Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T04:11:40.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Baltic States, the Soviet Union and the Netherlands: A Historical Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

W.A. Timmermans
Get access

Extract

On 4 October 1982 the European Parliament accepted a resolution by which the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the EEC were invited to arrive at a common position concerning the Baltic question and to submit this question to the UN subcommittee session for decolonization and the follow-up conferences on European Security and Co-operation.1 The European Parliament were in this respect, inter alia: “mindful of the fact that the Russian annexation of the three Baltic states until now has not formally been recognized by most European countries and the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia2 and the Holy See still hold the concept of ‘Baltic State’ (…)”. It is thus perhaps worthwhile to investigate the position of the Netherlands regarding the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

Type
Notes and Shorter Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , August 1985 , pp. 288 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1985

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. European Parliament Session Documents 1982–1983, Document 1–656/82.

2. In the author's opinion Australia should not be among the countries enumerated here, since the Australian Government recognized the annexation de jure in July 1974. Shortly afterwards, the Australian ambassador to the USSR visited Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, . Cf., Nachrichten aus dem Baltikum no. 64/65 (10 1974), pp. 16–18Google Scholar.

3. For the respective declarations of independence, see Vide, Baltic States: A Study of Their Origin and National Development; Their Seizure and Incorporation into the USSR (Third Interim Report of the Select Committee on Communist Aggression, House of Representatives, Eighty-Third Congress, Second Session, 1954), Third Reprint Edition (New York 1972) pp. 386–387 (Estonia), 418 (Latvia), 480 (Lithuania).

4. League of Nations Treaty Series XI, p. 51 (Estonia); ibid., II p. 213 (Latvia); ibid., Ill pp. 122–123 (Lithuania); Shapiro, L., comp. and ed., Soviet Treaty Series, vol. I pp. 34, 54, 50.Google Scholar.

5. Shapiro, , op.cit., vol I p. 323 (Lithuania), vol. II p. 47 (Latvia), p. 52 (Estonia)Google Scholar.

6. Ibid., vol. II p. 208.

7. Ibid., vol. II p. 209.

8. Ibid., vol. II pp. 210 (Estonia), 213 (Latvia), 213–214 (Lithuania); or Vide, , op.cit., n. 3, pp. 289–390 (Estonia)Google Scholar .

9. Vide, , op.cit., n. 3, pp. 392–393 (Estonia and Latvia), 332–333 (Lithuania)Google Scholar .

10. Vide, , op.cit., n. 3, pp. 275Google Scholar (Estonia), 306 (Latvia), 355 (Lithuania); through an error, the official results of the Latvian elections from a Soviet agency were published in a London newspaper hours before the polls had closed, cf., Newman, B., Baltic Background (London 1948) p. 163Google Scholar .

11. Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR 1940 No. 28; Sbornik Zakonov SSSR 1938–1961 (Moscow 1961) pp. 32–33Google Scholar, English translation in Vide, , op.cit., n. 3, p. 363Google Scholar (Lithuania), 416 (Estonia); see further Meissner, Boris, Die Sowjetunion, die Baltischen Staaten und das Völkerrecht (Cologne 1956) pp. 256–285Google Scholar and Marek, Krystyna, Identity and Continuity in Public International Law (Geneva 1954) pp. 383–391Google Scholar.

12. See for instance: Sotsialistischeskie revoliutsii 1940 g. v Litve Latvii i Estonii (Moscow 1978) pp. 357–365Google Scholar; Raud, Villem, Developments in Estonia, 1939–1941 (Tallinn 1979) p. 162Google Scholar.

13. Izvestiia, 2 August 1940; Algemeen Handelsblad, 2 August 1940; Meissner, , op.cit., n. 11, p. 91Google Scholar.

14. Jong, L. de, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, vol. 9 part 1 (The Hague 1979) p. 200Google Scholar .

15. United Nations Treaty Series 241 No. 540.

16. Cf., Marek, , op.cit., n. 11, p. 382Google Scholar; also: Dutch District Court of Rotterdam, Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam, 30 December 1953, Nederlandse Jurisprudence (1954) No. 769; Legal Effects of the Russian and German Occupations of Lithuania (Summary of the case in English), 2 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht(1955) pp. 420–425.

17. Dutch District Court of Rotterdam, ibid., note 15.

18. English translation published in Vide, , op.cit., n. 3, pp. 360–361Google Scholar .

19. Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR 1940 g., No. 28; Sbornik Zakonov SSSR 1938–1961 (Moscow 1961) p. 32Google Scholar; English translation in Vide, , op.cit., n 3, p. 363Google Scholar .

20. Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR 1940 g., No. 31; Sbornik Zakonov SSSR 1938–1961 (Moscow 1961) pp. 92–93Google Scholar.

21. Tractatenblad 1967, No. 195.

22. Tractatenblad 1969, No. 11; similar agreements were already concluded with Norway (9 December 1959), Denmark (27 February 1964), and Sweden (11 May 1964), and would be concluded with Great Britain (5 January 1968); see in connection with these treaties: Ginsburgs, G., ‘Soviet Views on the Law of State Succession with regard to Treaties and Acquired Rights – the Case of the Baltic Republics’, Res Baltica. A Collection of Essays in Honor of the Memory of Dr. Alfred Bilmanis, (Sprudzs, A., Rusis, A., eds.,)(Leyden 1968) pp. 215–218Google Scholar .

23. See for text, inter alia: Joyce, J.A., ed., Human Rights: International Documents, vol. IIII. (Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, (Dobbs Ferry, NY 1978) and see note 27 postGoogle Scholar .

24. Cf., Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. A Polish View (Warsaw 1976) p. 84Google Scholar; European Security and Cooperation: Premises, Problems, Prospects (Moscow 1978) p. 125Google Scholar.

25. Conferentie over Veiligheid en Samenwerking in Europa, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (115)(The Hague 1976) pp. 106–107Google Scholar.

26. Ibid., p. 107.

27. The author could not find a reference for instance in Kavass, I.I., Granier, J.P., Dominick, M.F., eds., Human Rights, European Politics, and the Helsinki Accord: The Documentary Evolution of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe 1973–1975 (Buffalo, NY 1981) vols. I-VIGoogle Scholar. Another possibility could be that, in the view of the Dutch Ministry, the litigious Statement should be considered retro-active; one could say a contrario that borders, which have not been changed in accordance with international law, will not meet recognition.

28. The author was given this information personally by a spokesman of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

29. Marek, , op.cit., n. 11, pp. 398–409Google Scholar; Wörterbuch des Völkerrechls, Baltische Staaten (Berlin 1960) p. 149Google Scholar.

30. Question no. 37 of Mr. Tyrvell (H-444/83), Acts of the European Parliament No. 1–306/203 (16.11.83).

31. See note 1 ante.

32. See for instance: Gist. A quick reference aid on U.S. foreign relations (Department of State, Washington 1984)Google Scholar.