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. The Conference (CSCE) has taken place in three stages. The first stage consisted of a meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the participating States in July 1973. They adopted the rules of procedure, the agenda, and instructions to the working bodies of the Conference. Stage two started on 18 September 1973, and comprised the work of the specialized committees and sub-committees. Their principal task consisted of the drafting of the documents to be submitted to the third and final stage of the Conference. The drafts were prepared on the basis of the conclusions reached in previous discussions, account being taken of the draft-texts introduced by the participating States. In its third stage the Conference was to adopt the final versions of the documents. See further 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 361 and 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 199.
2. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12.600 V No. 34.
3. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 -12.600 V No. 7 p. 2.
4. G.A.O.R. 28th session, Supplement No. 10 (A/9010/Rev.1).
5. Statement of 28 September 1973. De Achtentwintigste zitting van de Algemene Vergadering der Verenigde Naties (Ministry of Foreign Affairs publication No. 105, 1974) p. 537.Google Scholar
6. Ibid. pp. 537–538.
7. Cf. the explanatory memorandum to the 1974 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 12.600 V No. 2 p. 29. For earlier statements see 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 305, 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 209–210.
8. G.A. res. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, Annex. Other UN recommendations in this field have been: G.A. res. 2795 (XXVI) of 10 December 1971, G.A. res. 2918 (XXVII) of 14 November 1972 and G.A. res 3070 (XXVIII) of 30 November 1973. Cf. also the reply from the Netherlands to the Report concerning the importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, 1 July 1974 doc. A/9667 p. 5.
9. Statement of 4 December 1973 in the Second Chamber, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 1375.
10. Statement of 20 March 1974 in the First Chamber, Hand. I 1973/74 p. 466.
11. Partido Africano da Independência da Guiné e Cabo Verde.
12. Statement of 10 October 1973 in the Second Chamber, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 163. Cf. the similar reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 17 October 1973, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 214. p. 429; and the explanation of the vote by the Netherlands delegate in the UN General Assembly plenary meeting, 2 November 1973, De Achtentwintigste Zitting. etc. p. 254.
13. Statement of 11 October 1973 in the Second Chamber, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 218.
14. Reply to written questions, 17 October 1973, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 215, p. 431.
15. Statement in the Second Chamber, 10 October 1973, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 162. Cf. also the reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 26 October 1973, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 290, p. 581.
16. See also infra, 14.1251, p. 308.
17. As to participation at the Conference the reply reads: “… the PRG may be considered to represent one of the parties involved in the greatest armed conflict of recent years, viz. the war in Viet-Nam. Therefore, the Netherlands could agree to the PRG being given an opportunity of participating in the Conference, but without being granted the status of full participant which includes the right to vote. In the light of these considerations the Netherlands decided not to vote against the proposal in question.”
18. Reply to written questions, 1 April 1974, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 1143, pp. 2289–2290.
19. G.A.O.R. 27th session, Supplement No. 10(A/8710/Rev.I), introduction to Chapter II, “Succession in respect of treaties”, para. 32, p. 6.
20. Ibid., para. 34.
21. Reading: “The provisions of the present Convention shall not prejudice any question that may arise in regard to a treaty from a succession of States or from the international responsibility of a State or from the outbreak of hostilities between States.”
22. Cf. Art. 5; also Art. 43 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
23. See Art. 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
24. Art. 7 reads: 1. A predecessor State's obligations or rights 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 and successor States 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.
25. Art. 8 reads: 1. A predecessor State's obligations or rights 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 or of other States parties to those treaties in consequence only of the fact that the successor State has made a unilateral declaration providing for the continuance in force of the treaties in respect of its territory.
2. In such a case the effects of the 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.
26. Report of the 53rd Conference, Buenos Aires, 1968 (London, 1969) pp. 596–603.Google Scholar
27. Art. 13, para. 4 reads: When a treaty provides that a specified number of parties shall be necessary for its entry into force, a newly independent State which establishes its status as a contracting State to the treaty under paragraph 1 shall be reckoned as a party for the purpose of that provision.
28. Art. 17 reads: 1. A notification of succession in respect of a multilateral treaty under article 12 or 13 must be made in writing.
2. If the notification is not signed by the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs, the representative of the State communicating it may be called upon to produce full powers.
3. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the notification of succession shall:
(a) If there is no depositary, be transmitted direct to the States for which it is intended, or if there is a depositary, to the latter;
(b) Be considered as having been made by the State in question only upon its receipt by the State to which it was transmitted or, as the case may be, upon its receipt by the depositary;
(c) If transmitted to a depositary, be considered as received by the State for which it was intended only when the latter State has been informed by the depositary.
