The editors of the Netherlands International Law Review have asked Mr. J.B.J.M. ten Berge and myself to contribute articles on the subject of the National Ombudsman, a new institution in the Netherlands. We have agreed that I should deal with the historical background and legal character of this institution, comparing it with the Justitie Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as the J.O.) in Sweden and the Folketingets Ombudsmand (hereinafter referred to as the F.O.) in Denmark, while Mr. ten Berge would deal with the technical aspects.

From 1 January 1982 the Act of 4 February 1981 (Off. Gaz. 1981, No. 35) dealing with the institution of the National Ombudsman and the amendment of a number of laws, entered into force. From this date there has been a national Ombudsman in the Netherlands. His function within the organisation of the State is comparable to the General Chamber of Audit, i.e., a High Council of State.

The United Nations General Assembly has recently appealed to all countries to “refrain from taking any action directed at undermining the [law of the Sea] Convention or defeating its objects and purposes”. The Convention on the Law of the Sea made at Montego Bay in September 1982 took nine years to write following five years of preparatory work and covers all the major law of the sea issues; resource exploration and exploitation, navigation and overflight, conservation and pollution, fishing and shipping. The Convention has not yet entered into force and it may be some time before it does so. During that time existing international law will be augmented along the Convention lines by the national legislation of states seeking to safeguard their interests while the Convention remains inchoate. Although the aforementioned Resolution is non-binding and of recommendatory value only, it does appear to stress an existing rule of international law which has something to say about the conduct of states which have signed the Law of the Sea Convention prior to its entry into force. Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires that a nation, after signing a treaty, refrain from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty” until such time as the nation indicates its intent not to ratify. The extent of the duties incumbent upon states as a result of this obligation is unclear, but the General Assembly Resolution is perhaps evidence that, as time progresses without the entry into force of the Convention, the obligation shall play a significant role in the regulation of the conduct of signatory states towards the Convention in many of the diverse areas with which it is concerned. The object of this article is to analyse one particular area of the Convention, that of the regime for the mining of the resources of the International Seabed Area under Part XI of the Convention. This throws into relief the problems which signatory states may face as they seek to legislate or take action to secure rights and to comply with duties under a Convention which is not yet in force. It may be that the citation of the duty not to defeat the object and purpose of the Convention is far more problematic in terms of a successful outcome to the negotiations than at first appeared.

International transport treaties generally contain liability limitation clauses which limit the liability of carriers for passenger injuries and cargo damage to fixed amounts of a specified unit of account. Such unit of account serves as the basis for converting the amounts due into the national currency of the forum which is awarding judgment. Traditionally gold served as the original unit of account in these treaties.

The intervention in Grenada in 1983 by a joint task force composed of US forces and soldiers of member States of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States is the latest in a series of armed interventions carried out by members of the United Nations without being authorized by competent UN organs but nevertheless claiming to be non-violative of the UN Charter. The reason for this claim was allegedly (among others) that the interventions were ‘humanitarian’ in character. In this recent instance, the intervention was said by US officials to be necessary ‘to stop an authentic reign of terror’ ‘to assist in the establishment and the restoration of democratic institutions, particularly when they have been cruelly and violently destroyed’ and to ‘rescue others from bloodshed and turmoil and to prevent humankind from drowning in a sea of tyranny’

The difference between the system of criminal procedure in common law countries and that in civil law countries is often described in terms of an adversary or accusatory, as opposed to a non-adversary, investigatory, or inquisitorial system of procedure.1 In the adversary system the proceedings are seen as a conflict between two parties with opposing roles, who in principle are on an equal footing. The parties can determine the limits of their contest between themselves. In principle, the role of the judge is a passive one; he ensures that the procedural rules are observed by all parties and decides on the outcome of the conflict. In this system the accused cannot be interrogated as such but he can be questioned as a witness, although only if he so desires. In the continental inquisitorial system, on the other hand, the trial is seen as an ‘official and thorough inquiry’ 2 into whether an offence has been committed and if so which sanctions should be imposed. The notion of ‘objective truth’ is central to this system and as a consequence the ‘parties’ cannot limit the fact-finding by mutual consent. The accused can be interrogated, even if he does not want to be.

