International civil aviation regulation is still mainly characterized by government influence and bilateral air transport services agreements. Also, the internationalization of the airline industry is still far away although the developments within the EEC may lead to the recognition of the need to abolish the ‘nationality’ criterion for airlines to operate internationally, at least for scheduled air services between the EEC member states. Professor Wassenbergh contends that the bilateral regime should be replaced by a multilateral regime, or to begin with maybe by one or more plurilateral regimes, creating a framework of rules enabling free competition between the airlines but allowing for temporary differential treatment based on existing differences between the states concerning their capabilities with respect to the participation under their own flag in the international air traffic market (‘pluralism’). Internationalization and privatization of the airline industry should form the basis for the treatment of air transport as a ‘trade in services’ to which the GATT-rules may be made to apply.

The Hague Evidence Convention – officially the Convention On the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters – was realized in 1970 by The Hague Conference for Private International Law. The Convention gave rise to several differences of opinion between Europe and the United States. The European countries and the United States, in particular, disagree about the (optional or obligatory) character of the convention-procedures. This article will, among other things, deal with the consequences to be expected in The Netherlands of a recent American Supreme Court judgement on this issue: The Aérospatiale case1. The subject will be treated in five sections: 1.The Hague Evidence Convention; 2.The Netherlands and The Hague Evidence Convention; 3.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for The Netherlands; 4.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for Dutch parties involved in litigation in the UnitedStates; 5.Aérospatiale and conclusion.

Decolonization in the late twentieth century sometimes differs markedly from the classicalpost-war decolonizationphenomenon. While colonies were then fighting for their independence, today (ex) colonies might have to spend their energy on efforts to prevent being forced into independence. In the case of the Antilles and Aruba, the Dutch seem to view the islands as a somewhat embarrassing legacy of the Dutch colonial era and are seeking to sever all constitutional links with the islands although sofar the Netherlands Antilles have refused to discuss independence at all, while Aruba appears to have some second thoughts about its 1996-independence choice. The issue raises questions of international law, most of them concerning the right of all peoplestoself-determination. The authorsdescribeandanalyze Dutch policy and conclude that it is not in line with Dutch duties under international law.

In 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations revoked the Mandate over South West Africa (Namibia) and thus terminated South Africa's right to administer the territory. It furthermore placed Namibia under the direct responsibility of the United Nations. Administration of the territory was delegated by the General Assembly to a subsidiary organ, the UnitedNations Council for Namibia (UNCN). The author briefly describes the establishment, the structure, the functions and the powers of the Council. Special attention will be paid to questions concerning the legal status of the UNCN. Finally the major activities of the Council will be reviewed and appraised

As is well known, states may take measures derogating from their obligations under the human rights treaties during proclaimed states of emergency. They remain, however, bound to respect certain inalienable human rights, the ‘hard core’, at all times and in all circumstances. The right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery and retroactive penal measures are thus considered as being a ‘minimum safeguard’ against human rights violations. They are generally accepted as being customary international law, one may even speak of jus cogens. Moreover, one may argue that common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which contains a larger list of human rights than the abovementioned four, should also be respected in situations which are below the threshold of an armed conflict. In the important Case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua in 1986 the International Court of Justice held that the rules in common Article 3 are fundamental principles of Humanitarian Law, which are customary law and constitute a minimum, applicable in all circumstances. Even so state practice seems to indicate the opposite; experience has shown that it is during emergency situations that flagrant abuses of human rights are most common, especially in the treatment of persons who have been detained or deprived of their liberty.

Within the European Community several countries are seeking to accelerate the process of achieving free movement of persons. To this end several international forums have been created in which harmonization or coordination of matters relating to immigration is taking place. This article is concerned with the developments in one of these forums: that of the Schengen Accord. The Schengen countries involved in this forum are Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany.

From 26 to 29 June the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries convened at the premisses of the Peace Palace in The Hague to discuss the issue of peace and the rule of law in international affairs. This meeting was the start of a campaign for a Decade of International Law. This was the first occasion that an extraordinary ministerial conference of the Non-Aligned Movement was not held in one of its member countries. The Hague was chosen to underline the historic ties between this city and the (early) development of international law. This year it will be 90 years ago that the First Hague Peace Conference was held on the initiative of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia. This conference (together with the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907) became a landmark in the history of the codification of international law and especially the development of mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of international disputes between states. The two most important conventions that were adopted at that conference were the Convention with Respect to the Law and Customs of War on Land and the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

On 22 December 1986 the Council of the European Communities adopted Regulation 4057/86/EEC, dealing with unfair pricing practices in maritime transport. This Regulation was designed to combat unreasonably low shipping tariffs made possible by state subsidies. On 4 January 1989, the Council imposed, in the form of regulation 15/89/EEC, the first redressive duty based on this Regulation on cargo transported by a South Korean company.

In April of this year the 12th Telders International Law Moot Court Competition was held in the Peace Palace in the Hague. Teams from twelve European countries debated the issues concerning the “Right to Insurgency Case”, which was included in the last issue of the Leiden Journal of International Law. The winner of the 1989 Competition was the Team from the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. In the final round they took on the team from Germany, in the Great Hall of Justice at the Peace Palace, in front of Judge Jose Maria Ruda, Judge Manfred Lachs and Judge Sir Robert Jennings.