Art. 18 reads: 1. Unless a treaty otherwise provides or it is otherwise agreed, a newly independent State which makes a notification of succession under article 12 or 13 shall be considered a party or, as the case may be, contracting State to the treaty:
(a) On its receipt by the depositary; or
(b) If there is no depositary, on its receipt by the parties or, as the case may be, contracting States.
2. When under paragraph 1 a newly independent State is considered a party to a treaty which was in force at the date of the succession of States, the treaty is considered as being in force in respect of that State from the date of the succession of States unless:
(a) The treaty otherwise provides;
(b) In the case of a treaty which falls under article 12, paragraph 3, a later date is agreed by all the parties;
(c) In the case of other treaties, the notification of succession specifies a later date.
3. When under paragraph 1 a newly independent State is considered a contracting State to a treaty which was not in force at the date of the succession of States, the treaty enters into force in respect of that State on the date provided by the treaty for its entry into force.
29. G.A.O.R., 27th session, Supplement No. 10 (A/8710/Rev.1), introduction to Chapter II, p. 9.
30. Art. 19(1)(b) reads: 1. A bilateral treaty which at the date of a succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as being in force between a newly independent State and the other State party in conformity with the provision of the treaty when:
(a) They expressly so agree; or
(b) By reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having so agreed.
31. Art. 22 reads: 1. A multilateral treaty which at the date of a succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as applying provisionally between the successor State and another State party to the treaty if the successor State notifies the parties or the depositary of its wish that the treaty should be so applied and if the other State party expressly so agrees or by reason of its conduct is to be considered as having so agreed.
2. However, in the case of a treaty which falls under article 12, paragraph 3, the consent of all the parties to such provisional application is required.
Art. 23 reads: A bilateral treaty which at the date of a succession of States was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates is considered as applying provisionally between the successor State and the other State and the other State party if:
(a) They expressly so agree; or
(b) By reason of their conduct they are to be considered as having agreed to continue to apply the treaty provisionally.
Art. 24 reads: 1. The provisional application of a multilateral treaty under article 22 terminates if:
(a) The States provisionally applying the treaty so agree;
(b) Either the successor State or the other State party gives reasonable notice of such termination and the notice expires; or
(c) In the case of a treaty which falls under article 12, paragraph 3, either the successor State or the parties give reasonable notice of such termination and the notice expires.
32. One of the rare examples is the Protocol of Provisional Application of the London Fisheries Convention of 9 March 1964, 581 U.N.T.S. p. 76.
33. Art. 25 reads: When the newly independent State has been formed from two or more territories in respect of which the treaties in force at the date of the succession of States were not identical, any treaty which is continued in force under articles 12 to 21 is considered as applying 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 to the entire territory would be incompatible with its object and purpose or the effect of the combining of the territories is radically to change the conditions for the operation of the treaty;
(b) In the case of a multilateral treaty other than one referred to in article 12, paragraph 3, the notification of succession is restricted to the territory in respect of which the treaty was in force prior to the succession;
(c) In the case of a multilateral treaty of the kind referred to in article 12, paragraph 3, the successor State and the other States parties otherwise agree;
(d) In the case of a bilateral treaty, the successor State and the other State party otherwise agree.
34. Art. 27 reads: 1. When a State is dissolved and parts of its territory become individual States:
(a) Any treaty concluded by the predecessor State in respect of its entire territory continues in force in respect of each State emerging from the dissolution;
(b) Any treaty concluded by the predecessor State in respect only of a particular part of its territory which has become an individual State continues in force in respect of this State alone;
(c) Any treaty binding upon the predecessor State under article 26 in relation to a particular part of the territory of the predecessor State which has become an individual State continues in force in respect of this State.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) The States concerned otherwise agree;or
(b) The application of the treaty in question after the dissolution of the predecessor State would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty or the effect of the dissolution is radically to change the conditions for the operation of the treaty.
Art 28 reads:
1. If part of the territory of a State separates from it and becomes an individual State, any treaty which at the date of the separation was in force in respect of that State continues to bind it in relation to its remaining territory unless:
(a) It is otherwise agreed; or
(b) It appears from the treaty or from its objects and purpose that the treaty was intended to relate only to the territory which has separated from that State or the effect of the separation is radically to transform the obligations and rights provided for in the treaty.
2. In such 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 separation was in force in respect of the territory now under its sovereignty.
