. The Art. reads: “All States have the duty to coexist in tolerance and live together in peace, irrespective of differences in political, economic, social and cultural systems, and to facilitate trade between States having different economic and social systems. International trade should be conducted without prejudice to generalized non-discriminatory and non-reciprocal preferences in favour of developing countries, on the basis of mutual advantage, equitable benefits and the exchange of most-favoured-nation treatment.”
12. Statement of 9 December 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 360–361Google Scholar; A/C.2/SR.1650.
13. See supra, n. 5.
14. See supra, n. 10.
15. See supra, notes 6 and 11.
16. See supra, n. 7.
17. Reply to written questions, 17 February 1975, Aanh.Hand. II 1974/75 No. 711 pp. 553–555.
18. Statement in the Second Chamber, 26 February 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 p. 3090.
19. Statement in the Second Chamber, 17 April 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 p. 3925.
20. Statement in the First Chamber, 11 June 1975, Hand. I 1974/75 p. 1062.
21. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-sixth session, doc. A/9610 of 5 August 1974; later published in its final version as G.A.O.R. 29th session, Supplement No. 10 (A/96 10/Rev. 1), and in I.L.C. Yearbook 1974 vol. II Part One, pp. 157–332.
22. The Art. reads: “1. The obligations or rights of a predecessor State under treaties in force in respect of a territory at the date of a succession of States do not become the obligations or rights of the successor State towards other States parties to those treaties in consequence only of the fact that the predecessor State and the successor State have concluded an agreement providing that such obligations or rights shall devolve upon the successor State.
2. Notwithstanding the conclusion of such an agreement, the effects of a succession of States on treaties which, at the date of that succession of States, were in force in respect of the territory in question are governed by the present articles.”
23. Article 16 reads: “1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3, a newly independent State may, by a notification of succession, establish its status as a party to any multilateral treaty which at the date of the succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the newly independent State would be incompatible with its object and purpose or would radically change the conditions for the operation of the treaty.
3. When, under the terms of the treaty or by reason of the limited number of the negotiating States and the object and purpose of the treaty the participation of any other State in the treaty must be considered as requiring the consent of all the parties, the newly independent State may establish its status as a party to the treaty only with such consent.”
24. The provision reads: “(f)“newly independent State” means a successor State the territory of which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible.”
25. Which reads: “(6)The expression ‘newly independent State’, defined in sub-paragraph 1(f), [of Art. 2] signifies a State which has arisen from a succession of States in a territory which immediately before the date of the succession of States was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor State was responsible. In order to make clear that, for the purposes of the draft articles, a newly independent State is a successor State, the Commission inserted at the present session the word “successo” before “State” in the first line of the definition given in sub-paragraph 1 (f).”
26. Article 33 reads: “1. When a part or parts of the territory of a State separate to form one or more States, whether or not the predecessor State continues to exist:
(a) any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect of the entire territory of the predecessor State continues in force in respect of each successor State so formed;
(b)any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect only of that part of the territory of the predecessor State which has becomea successor State continues in force in respect of that successor State alone.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) the States concerned otherwise agree; or
(b) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the successor State would be incompatible with its object and purpose or would radically change the conditions for theoperation of the treaty.
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, if a part of the territory of a State separates from it and becomes a State in circumstances which are essentially of the same character as those existing in the case of the formation of a newly independent State, the successor State shall be regarded for the purposes of the present articles in all respects as a newly independent State.”
27. This referred to a proposed new draft article (A/CN.4/L.221) which the ILC had not yet discussed because of lack of time. The text of the proposed provision is included in the I.L.C. annua report, para. 79, and reads: “1. In any dispute between two or more parties regarding the interpretation or application of these articles, which is not settled through negotiation, any one of the parties to the dispute may set in motion the procedure specified in the annex to the Convention by submitting a request to that effect to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. Nothing in the foregoing paragraph shall affect the rights or obligations of the parties, under any provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.”
28. Statement of 7 November 1974, text in Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 571–573Google Scholar; A/C.6/SR.1494.
