Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:45:59.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surinam's road from self-government to sovereignty *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Maarten Bos
Get access

Extract

On 28 February 1667, Commander Abraham Crijnsen, with a squadron of three sail and a number of small craft carrying three hundred soldiers, all in the service of the County of Zealand, came up the Surinam River in the then English colony of Guiana.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 7 , December 1976 , pp. 131 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 10 (London, 1962), p. 959Google Scholar; but see Quintus, Bosz, Drie eeuwen grondpolitiek in Suriname (Assen, 1954), p. 23Google Scholar: according to an original English map of 1667, there were no more than 178 plantations, most of them probably being sugar plantations.

2. Originally a Defence Community based on the Union of Utrecht concluded on 23 January 1579, later developed into a Confederation.

3. In her present fisheries dispute with Iceland, it is remarkable to see Great Britain taking a position similar to the one adopted by the Dutch Republic three centuries ago vis-à-vis England.

4. A first West India Company (mentioned supra) existed from 1621 to 1674. Subsequently, it was wound up.

5. The 1917 Constitution still provided that “The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes the territory in Europe, together with the colonies and possessions in other continents” (Article 1). The corresponding article in the 1922 version of the Constitution was worded as follows: “The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes the territory of the Netherlands, of the Dutch East Indies, of Surinam, and of Curaçao”. According to Van der Pot, , Handboek van het Nederlandse Staatsrecht, 8th ed. by Donner (Zwolle, 1968), pp. 201 and 592Google Scholar, the latter provision materially speaking did not contribute much to greater equality for the erstwhile “colonies and possessions” in their relations with the Netherlands. A substantial measure of equality was at any rate arrived at in the 1948 Constitution: cf. Van Helsdingen, , Het Statuut van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (The Hague, 1957), pp. 65–66.Google Scholar

6. The Charter also applied to the Netherlands Antilles, then being the third partner in the Kingdom. However, where possible the present study for practical reasons leaves out all reference to what now is the sole surviving associate of the Netherlands. The Charter never applied to Netherlands New Guinea: excluded from the transfer of sovereignty over Indonesia on 27 December 1949, the territory was administered by the United Nations from 1 October 1962 until 1 May 1963, when it was handed over to the Republic of Indonesia. Cf. Leyser, J., “Dispute and Agreement on West New Guinea”, 10 Archiv des Völkerrechts (1963), pp. 257–272.Google Scholar

7. An English translation of the Charter as transmitted by the Dutch Government to the Secretary-General of the United Nations was published in the Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 5 (1958), pp. 107–118Google Scholar. The crucial term of “equivalence” here appears as “equality”. The authentic Dutch text, however, has “gelijkwaardigheid”, not “gelijkheid”. Cf. Van der Pot-Donner, op. cit., p. 598: “For good reasons, the Preamble refers to a basis of “equivalence”, not of equality” (this writer's translation).

8. Professor Van Panhuys, , “The International Aspects of the Reconstruction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1954”, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 5 (1958), p. 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, does in fact, entertain this proposition.

9. Cf. Van Panhuys, op. cit., p. 4, and Gould, , An Introduction to International Law (New York, 1957), pp. 201–202.Google Scholar

10. Op. cit.

11. For Surinam's general and constitutional history, the following works may be consulted: Wolbers, , Geschiedenis van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1861), still authoritativeGoogle Scholar; Colenbrander, , Koloniale geschiedenis, Vol. II (The Hague, 1925), pp. 20–44Google Scholar; Eynaar, , Bijdrage tot de kennis van het Engelsch Tusschenbestuur van Suriname 1804–1816 (Leyden, 1934)Google Scholar; Brons, , Het Rijksdeel Suriname (Haarlem, 1952), pp. 27–80Google Scholar; Quintus Bosz (as quoted); Van Helsdingen (as quoted); Mitrasing, , Tien Jaar Suriname: van afhankelijkheid tot gelijkgerechtigdheid; bijdrage tot de kennis van de staatkundige ontwikkeling van Suriname van 1945–1955 (Leyden, 1959)Google Scholar; Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 10 (London, 1962), pp. 959–960Google Scholar; Van der Pot-Donner (as quoted), pp. 201 and 589 et seq. And see for Surinam as discussed in the United Nations after the Charter had come into force: Publication No. 41 of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the title Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen in de Verenigde Naties (The Hague, 1956).Google Scholar

12. As a designation, ‘Royal Commission’ not only appears to be equal to the Commission's rank, but also to correspond to English parlance: cf. the West India Royal Commission as appointed before World War II to report on social and economic conditions in the Caribbean islands under British rule; and see on that Commission: Kruijer, , Suriname en zijn buurlanden (Meppel, 1951), pp. 21et seq.Google Scholar

13. See Tweede Kamer (Second Chamber of the States General), Session 1973–1974, Doc. No. 12941 (abbreviated: Bijl. Hand. II 1973/74–12941).

14. The Protocol has a total of six such principles.

15. Rapport van de Koninkrijkscommissie ter voorbereiding van de onafhankelijkheid van Suriname (The Hague, Staatsuitgeverij, 1974).Google Scholar

16. See Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13467.

17. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13482.

18. 374 U.N.T.S. p. 3.

19. On this Rijkswet, see Borman, , “Het Statuut voor het Koninkrijk gewijzigd” [The Kingdom Charter Modifiedl Ars Aequi 1976, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

20. Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (Trb.) 1975, No. 140.Google Scholar

21. Trb. 1976, No. 8.

22. If Articles 9 and 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol are not read in conjunction with each other, a deadlock in the Joint Consultative Committee on tenders and awards may be everlasting.

23. I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 23.

24. The term used in Dutch was “woonplaats of werkelijk verblijf”. The reader is reminded that the English concept of domicile is different from the Dutch one of residence.

25. Trb. 1975, No. 132.

26. Trb. 1975, No. 133.

27. Trb. 1975, No. 131.

28. Trb. 1975, No. 134.

29. Trb. 1975, Nos. 135–138.

30. Trb. 1975, No. 139.

31. Bijl. Hand. II 1974/75–13467.