35. Art. 29 reads: A succession of States shall not as such affect:
(a) A boundary established by a treaty; or
(b) Obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime of a boundary.
Art. 30 reads: 1. A succession of States shall not as such affect:
(a) Obligations relating to the use of a particular territory, or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty specifically for the benefit of a particular territory of a foreign State and considered as attaching to the territories in question:
(b) Rights established by a treaty specifically for the benefit of a particular territory and relating to the use, or to restrictions upon the use of a particular territory of a foreign State and considered as attaching to the territories in question;
2. A succession of State shall not as such affect:
(a) Obligations relating to the use of a particular territory, or to restrictions upon its use, established by a treaty specifically for the benefit of a group of States or of all States and considered as attaching to that territory:
(b) Rights established by a treaty specifically for the benefit of a group of States or of all States and relating to the use of a particular territory, or to restrictions upon its use, and considered as attaching to that territory.
36. Observations of 9 April 1974, A/CN.4/275/Add. 1 (16 April 1974) pp. 1–6; also in A/9610/Add. 1 pp. 11–16.
37. U.N.M.C. Vol. 10 No. 5 (May 1973) pp. 63–64.
38. Reading: “7. All states shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of … the Universal Declaration of Human Rights … on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
39. Statement of 19 February 1974, E/CN.4/SR 1264.
40. The explanatory memorandum to the 1974 draft budget for Foreign Affairs (Bijl.Hand.II 1973/74–12.600 V No.2. p. 26) contained passages on the basic elements of Netherlands policy in the field of decolonization which are in essence identical to those of last year, see 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 208–209.
41. With regard to aid to be given to the population of territories liberated from Portuguese domination in Africa, the policy of the Minister for Development Co-operation was criticized in an article in the Angola Bulletin, a publication of the “Angola Comité”. The Minister gave a reply by way of defence. The texts of both article and reply were published in Stc. of 12 June 1974, No. 111, p. 5.
42. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12.600 V No. 2, pp. 26, 29. Cf. the statement by the Minister for Development Co-operation in the Second Chamber, 4 December 1973, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 1374.
43. Quoted from “Het Vrije Volk” of 14 July 1973, in: Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 221 p. 443.
44. G.A. res. 1514 (XV).
45. Reply to written questions, 17 October 1973, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 221, p. 443.
46. See supra n. 8.
47. Statement of 29 November 1973, Hand. II 1973/74 pp. 1316–1317.
48. Statement of 20 December 1973, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 1791.
49. Statement at the 1272nd meeting of the Commission, 25 February 1974. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Cf Summary Records of the meeting: E/CN.4/SR 1272.
50. The term was first used by the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his opening address to the 8th International Course in European Integration at the University of Amsterdam on 12 September 1973 (“Why European Integration in the Seventies?”).
51. Statement of 27 September 1973, De Achtentwintigste Zitting, etc. pp. 233–234.
52. As to the implementation of the idea and its connection with the Treaty of Rome the State Secretary referred to Art. 235 which offered the possibility of an extensive interpretation of the powers to be derived from the Treaty.
53. Statement of 29 November 1973 in the Second Chamber, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 1335.
54. Set supra n. 7.
55. Cf. 3.1412 supra, p. 263.
56. See supra n. 8. Cf. supra, 3.112, p. 250.
57. The questioner had mentioned, by way of example, trade unions and clerical organisations.
58. Statement in the Second Chamber, 4 December 1973, Hand. II 1973/74 p. 1376.
59. Act on Netherlands Citizenship and Residence 1892, as amended.
60. Text of the bill and further parliamentary discussions in: Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12.837 (R 944).
61. The questioners also referred to the decision of the Crown in administrative proceedings of 13 February 1973 (see 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 306) by which the denial of a passport was reversed on the ground of arbitrariness.
62. Reply to written questions, 10 July 1973, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 1261 p. 2527. The Minister also referred to another Crown decision of 8 May 1970, which was in essence contrary to the decision of 13 February 1973, see 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 306.
63. Questions of 16 August 1973. The following explanatory note was annexed to the questions: “A number of Dutch nationals have acquired a foreign nationality by marriage or by birth outside the Netherlands. When resident in the State of their second nationality the Netherlands Government does not provide them with a Dutch passport. This may be very inconvenient, e.g. if they want to travel to a country which is not on good terms with the State of their second nationality but which has friendly relations with the Netherlands. Odd situations may arise when one of the children of a family has to travel on a passport different from that of its parents or brothers and sisters. Then there are the awkward cases of Dutch women who have retained Dutch nationality when marrying an alien, and who, without a Dutch passport, sometimes have no possibility to leave their husband's country without the latter's permission …” Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 309, p. 619.