29. Cf. the Dutch comments on the 1972 provisional draft articles, 6 N.Y.I.L (1975) p. 254 et seq.
30. This refers to the 1972 provisional draft articles, contained in G.A.O.R. 27th session, Supplement No. 10 (A/8710/Rev.1); I.L.C. Yearbook 1972 vol. II p. 229 et seq.
31. See supra, n. 26.
32. Art. 28 para. 2 of the 1972 provisional draft articles reads: “Insuch a case, the individual State emerging from the separation is to be considered as being in the same position as a newly independent State in relation to any treaty which at the date of the separation was in force in respect of the territory now under its sovereignty”.
33. For Art. 16(2), see supra n. 23. Arts. 17(3) and 18(3) are identical: “3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply if it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the newly independent State would be incompatible with its object and purpose or would radically change the conditions for the operation of the treaty.”
34. This is a proposed new draft article. It reads:
“Multilateral treaties of universal character
1. Any multilateral treaty of universal character which at the date of a succession of States is in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates shall remain in force between the newly independent State and the other States parties to the treaty until such timeas the newly independent States gives notice of termination of the said treaty for that State.
2. Reservations to a treaty and objections to reservations made by the predecessor State with regard to any treaty referred to in paragraph 1 shall be in force for the newly independent State under the same conditions as for the predecessor State.
3. The consent of the predecessor State, under a treaty referred to in paragraph 1, to be bound by only a part of the treaty; or the choice by the predecessor State, under a treaty referred to in paragraph 1, of different provisions thereof, be in force for the newly independent State under the same conditions as for the predecessor State.
4. Notice of termination of a treaty referred to in paragraph 1 shall be given by the newly independent State in accordance with article 17 [article 21 of the final draft].
5. A treaty referred to in paragraph 1 shall cease to be in force for the newly independent State three months after it has transmitted the notice referred to in paragraph 4.”
The foregoing text was accompanied by a proposed “new paragraph for inclusion in article 2” reading as follows:
“(x) ‘multilateral treaty of universal character’ means an international agreement which is by object and purpose of world-wide scale, open to participation by all States, concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrumentor in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”
I.L.C.annual report para. 76, I.L.C. Yearbook 1974 vol. II part One, p. 172 n. 57.
35. The Art. reads: “1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or it is otherwise agreed, a newly independent State which makes a notification of succession under article 16 or article 17, paragraph 2, shall be considered a party to the treaty from the date of the succession of States or from the date of entry into force of the treaty, whichever is the later date.
2. Nevertheless, the operation of the treaty shall be considered as suspended as between the newly independent State and the other parties to the treaty until the date of making of the notification of succession except so far as that treaty may be applied provisionally in accordance with article 26 or as may be otherwise agreed.
3. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or it is otherwise agreed, a newly independent State which makes a notification of succession under article 17, paragraph 1, shall be considered a contracting state to the treaty from the date on which the notification of succession is made.”
36. The Art. reads: “1. Articles 15 to 28 apply in the case of a newly independent State formed from two or more territories.
2. When a newly independent State formed from two or more territories is considered as or becomes a party to a treaty by virtue of articles 16, 17 or 23 and at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force, or consent to be bound had been given, in respect of one or more, but not all, of those territories, the treaty shall apply in respect of the entire territory of that State unless:
(a) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the entire territory would be incompatible with its object and purpose or would radically change the conditions for the operation of the treaty;
(b) in the case of a multilateral treaty not falling under article 16, paragraph 3, or under article 17, paragraph 4, the notification of succession is restricted to the territory in respect of which the treaty was in force at the date of the succession of States, or in respect of which consent to be bound by the treaty had been given prior to that date;
(c) in the case of a multilateral treaty falling under article 16, paragraph 3, or under article 17, paragraph 4, the newly independent State and the other States parties or, as the case may be, the other contracting States otherwise agree; or
(d)in the case of a bilateral treaty, the newly independent State and the other State concerned otherwise agree.
