At the time when the Norse people surfaced from the dark depths of history there was only one source of law: Custom. Save for a few reflections from Canon Law even the Provincial Laws such as the Vestrogoth Code and the Ostrogoth Code only represented the custom of the land, reduced to memorable form and later to writing.

In the present writer's view, certain decisions of international organizations are to be recognized as manifestations of international law in their own right; those, namely, which address themselves to the members of the relevant organization, or to some of them, and bind them as to their conduct. Being manifestations in written form, their interpretation may as much constitute a problem as does the interpretation of treaties. The main question, here, is whether the methods and rules of treaty interpretation also apply to the interpretation of these “conductdecisions” of international organizations.

Just twentyfive years ago, on 1 November 1956, the institution of adoption was created in Dutch law. Before that date the Dutch authorities had occasionally come into contact with adoption, when, for example, a person invoked his status as an adopted child acquired by virtue of a foreign law and, hence, the question arose whether the foreign adoption should have effect in the Netherlands. Since 1956, an ever increasing stream of adoption requests by Dutch couples has been submitted to the Dutch courts. Over the years, the number of adoptions of foreign children increased and the cases in which foreign law had to be considered came to be more frequent than all-Dutch cases.

The question of defining self-determination and of determining the legitimacy of claims of self-determination have been issues which have exercised the minds of international lawyers and political scientists for many years. A considerable literature and diversity of views has resulted. From the reference in Articles 1(2) and 55 of the United Nations Charter to the development of “friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples” has sprung a whole body of United Nations and state practice in a number of widely differing situations. The main focus of activity has been in the area of decolonisation and this development has practically eclipsed Chapters XI–XIII of the Charter, which were clearly intended to deal with the emancipation of non-self-governing and trust territories. The seventeen words of Articles 1(2) and 55 have been elaborated in the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations. It is no overstatement to say that the elaboration of the principle of self-determination in the 1970 Declaration provides the cornerstone of the United Nations approach to the concept. The Declaration was the result of seven years work by a Special Committee and was adopted on a consensus vote. It is generally regarded as being normative in character by virtue of its elaboration of essential Charter principles. This elaboration seeks to state the nature of the right in general terms and to deal with the application of the rule in certain contexts; it is concerned primarily with decolonisation and with limiting claims to secession.

On the 5th December 1979, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a Resolution commending an “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the moon and other celestial bodies”, the Draft of which was agreed to by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) on 3 July 1979.

The Code of Civil Procedure contains provisions by which aliens do not have the rights in civil legal cases which are accorded to Dutch nationals. An alien, who is a plaintiff in a court case, may be obliged to put up security for the costs. With a few exceptions, aliens generally have no right to cost free access or to free legal assistance. The subject of the cautio and cost free access and free legal assistance have been given a great deal of attention in recent years from various quarters. In an international context the Council of Europe and the Hague Conference on Private International Law paid attention to these legal concepts. In a national context the Minister of Justice presented a bill to the Second Chamber and published a draft, containing proposals for a new edition of the above-mentioned articles. I will first deal with activities in the Netherlands and then go on to discuss what has been happening in an international context. However, before I do this, a short description of the Dutch provisions concerned with the legal aspects in question is needed for a proper understanding of the subject.

On 17 May 1980 Mr. J. de Koning, the Minister for Development Co-operation, addressed a public meeting of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues in The Hague. The Brandt Commission, as it is otherwise known, had recently published a report which made various proposals for structural reforms in the economic relations between the developed countries and the Third World — also with the aim of breaking the almost hopeless deadlock the North-South dialogue had reached.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a military view of the possibilities and constraints associated with the establishment and maintenance of a multi-national armed force which can be deployed immediately for peacekeeping operations and is thus combat ready. A number of specifically national and legal facets of the military problems will be elucidated in supplementary comments by General De Lange.

Multinational Enterprises (MNE's) are confronted with a growing number of Codes of Conduct. So far these Codes are all of a so-called voluntary character and not legally binding. Nevertheless the MNE's – also referred to as transnational corporations (TNC's) – are increasingly confronted with the rules of conduct expressed in these Codes. It is a subject area which is still in its early stage and developing constantly.

My colleague, General Woerlee, has explained that I will elucidate a number of specific national juridical aspects which relate to the military problems he has described. In doing this I will restrict myself – as this afternoon's third speaker – not only because I am more directly responsible than the other speakers for making certain that enough time is left for discussion after these introductions, but especially because I do not wish to deviate too far from the subject at hand this afternoon, viz., the peacekeeping operations of the UN and public international law.

In attempting to formulate the principles of law regulating transfrontier pollution, it is helpful to recall the experience of states in dealing with this kind of pollution. I propose, therefore, to say something about the Canadian and United States experience in this matter, concentrating on three problems relating to water resources, namely pollution of the Great Lakes, pollution of waters caused by acid rain, and the damage threatened in Canadian waters by the Garrison Diversion project in the United States.