64. Reply to written questions, 30 October 1973, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 309 p. 619–620.
65. Bijl. Hand. II 1969/70–10504 No. 2.
66. Memorandum of Reply, Bijl. Hand II 1973/74–10504 No. 9 pp. 9–10.
67. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12.839 No. 3 pp. 3, 4.
68. Art. 27 reads: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.”
69. The term “minority” as defined by the Special Rapporteur for the purposes of the study reads: “An ethnic, religious or linguistic minority is a group numerically smaller than the rest of the population of the State to which it belongs and possessing cultural, physical or historical characteristics, a religion or a language different from those of the rest of the population ”.
70. Comments of 9 April 1974. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
71. Explanatory Memorandum to the 1974 draft budget of the Ministry of Justice, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12600 VI No. 2. p. 29.
72. Explanatory Memorandum to the 1974 draft budget of the Ministry of Justice, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12600 VI No. 2 p. 30.
73. According to the 1951 Convention, 189 U.N.T.S. p. 137, a refugee is a person who, “as a result of events occuring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”. The restriction to events occurring before 1 January 1951 was deleted by the Protocol of 1967 (606 U.N.T.S. p. 267). For the interpretation of the above definition, see: Oostvogels, S., “Foreign deserters and asylum in the Netherlands”, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 143–192, at p. 169 et seq.Google Scholar
74. The text of the draft is also to be found in G.A.O.R. 27th session, Supplement No. 12 (A/8712), Appendix, Annex 1.
75. Arts. 1, 2 and 3 read:
Article 1. Grant of Asylum
1. A Contracting State, acting in an international and humanitarian spirit, shall use its best endeavours to grant asylum in its territory, which for the purpose of the present Article includes permission to remain in that territory, to any person who, owing to well-founded fear of (a) persecution for reasons of race, relegion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or for reasons of struggle against apartheid or colonialism: or (b) prosecution or severe punishment for acts arising out of any of the circumstances listed under (a) is unable or unwilling to return to the country of his nationality, or if he has no nationality, the country of his former habitual residence.
2. The provision of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to: (i) any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he is still liable to punishment for (a) a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; (b) a serious common crime, or (c) acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations; (ii) any person who seeks asylum for reasons of a purely economic character.
3. Asylum shall not be refused by a Contracting State solely on the ground that it could be sought from another State.
Article 2 Non-refoulement
No person shall be subjected by a Contracting State to measures such as rejection at the frontier, return directly or indirectly to, or remain in a territory with respect to which he has well-founded fear of persecution, prosecution or punishment for any of the reasons stated in paragraph 1 of Article 1.
Article 3 Non-extradition
No person shall be extradited to a State to the territory of which he may not be returned by virtue of Article 2.
76. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Cf. the summary records of the above meeting, A/AC.96/SR 240.
77. Report of the meeting of 5 December 1973, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 - 12. 600 VI No. 13, pp. 2, 3.
78. Statement of 3 December 1973, De Achtentwintigste Zitting, etc. p. 431.
79. G.A. res. 2106A (XX) of 21 December 1965; Trb. 1966 No. 237; 660 U.N.T.S. p. 195.
80. See 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 217. As to the Implementation Act, see 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 431. The duty to submit information is contained in Art. 9 of the Convention.
81. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 431–432.
82. Reply to CERD of 7 February 1973. Text by courtesey of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
83. Included in the report of the General Assembly Third Committee, doc. A/9322. See also 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 219–220 for further data.
84. Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
Art. 18 of the Covenant reads: “1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
85. Reply to request for comments, 18 January 1974. Text in E/CN.4/1146, 29 January 1974, pp. 4–5. For earlier Dutch observations, see: 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 219 et seq..
86. See 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 219–222.
87. Statement at the 1259th meeting of the Commission on Human Rights, 14 February 1974, E/CN.4/SR 1243–1267 pp. 154–155.
88. Cf. 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) p. 160.
89. Cf. 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) pp. 187–188.
90. Cf. 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) pp. 186–187.
91. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 - 12600 V No. 2 p. 26. Cf. 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 142.
92. Note of 27 January 1972, Bijl. Hand. II 1971/72 - 11689 No. 2. See also 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 224.