3. When a newly independent State formed from two or more territories becomes a party to a multilateral treaty under article 18 and by the signature or signatures of the predecessor State or States it had been intended that the treaty should extend to one or more, but not all, of those territories, the treaty shall apply in respect of the entire territory of the newly independent State unless:
(a) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of the treaty in respect of the entire territory would be incompatible with its object and purpose or would radically change the conditions for the operation of the treaty;
(b) in the case of a multilateral treaty not falling under article 18, paragraph 4, the ratification, acceptance or approval of the treaty is restricted to the territory or territories to which it was intended that the treaty should extend; or
(c) in the case of a multilateral treaty falling under article 18, paragraph 4, the newly independent State and the other States parties or, as the case may be, the other contracting States otherwise agree.”
37. Reference is here made to the proposed new draft article quoted supra, n. 27.
38. A/10198, pp. 17–19.
39. Text also in 69 A.J.I.L. (1975) pp. 480–483.
40. Statement in the Second Chamber, 27 February 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 pp. 3114–3115.
41. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13100 V No. 2 p. 45. Cf. 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 208–209, 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) p. 264.
42. Cf. the explanation given by the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Parliament, N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 265–266.
43. This Committee recommended the acceptance of all credentials except those of South Africa.
44. Statement of 30 September 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc, p. 254Google Scholar. As to other actions aimed at excluding South Africafrom the activities of the UN General Assembly, see infra, 13.223, p. 271.
45. Text of the amendments in Trb. 1975 No. 31.
46. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13.528 (R.994) No. 1 p. 2. Also in: Bijl. Hand. I 1974/75 No. 142.
47. With regard to participation of liberation movements in the debates of the main committees of the General Assembly see infra, 3.31, p. 248.
48. Explanation of vote, 14 October 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 257Google Scholar.
49. See infra, 3.31, p. 248. In the explanatory memorandum to the 1975 draft budget for foreign affairs it is said that “The Government holds the view that liberation movements should have the opportunity to participate in the acitivities of international organizations as observers …” Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13.000 V No. 2, p. 45.
50. The resolution reads: “Considering that the Palestinian people is the principal party to the question of Palestine, Invites the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people, to participate in deliberations of the General Assembly on the question of Palestine in plenary meetings.”
51. Reply to written questions, 22 October 1974, Aanh. Hand. II 1974/75 No. 167 pp. 129–130.
52. Cf. Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 226–227.Google Scholar
53. Later adopted as resolution 3247 (XXIX).
54. Statement of 21 October 1974, Verstag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 582Google Scholar; and A/C.6/SR.1481 and Corr. 1 and 2, p. 100.
55. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 315–316.
56. U.N. doc. A/10113/Add.1, p. 9. Cf. the statements by the Netherlands representative in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, A/C.6/SR.1518 and 1521.
57. The concept was launched by the Netherlands Government in 1973. See 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 267–268.
58. Statement in the First Chamber of Parliament, 27 November 1974, Hand. I 1974/75 p. 101.
59. Statement in the First Chamber of Parliament, 11 June 1975, Hand. I 1974/75 p. 1050.
60. Communique of the Conference, para. 3. Text in 12 C.M.L. Rev. (1975) p. 143.
61. Reference is here made to the disagreement between France and the other member States which was discussed in an extraordinary session of the Council in Luxembourg, January 1966. See for the text of the Communiqué issued on that occasion: 3 C.M.L. Rev. (1965–1966) p. 469. Cf. also Kapteyn, P.J.G. and VerLoren van Themaat, P., Introduction to the Law of the European Communities, after the accession of new member States (1973) pp. 81–82, 144–145.Google Scholar
62. Statement in the Second Chamber of Parliament, 24 February 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 OCV 13 pp. 554–555.
63. Paragraph 4 reads: “4. With a view to progress towards European unity, the Heads of Government re-affirm their determination gradually to adopt common positrons and co-ordinate their diplomatic action in all areas ofinternational affairs which affect the interests of the European Community. The President in office will be the spokesman for the Nine and will set out their views in international diplomacy. He will ensure that the necessary concertation always takes place in good time.
In view of the increasing role of political co-operation in the construction of Europe, the European Assembly must be more closely associated with the work of the Presidency, for example through replies to questions on political co-operation put to him by its Members”.