On 10 December 1982, 117 States signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea and about forty signatures were later added to this impressive number. However, one should not conclude from this that the Convention will come into force soon, for that would require 60 ratifications. It is certain that the industrialized nations are hesitating as many of them have difficulties with the mining regime for the deep sea-bed, provision for which was made in the Convention. Among those who have not yet signed are the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Netherlands have signed but explicitly stated that a later decision is required whether or not they will also have to ratify the Convention. All attention was understandably focussed on the deep seabed mining regime which should not make one forget that this was only one of the many features of the Convention. With reference to other provisions in the Convention, some of which would appear to be rather important, there is no difference of opinion. When one takes a cursory look at the 320-articles therein, some subjects seem to merit special attention: the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, fishing, the continental shelf, the high seas, the control of pollution of the marine environment, marine scientific research and the settlement of disputes.

The shooting down of the South Korean civilian airliner by the Soviet Union has made prominent the lacunae in the efficacy of international law to ensure the safety of transborder air transport. In this tragedy, on 1 September 1983, 269 civilian passengers and members of crew lost their lives, in a time of peace, by the violent action of a state which was not at war with any of the states of which the victims were nationals. Since this type of aggression has not occurred for the first time, and since widely available air travel has made people of the world ever more susceptible to these risks, it is paramount that all nations strive to ensure the modification of rules of international law, effectively preventing the recurrence of these horrendous mishaps.

The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (hereinafter the 1979 Convention) was adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979. It can be seen as the culmination of the work of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in its function of preparing international legal instruments on the status of women. The Convention brings together in a single international instrument the various international conventions already in existence which define the sphere of womens rights and brings into the legislative ambit many of the recommendations which have been adopted over the years by the Commission since its inception in 1946.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for a modicum of international supervision of its States parties through the scrutiny of their periodic reports by the Human Rights Committee. This measure, which may be described as one of ‘international implementation’, operates in concert with the ‘domestic implementation’ requirement included in Article 2 of the Covenant. The ‘international implementation’ aspect entails some abridgement of the sovereignty of States parties and thus represents a noteworthy development in international politics. The companion aspect of ‘domestic implementation’ is, however, it is submitted, of far greater and more enduring significance for the promotion and protection of human rights. For, the availability and the exercise of the rights of the Covenant depend, as a matter of practical fact, upon their incorporation into the domestic system and the constraints — legal and social — that that system may place upon their exercise. The Covenant's rights are intended to be legal rights implemented by States parties and exercised by individuals within domestic legal systems. In addition:

‘Not only are the domestic remedies likely to be speedier and perhaps less expensive; in many cases they may be more effective, because a national court of appeal or Supreme Court can usually reverse the decision of a lower court, whereas the decision of an international organ does not have that effect, even though it will engage the international responsibility of the State concerned.’

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.

In the modern law of obligations the protection of consumers is a phenomenon that is gaining ever increasing importance. It has also penetrated the realm of private international law (p.i.l.). Rules on the subject primarily deal with obligations arising out of contract; in this field specific p.i.l. rules envisage contracts concluded by consumers. In the field of non-contractual obligations no such specific rules have been framed as yet. However p.i.1. rules relating to products liability, although as a rule not limited to consumers but also including non-consumers, largely affect the first-mentioned class of persons and cannot be neglected in a paper dealing with consumer protection. In the present paper, therefore, attention will be focussed on p.i.l. rules relating to consumer contracts, and this will be followed by a brief account of p.i.l. rules on products liability as far as these are of importance for the protection of consumers.

China is one of the eighteen privileged states whose continental shelf extends more than 200 miles beyond the base line from which the territorial sea is measured. According to the Law of the Sea Convention, states have a right to a continental shelf with its boundary positioned at a maximum width of 350 nautical miles, measured from the base line. It is in China's interests to safeguard its continental shelf rights because the report drawn up in 1968 by the UN Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East revealed that there were probably extremely rich resources of oil beneath the continental shelf of the East China Sea and the Yellow Sea. However, China is not the only state in that area to lay claim to the continental shelf of the East China Sea. Taiwan, South and North Korea and Japan have also made claims on part of this area. The claims of the various states overlap and the delimitation of the area is therefore necessary.