The amount of litigation has grown considerably since 1970 in both the Netherlands and West Germany. This is causing concern on both sides of the border. However, the level of litigation is vastly different, the Dutch avoiding court procedures much more easily than the Germans in similar problem situations. A comparison of the ‘legal cultures’ of the Netherlands and the adjacent West German Land of North-Rhine-Westphalia reveals that the difference holds true for most types of court cases. The German courts are called upon to decide far more cases on criminal, civil as well as administrative conflicts, than are the Dutch courts. Not only for this reason, but also because the Dutch courts take a more pragmatic approach to cases, the need for judges is six times higher in North-Rhine-Westphalia. It would be all too easy to see a direct connection between the subsidies granted to the clients of the legal services and the overloading of the court system. The data, however, shows that the contrary holds true. Given the overall availability of legal services the emphasis could be said to lie on litigation in the German system and on advice and assistance in the Dutch system. The Dutch do not make use of the courts so often because they have the alternative of an extensive network of noncommercial advice and assistance agencies and tribunals (in particular for landlord - and - tenant and employment cases). In West Germany, on the other hand, there is less sifting of cases in the early stages of conflict and procedure, owing to the advocates monopoly on legal advice services and the underdeveloped system of legal aid.

Restrictions imposed by domestic law do not excuse a State from due performance of international legal obligations. Either in observance of this principle, or as a sheer coincidence, most States have a framework of domestic legislation that, to varying degrees, would facilitate compliance with international legal obligations. But, as Wallace observes, ‘there is no universal practice stipulating how States should incorporate international law into their domestic legal systems and it is a State's perception of international law which determines the way in which international law becomes part of municipal law’.

After holding the issue on its agenda for many years, the UN Commission on Human Rights on 10 March 1987 adopted a path-breaking resolution supporting conscientious objection to military service as a ‘legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights! The Commission recommended that governments introduce various forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors, establish impartial procedures for deciding specific cases, and ‘refrain from subjecting such persons to imprisonment’.

In April 1982, when hostilities broke out between the Argentine Republic and Great Britain, both Governments imposed severe reciprocal restrictions upon the assets of their respective citizens and residents. In particular, all financial movements relating to trade were blocked. On the Argentine side, thefirst measures were announced through communiqués from the Central Bank, which were systematized shortlyafterwards by Decrees 683/82, 786/82 and 787/82, and supplemented by various Central Bankresolutions, as well as resolutions from the Ministries of Economy, Defence, Public Works, the Energy Secretariat, the National Customs Administration and the Under Secretariat of Economy. Specifically, thelast named did so by Resolution No. 99/82 (published in the ‘Boletín Oficial’ of 10 May 1982) which suspended ‘temporarily’ the registration of transfers of shares in local companies belonging to investors who — according to the Registry of Foreign Investments — were resident or domiciled in the United Kingdom.

The West German company, Gubisch Machinenfabrik AG, had sold an item of machinery to the Italian, Palumbo, domiciled in Rome, and sued the latter in the Court of Flensburg, West Germany, for payment of the purchase price. Subsequently, Palumbo sued Gubisch in the Court of Rome in order to have the contract declared void because Palumbo's offer had been withdrawn before it had reached Gubisch. In the alternative, Palumbo demanded rescission of the contract for lack of consent, or otherwise for delay indelivery. Gubisch submitted a motion in the Italian proceedings for lack of jurisdiction because of lis pendens, on the basis of Article 21 of the Convention. The motion was rejected by the Court of Rome, but on appeal the Italian Supreme Court submitted a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the EC, which held that:

‘The concept of lis pendens dealt with by Article 21 covers the situation in which one party brings an action in a court of a contracting State for rescission of an international contract of sale, whereas an action of the other party for performance of the same contract is pending in a court of another contracting State’.