64. Reply to written questions, 19 December 1974, Aanh.Hand. II 1974/75 No. 443 p. 346.
65. See on the Dublin talks: 8 Bulletin of the European Communities (1975) issue 3, Points 2347–2348.
66. Statement before the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, 24 February 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 OCV 13 p. 554.
67. Cf. the decision of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on inviting national liberation movements recognized by the Organization of African Unity or by the Lague of Arab States operating in their respective regions to participate in its proceedings as observers. See the recommendation of the General Committee to the Conference to amend the Rules of Procedure A/Conf.62/31, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. III (1975) p. 61Google Scholar, and the decision by consensus taken at the plenary meeting of the Conference, ibid, vol. I (1975) p. 177.
68. Explanation of vote in the Special Political Committee, 28 November 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 331.Google Scholar
69. Cf. 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 269–270.
70. Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber, 30 June 1975, Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–12837 (R.944) No. 6 pp. 6–7.
71. These directives are inserted into the ‘Aliens Circular’ which has not yet been fully published. They are Government Instructions on the application of the law on aliens. A survey of the directives is given in Stc. 15 February 1974 No. 33 p. 3.
72. New provisional rules relating to the reception of aliens seeking asylum, decreed by the State Secretary of Justice on 21 February 1974. The ruleswere announced in Stc. 28 February 1974 No. 42 p. 1, and in Mededelingenvan het Stafbureau Voorlichting of the Ministry of Justice, No. 764, of 27 February 1974.
73. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13.100 VI No. 2 pp. 66–67.
74. Reply to written question, 22 July 1975, Aanh. Hand. I 1974/75 No. 97 p. 173.
75. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12839 No. 2. A survey of the historical background of the problem of the South Moluccans In the Netherlands Is to be found In the explanatory memorandum, ibid. No. 3; cf. 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 272–274.
In Netherlands nationality law the main status of Dutch national is that of “nederlander”. In the colonial territories a different national status was introduced, and employed for a long time, viz. that of ‘Nederlands Onderdaan (hiet-Nederlander)’, i.e. ‘Netherlands subject’. Those in categories fell under the jurisdiction of the State of the Netherlands and were, for all practical, international, purposes, Netherlands nationals. In order to avoid misunderstanding the term Netherlands citizen' is used for ‘Nederlander’.
76. This refers to the major organization in the Moluccan community in the Netherlands.
77. Memorandum of Reply, 12 May 1975, Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–12.839 No. 6 pp. 1–2.
78. Article 1 reads: “1. Moluccans who were transferred to the Netherlands in groups in 1951 or 1952 under the auspices of the Netherlands Government, and who are domiciled or factually resident in the Netherlands at thetime of entry into force of this Act, while not possessing Netherlands citizenship, are to be treated as Netherlands citizens in the application of Dutch law.
2. They do not thereby acquire the status of Netherlands citizen.”
79. Art. 5(2) of the Constitution reads: “1. Every Netherlands citizen is eligible for appointment to any office in the service of the State.
2. No Alien shall be eligible for such appointment save in accordance with the provisions of the law.”
80. Art. 43 of the Aliens Act provides the possibility to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands for a declaratory judgment on the possession of Netherlands citizenship.
81. I.e. ‘Dutch subject’, a status formerly created for the inhabitants of the colonies. Cf. supra, 75.
82. Memorandum of Reply, cited, in n. 70 pp. 3–4.
83. 69 U.N.T.S. p. 208; Stb. 1949 J 570.
84. 69 U.N.T.S. p. 230.
85. Bijl. Hand. II 1955/56–4264 No. 1.
86. See infra, p. 311 et seq.
87. Bijl. Hand. II 1955/56–4264 No. 1.
88. Bijl. Hand. II 1956/57–4427 No. 4.
89. Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken 1974-1975 p. 148 et seqGoogle Scholar. Cf. G.W. Maas Geesteranus, infra p. 361.
90. By Royal Decree of 11 September 1975, Stb. 1975 No. 502.
91. Stb. 1966 No. 264.
92. Text in 14 I.L.M. (1975) p. 826; Tweede Algemene Conferentie van de Verenigde Naties voor Industriele Ontwikkeling (Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 111) p. 53 et seq. at p. 56.