93. Memorandum of Reply, 27 June 1974, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 - 11689 No. 6 p. 9.
94. Reply to written questions, 13 November 1973, Aanh. Hand. I 1973/74 No. 27 p. 55.
95. Reply from the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 25 March 1969, Aanh. Hand. I 1968/69 No. 60 p. 123; 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 146.
96. Letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 24 April 1974, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 -12912 No. 2.
97. This principle is laid down in Art. 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. Text in Trb. 1972 No. 51.
98. Reply to written questions, 27 May 1974, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 1490, p. 2983.
99. This refers to the procedure laid down in Art. 61(3) of the Constitution, which reads: “Implicit approval has been given if, within thirty days after the agreement has been submitted for that purpose to both Chambers of the States-General, no statement has been made by or on behalf of either Chamber or by at least one fifth of the constitutional number of members of either Chamber, expressing the wish that the agreement shall be subject to explicit approval”.
100. Cf. 6.112, supra.
101. Statement in the First Chamber of Parliament, 20 March 1974, Hand. I 1973/74 p.465. In connection with this discussion the Minister for Foreign Affairs submitted a list of international agreements which were signed by the Netherlands but which were not yet submitted for parliamentary approval: Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 - 12912 No. 2 pp. 3–6.
102. Memorandum of 4 March 1968, A/AC.135/1, of 11 March 1968, p. 22.
103. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As for the summary records, see Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, Vo. I, pp. 140–142.Google Scholar The Netherlands stand on the future law of the sea has not changed much over the years. Cf. the State practice surveys in previous volumes of the N.Y.I.L., under Chapter 9.
104. The proposal is contained in UN doc. A/Conf.62/C.2/ L. 5, Art. 1 (reformulated by Spain in A/Conf.62/C.2/L.6), and reads: “Subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention and the other applicable rules of international law, the jurisdiction of a coastal State extends beyond its land territory, including its internal or archipelagic waters, to an area of ocean space contiguous to its coast up to a seaward limit of 200 nautical miles measured from the applicable base lines.”
105. Statement in the Second Committee, 16 July 1974. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See for the summary records, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, Vol. II pp. 106–107.Google Scholar
106. A/Conf.62/C.2/L.14 of 19 July 1974, pp. 1–2.
107. See the statement of 9 July 1974 in the Plenary Meeting, supra p. 289.
108. Intervention of 6 August 1974. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Summary records in Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, Vol. II, p. 218.Google Scholar
109. Statement of 12 August 1974, text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See, for summary records, Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records. Vol. II, p. 262.Google Scholar
110. A/Conf.62/C.1/L.3. Alternative D of Article 9 reads: “All exploration and exploitation activities in the Area shall be conducted by a Contracting Party or group of Contracting Parties or natural or juridical persons under its or their authority or sponsorship, subject to regulation by the Authority and in accordance with the rules regarding exploration and exploitation set out in these articles. The Authority may decide, within the limits of its financial and technological resources, to conduct such activities.”
111. Reference is here made to GA resolution 2749 (XXV) of 17 December 1970, containing the “Declaration of principles governing the sea-bed and the ocean floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” Para. 5 reads: “The area shall be open to use exclusively for peaceful purposes by all States, whether coastal or landlocked, without discrimination, in accordance with the international regime to be established.”
112. Intervention of 31 July 1974. Text by courtesy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and included in Verslag van de Koninkrijksdelegatie naar de tweede zitting van de Derde Zeerechtsconferentie van de Verenigde Naties [Report of the Kingdom delegation to the second session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea], Vol. 1, Annex 4.
113. A/C.3/L 1975. The matter was later referred to the Commission on Human Rights.
114. Annexed to G.A. res. 2391 (XXIII) of 26 November 1968.
115. Cf. 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) pp. 165–170; 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) p. 184; 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 433–435.
116. Statement of 8 November 1973, De Achtentwintigste lining, etc. p. 429.
117. Art. 1(1)(b) reads: “For the purposes of this Convention:
1. ‘Internationally protected person’ means: (a) …
(b) any representative or official of a State or any official or other agent of an international organization of an intergovernmental character who, at the time when and in the place where a crime against him, his official premises, his private accomodation or his means of transport is committed, is entitled pursuent to international law to special protection from any attack on his person, freedom or dignity, as well as members of his family forming part of his household;…”
118. Art. 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 (500 U.N.T.S. p. 95) reads: “The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity”.
Art. 40 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (text in 57 A.J.I.L. (1963) p.995 et seq.) reads: “The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity”. Art. 29 of the Convention on Special Missions, New York, 16 December 1969 (text in 9 I.L.M. (1970) p. 127 et seq.) reads: “The persons of the representatives of the sending State in the special mission and of the members of its diplomatic staff shall be inviolable. They shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat them with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their persons, freedom or dignity.”
