The Federal Republic of Germany, due to its geopolitical situation but also to its limited sovereignty, has never been seriously confronted with an official request to engage in military activities outside NATO, i.e., ‘out of area’. When during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict (1990/91) German armed forces were deployed in Turkey, serious concerns were raised as to their possible involvement in military activities — even though Germany would have been obliged to conform with its NATO obligations in case of an Iraqi attack on Turkish territory. Until recently, German Federal Governments always excluded a military engagement ‘out of area’ by pointing at the Federal Republic's Constitution — the Basic Law (‘Grundgesetz’). They took the view that the armed forces could only be used for defensive purposes. That is to say, either for the defence of the territory of the Federal Republic or of a NATO ally. Other uses, be they for the defence of a non-NATO member State, be they authorized by the UN Security Council, including peace-keeping operations, were considered prohibited by the Basic Law because it lacked an explicit permission to that effect. Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq conflict (1980–88) units of the Federal Navy were deployed in the Persian Gulf in order to sweep mines laid by the former belligerents off the coasts of the Gulf's riparian States. Of course, during the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, the Federal Republic of Germany took a very reserved stance and confined itself to a – considerable – financial contribution to the Allies' efforts to liberate Kuwait.

“International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim.”

“Power” is one of the most central concepts in politics. For many years political scientists and sociologists have debated the term and tried to agree on its precise content. In a recent study about economic power concentrations in the Netherlands, Mokken and Stokman and their collaborators surveyed the theoretical position of the concepts “power” and “influence”. Most of the theoretical debates are held within the confines of American political science. A number of contributions in a recent issue of The American Political Science Review show that these debates have not yet come to an end. Most of these debates concern “community power”, that is power as it manifests itself within local communities. The most important contributions to this debate have been made by American and British political scientists.

Supreme Court, 13 April 2012, Mothers of Srebrenica Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands and the United Nations

It was understood from the outset that the trials would be limited, in accordance with the Moscow Declaration, to a number of the highest-ranking Nazi leaders and their principal accomplices. It was proposed by the United States in the draft of April 30, 1945, presented to the Foreign Ministers of France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, that the trial comprise also “the principal Nazi organizations and their members, through whom the most bestial of the Nazi cruelties have been put into effect”. According to this draft, the defense of superior orders shall not absolve the accused from responsibility but may be considered, if justice so requires, in mitigation of punishment. Nor shall an accused be able to escape the trial on the ground that he was the head or principal officer of a state. Offenses against the armies of the United Nations would be punished by the appropriate national tribunals. Perpetrators of atrocities in territories occupied by Germany during the war as well as traitors such as Quisling, Laval, “Lord Haw-Haw”, would be dealt with in a similar manner.

On 2 May 2006, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its decision concerning the EC Insolvency Regulation. In this case the underlying issue was a conflict between an Italian court and an Irish court. Both of them ruled that the centre of main interests was in their own Member State. The facts were as follows.

This is the national report for the Netherlands on the above-named topic for the VIIth International Congress on Procedural Law, Würzburg September 1983. General reporters for this subject are Prof. Dr. Mauro Cappelletti (European University Institute, Florence) and Prof. Dr. Bryant Garth (Indiana University, Bloomington). In their introductory note to the national reporters they focus their attention on “how the legal system is or is not adapting to the problem of the representation of diffuse interests and more generally (on) the problem of the vindication of these rights”.

During the last few years, constitutional democracy has again become a hotly debated issue among constitutional scholars, political scientists and philosophers in Europe and the United States. Several scholars have written profound comments on the ideals of constitutionalism and democracy, and their place in contemporary political systems. While many proclaim the enduring validity of constitutional democracy, others make a plea for a radical redefinition of the concept.

1. Domicile is “… l'une des notions les plus fuyantes et les plus insaississables de nos systemes juridiques”. Are these words of Lagarde applicable to the notion of domicile as a connecting factor in the Netherlands conflict of laws? The present article sets out to cast some light upon this question. After a survey of the manifestations of domicile, usually referred to in Netherlands private international law as woonplaats or domicilie, as a connecting factor, attention will be paid to the hypothetical usefulness in private international law of the Netherlands Civil Code provisions devoted to woonplaats. Subsequently Netherlands judicial decisions will be reviewed in order to find out which elements – if any – are ascribed by Netherlands courts to the concept of domicile. As a result of this investigation a few distinctions into categories of cases will be made, giving rise to the question whether the meaning of domicile in private international law differs according to the legal question(s) it is intended to serve.

So much has been said and written about the events which led up to the involvement of the International Court of Justice in the financial consequences of the United Nations actions in Egypt (1956) and in the Congo (1960) that I shall try to be as brief as possible here.

I am going to start with a sentence in Dutch: ‘Och, het volkenrecht laat zich kneden, zoals men wil!!’ (‘Oh, you can mould public international law as you like!’).

Some twenty-five years have passed since the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments was first drafted and it seems to be doing rather well. It is in force in all twelve Member States of the European Community and has become a familiar part of the work of numerous courts in Europe handling commercial disputes. Its success is borne out by the conclusion of the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988, extending the scheme of the Brussels Convention to the Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which obtained in only three years after signature the necessary ratifications for its initial entry into force on 1 January 1992. In addition, there is much support among scholars from Eastern Europe for the accession of their countries to the Lugano Convention (which, unlike the Brussels Convention, provides for accession independently of membership of the European Community or EFTA).

International law, both conventional and customary law, has been subject to rapid transformation and crystallization in the last few decades. This is especially the case in the field of international environmental law. Conduct that was not prohibited under international law at the time of initiation can now be characterized as contravening a number of newly and widely recognized principles and norms of international environmental law. Principles that may be said to have gained such wide recognition in international law as well as domestic law, albeit to varying degrees, include the precautionary principle, the polluter-pays principle and the sic utere tuo principle described below. Such principles have been invoked in a wide variety of international disputes with the aim of halting activities undertaken within one state having environmentally injurious transboundary consequences in other states or territories beyond the jurisdiction of any state (e.g., the High Seas).