93. Ibid. p. 51.
94. The records of the parliamentary proceedings seem to contain a mistake, being either a slip of the tongue of the Minister or a slip of the pen of the recorder: “… wij niet wilten vasthouden aan de formule: volkenrecht-internationaal recht, maar …”
95. Statement of 11 June 1975, Hand. I 1974/75, pp. 1077–1078.
96. Comments or October 1974. Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken 1974–1975 (1975), Annex 25, pp. 85B–86B.Google Scholar
97. Id. Annex 28, pp. 99B-100B.
98. Statement of 6 December 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc., p. 479.Google Scholar
99. This Article deals with sanctions directed against a notary public who neglects his professional duties, who is guilty of misbehaviour or immoral conduct, or who commits acts contrary to the honour and dignity of his profession.
100. Reference is here made to Art. 4 para. 1 of the Constitution and Art. 5 of the New York Convention. The former provision reads: “All persons who are in the territory of the Kingdom shall have equal rights to protection of their person and property”.
101. Reply to written questions, 17 March 1975, Aanh. Hand. II 1974/75 No. 839 p. 668.
102. CERD/C/4 of 19 March 1975. The first report is of 12 March 1973, doc. CERD/C/R.50/ Add. 4. See also 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p.217.
103. G.A.O.R. 30th session, Supplement No. 18 (A/10018) pp. 34–35.
104. Statement in the Second Chamber, 17 April 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 p. 3925.
105. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13.100 V No. 2 pp. 23–24.
106. Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, vol. IV (Third Session: Geneva, 17 March-9 May 1975), p. 96 (Third Committee, 21st meeting, 17 April 1975).
107. Air Transport Agreement of 30 April 1957, Trb. 1957 Nos. 53 and 197.
108. Reply to written questions, 21 October 1974, Aanh. Hand. II 1974/75 No. 159 p. 123.
109. U.N. doc. A/AC.134/L.46; also in 11 U.N.M.C. (1974) No.5 pp. 86–89, 13 I.L.M. (1974) pp. 710–715, and the Report of the Special Committee, UN G.A.O.R. 29th session, Supplement No. 19 (A/9619 and Corr. 1).
110. Text also in 69 A.J.I.L. (1975) pp. 480–83.
111. Statement of 10 October 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 559–562Google Scholar; A/C.6/SR.1473. Cf. the statement by the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Second Chamber, 27 February 1975, Hand. II 1974/75 pp. 3114–3115.
112. Statement of 2 October 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 576; A/C.6/1467 p. 23.Google Scholar
113. Id. p. 577.
114. Res. 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974.
115. Statement of 22 November 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. pp. 260–261Google Scholar. See also the statement made by the Prime Minister in the First Chamber of Parliament, 27 November 1974, Hand. I 1974/75 p. 101.
116. G.A. res. 3324 B (XXIX) of 16 December 1974.
117. Explanation of vote, 28 November 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 331.Google Scholar
118. Reply to written questions, 5 February 1975, Aanh. Hand. II 1974/75 No. 654 p. 507.
119. Cf. Art. 5 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1 July 1968, which reads: “Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclear weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.”
120. Statement in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 8 November 1974, Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 280Google Scholar. See also the statement by the Netherlands delegate in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, 1 April 1975, CCD/PV 662 p. 23.
121. CCD/PV 683, 21 August 1975, p. 25. (The statement is also published in Stc. 27 August 1975, No. 164 pp. 1, 3).
122. Ibid., pp. 26–27.
123. Ibid. pp. 27–28.
124. This Conference was held at Geneva in May, 1975, in pursuance of Art. VIII (3) of the (Non-Proliferation) Treaty.
125. CCD/PV 683 p. 29.
126. Washington-London-Moscow, 1 July 1968, 7 I.L.M. (1968) p. 811.
127. Art. VI reads: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
128. Statement of 8 May 1975, Jaarboek van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken 1974-1975, Annex 27, p. 96 B.Google Scholar
129. Ibid. p. 97 B.
130. Verslag over de Negenentwintigste Zitting etc. p. 281.Google Scholar
131. Explanatory Memorandum to the draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13.100 V No. 2 p. 59.