During the preparatory stages of the Third Conference on the Law of the Sea, there has been a wide range of opinion registered on the issue of the extent and nature of maritime jurisdiction over fisheries. It is the purpose of this paper to provide a summary and to comment upon the positions expressed on this matter by the various delegations to the preparatory sessions of the Conference. It is hoped that this paper will serve as a timely and useful reference for those with an interest in the outcome of the fisheries issue at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

The principle of arbitration took roots and flourished in Latin America because of three principal reasons. Firstly, it was a necessity that peace should be maintained among the newly emancipated Republics, if their independence was not to be rendered precarious. In this sense the desire of these Republics to settle their international problems by pacific methods was in itself a product of their historical situation. Secondly, the spirit of confraternity engendered by the similarity in language, culture and religion aided the reception of arbitration as a mode of settling their quarrels. Finally from the earliest beginnings the leaders of the revolution, especially Bolivar devised projects to ensure that arbitration became the foundation-stone of American International Law.

The European Convention on State Immunity, worked out by a Committee of Experts set up by the Council of Europe, was opened for signature at Basle on 16 May, 1972, on the occasion of the Seventh Conference of European Ministers of Justice. It received thus far 7 signatures, those of Austria, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Luxemburg, The Netherlands, Switzerland and The United Kingdom.

I. The report submitted by the present author to the Netherlands' International Law Association on the occasion of its annual meeting in 1973 deals with Dutch court practice in matters of State Immunity. It includes an analytical introduction (I), an explanation of some general principles regarding State Immunity, particularly in connection with the implementation of international customary law by the Dutch judiciary, as well as a review of the terminological problems involved (II), an explanation of the few statutory provisions affecting State Immunity which are in force in the Netherlands (III), and an extensive commentary on Dutch court practice in matters of State Immunity on the basis of the court decisions issued and published in this field since 1840 (IV). Abstracts of all relevant court decisions placed in chronological order have been added to the report (Annex).

This report is, as its author observes, essentially an explanatory comment on the European Convention. It points out that the Convention regulates more than merely the immunity of states. Chapter I contains the immunity rules proper, Chapter II the procedural rules, in particular those concerning the summoning of a foreign state, Chapter III the rules to ensure that a contracting state gives effect to judgments given against it, whereas Chapter IV is concerned with a peculiarity of the Convention, i.e., the provision that states wishing to extend the number of cases in which immunity cannot be claimed beyond those covered by Chapter I, can make a declaration to that effect. This provision was put forward by The Netherlands delegation and was therefore termed the “zône grise néerlandaise” as distinct from the “black” zone (acta jure imperii)which recognizes immunity and the “white” zone which does not.