119. Art. 40 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations reads: “If a diplomatic agent passes through or is in the territory of a third State, which has granted him a passport visa if such visa was necessary, while proceeding to take up or to return to his post, or when returning to his own country,…”
120. Art. 2 reads: “1. The international commission of: (a) a murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person; (b) a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transport of an internationally protected person likely to endanger his person or liberty; (c) a threat to commit any such attack; (d) an attempt to commit any such attack; and (e) an act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack shall be made by each State Party a crime under its internal law.
2. Each State Party shall make these crimes punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article in no way derogate from the obligations of States Parties under international law to take all appropriate measures to prevent other attacks on the person, freedom or dignity of an internationally protected person.”
121. Art. 3 reads: “1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes set forth in article 2 in the following cases: (a) when the crime is committed in the territory of that State or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; (b) when the alleged offender is a national of that State; (c) when the crime is committed against an internationally protected person as defined in article 1 who enjoys his status as such by virtue of functions which he exercises on behalf of that State.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over these crimes in cases 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.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.”
122. Comments of the Netherlands, in: A/9127, 28 August 1973, p. 37. See 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 244–247.
123. Art. 13 reads: “1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, anyone of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice bv reauest in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State Party may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph 1 of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 of this article with respect to any State Party which has made such a reservation.
3. Any State Party which has made a reservation in accordance with para. 2 of this article may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”
124. Statement of 14 December 1973, De Achtentwintigste Zitting, etc. pp. 548–549.
125. By an ironic quirk of fate the definite article “the” was used in the English text of the statement as issued to the press, though one of the main points in the Dutch argument had always been that in the official English version of the Security Council resolution the article was not used. Consequently the Dutch version of the statement as presented to Parliament did not include the definite article.
126. Nieuwsbrief [Newsletter], Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, No. 4865, of 12 October 1973, p. 5–6.Google Scholar Dutch text in: Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12600 V No. 8 p. 2.
127. Nieuwsbrief No. 4870, of 24 October 1973, p. 1.
128. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74 - 12600 V No. 2. p. 14.
129. Bijl.Hand. II 1973/74 - 12600 V No. 11 p. 2; also in Stc. 7 November 1973 No. 216. In a Note to Parliament of 16 November 1973 on recent developments in the Middle East the Minister referred to, and “annotated”, the European Communities declaration: Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12600 V No. 14 p. 2–3.
130. A/8803/Rev.1.
131. Comments of 30 August 1973, in: A/9207, 11 November 1973, p. 13.
132. Treaty of 1 July 1968, Trb. 1968 No. 126.
133. This article 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 exlude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclearweapon 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.”
134. Statement in the First Chamber, 20 August 1974, Hand. I 1973/74, p. 1064.
135. Working paper, CCD/410, of 31 July 1973, and statement, CCD/PV/617 of 31 July 1973, pp. 7–8. Parts of these documents are reproduced in 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 252–254.
136. Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-bed and Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, text in: 10 I.L.M.(1971) p. 146.
137. Statement of 6 November 1973, De Achtentwintigste Zitting, etc. p. 270.
138. Draft Protocol II deals with the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts.
139. 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 30.
140. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. p. 135.
141. Art. 3 of the four Geneva Conventions reads: “In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (I) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostage; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict”.
142. Reply to written questions, 4 June 1974, Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 1530, p. 3063.
143. Convention of 12 August 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. p. 287 et seq.
144. Reply of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written questions, 9 January 1974, Aanh. Hand. I 1973/74 No. 48, p. 97.
145. Explanation of vote, 11 February 1974. Text by courtesy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Verslag der 30e zitting van de Commissie der VN voor de Rechten van de Mens p. 48.Google Scholar Annex 5). Cf. also the summary records of the meeting. E/CN.4/SR 1254.
146. Aanh. Hand. II 1973/74 No. 126, p. 253.
147. Explanatory memorandum to the 1974 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12.600 V No. 2 p. 30. Compare the criteria put forward in 1971, 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 358. Cf. Also 1 N.Y.I.L. (1970) p. 183.
148. Statement of 12 June 1974, referring to the above passage in the explanatory memoradum to the 1974 draft budget for Foreign Affairs, Stc. 12 June 1974 No. 111, p. 1.
149. Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12600 VI No. 3 p. 13 (Annex IV).