The above quoted wishes, written in 1973 by the British official who was chief-delegate of the United Kingdom at the revision-conferences of CIM/CIV//CAV held in the years 1966 – 1972, have finally all been fullfilled by the CONVENTION OF INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY TRANSPORT (C O T I F), signed at Berne on the 9th of May 1980. But the preceding struggle has been long and protracted, as this paper will indicate.

In recent years there has been growing support, manifested in various international fora, for the notion that a third generation of human rights, composed of solidarity rights, is emerging. The principal assumptions behind this concept are:

(1) that the principal categories or sets of human rights presently recognized by international law (civil and political rights on one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other) can be termed respectively first and second generation rights;

(2) that these rights are not sufficiently flexible or dynamic to be able to respond adequately to present circumstances;

(3) that there is a set of more or less homogeneous demands which are distinguished primarily by the fact that solidarity is a prerequisite to their realization; and

(4) that these new demands are presently in the process of acquiring international recognition as human rights.

One reason at least, as the writer of this study tries to show, is that the Baltic Sea has to a great extent formed a “microcosms” reflecting the changing priniciples of the law of the sea. Thus the classic terms of the law of the sea such as “mare liberum”, “freedom of fishing”, “conservation”, “growing interests of the coastal states”, “exclusive fisheries zones” are all relevant to the Baltic Sea. The legal aspects of the Baltic Sea fisheries pose questions, also, which concern the general theory of international law, such as the law of treaties (both bilateral and multilateral agreements), the relationship between international law and muncipal law (the resolutions of international organization and muncipal law) and the law relating to international organizations (in particular the role of resolutions of international organizations in the law making process).

During the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Netherlands was a confederation of states, consisting of seven sovereign provinces which had united in 1579 in the Union of Utrecht, mainly for the purposes of defence. This form of co-operation, which turned out to be increasingly unsatisfactory in practice, continued until 1795, when a unitary state, the Batavian Republic, was created under the influence of the French Revolution. Restless years followed. The influence of France steadily increased; in 1806 this resulted in the establishment of the Kingdom of Holland, ruled by one of Napoleon's brothers. In 1810 the Netherlands' independence came to an end in a formal sense when it was incorporated in the French Empire. This situation continued until 1813; in November of that year the power was taken over by a number of prominent figures in the expectation of the arrival from England of a descendant of the House of Orange. This House had assumed the most important position in the Union, the position of Stadhouder during the period of the federation of states. Within the limits of the constitution that was laid down, he was granted sovereignty over the unitary state to be created. Even today, the crown passes on to the successors of this first monarch.

There are two ways to study positivism in international law. Firstly, one may describe doctrinal utterances and judicial pronouncements in which a positivist attitude towards international law is revealed. Secondly, one may offer one's own view of law generally, and of international law in particular, and, on that basis, try to define to what extent, if any, international law appears to be founded in man's sovereign will.

States create the rules of international law for the express purpose of serving and advancing their respective national interests. States do not adopt useless, impractical or dangerous rules to regulate their relations in the first place. The requirements of international law are substantially, albeit imperfectly, congruent with the dictates of vital national interests and vice versa. Any system of law, even an imperfect one, usually proves to be more beneficial and therefore preferable to each participant than the existence of no legal rules at all. Therefore, in times of international crisis adherence to the rules of international law oftentimes proves to be in a state's best interest anyway. The reason why two cars approaching each other on a narrow mountain road obey the rules of the road by each driving on the right-hand side supplies an excellent analogy to why states will follow international law in time of crisis.

The speaker expresses his indebtedness to the T.M.C. Asser Institute for the opportunity afforded for his return to The Hague, which he considers to be the natural habitat of many an international lawyer. The Hague has long been and still remains the centre for international adjudication, arbitration and other activities in the field of pacific settlement of disputes. The speaker is particularly gratified to be back at the birth place of the illustrious Hugo de Groot, whose four hundredth birthday anniversary is soon to be celebrated, not only in The Netherlands, but also the world over. Many great names have indeed followed that of Grotius. To name but one further, Cornelius van Bijnkershoek ranks among the celebrated classics of international law.

The present author will argue that the cable TV decisions of the Dutch Supreme Court of 30 October 1981, while creating quite a stir, have in fact stated nothing new, since it had already been decided in 1938 that secondary communication to the public of a primary radio broadcast of works is subject to the prohibition right of copyright. Moreover the Dutch Supreme Court reiterated this decision in its Cable Radio Decision of 1958 which dealt with a case identical to that of the decisions of 30 October 1981. The whole commotion before and after these last decisions arose only as a result of two successive attempts by the government to undo this Cable Radio decision. The first attempt, via the introduction of the word “organism” in Article 12 last paragraph of the Copyright Law of 1912, was undermined in the years 1968–1969; the second attempt, namely the launching of the “individual reception theory”, was undertaken immediately thereafter and only came to an end with the decisions of 30 October. The time has come to breath life back into Dutch media and copyright policies which have been stagnating for the last 13 years.

The law of State immunity has changed very significantly over the last twenty years. Legal development often occurs because a new international law topic has burst upon the scene, or because pressures-have mounted from numerically important States who find the old law unsatisfactory. But developments in the law of State immunity seem to have been precipitated by other factors. The topic has a very long legal history. And much of the third world, from whom so much of the impetus for change today comes, has very conservative views about State immunity. The developments in State immunity have been a self-generated response to the requirements of the contemporary commercial world and to notions of stability, fairness and equity in the market place.

It now looks as though the middle of the 1980's will mark an important turning point in the development of Dutch civil law. By that time, books 3–6 and some parts of book 7 of the New Civil Code will probably have entered into force in the Netherlands. Two books have already come into force and it is expected that after 1985 the remaining parts of book 7 and book 8 will soon follow suit.

One of the basic principles of Dutch civil procedural law is reflected in the requirement that the defendant must have the opportunity of expressing his point of view in court. This principle of “auditur et altera pars” is closely linked to another fundamental principle of Dutch procedural law, viz., the principle requiring that all the parties in a case should be treated on an equal basis. Stein argues that “these principles would not be realized if the law had not laid down special provisions to ensure that the defendant is informed of the case made against him to enable him to have an opportunity of opposing it himself”. The defendant is involved in the case once the preliminary summons has been served. In the law of the Netherlands – and of most other countries – the position of a defendant resident in the country concerned is hedged with safeguards. Various steps must be taken to inform the defendant regarding the case made against him. In most cases it is only a consequence of the defendant's own actions if he remains ignorant of the case against him.

The importance of the role that rivers have played in man's social and economic advancement cannot be overemphasised. The earliest civilizations originated and flourished around what are still some of the world's most important river systems. These rivers were not only essential for the growth and improvement of agriculture, but they also provided possible channels of communication, thereby enabling the most ancient forms of contact and trade among the early riparian communities.

The report is not intended as a comparative study nor is it aimed at being ency-clopaedic.

In 1962 Professor De Winter posed the question whether the principle of nationality in private international law was fading away. In 1969 he answered essentially the same question in his lectures to the Hague Academy. This report is another attempt to answer the question, though it is limited to Dutch family law. To make the report more accessible for those members of the Association who specialize in public international law, the question is dealt with in broad lines, leaving the detailed discussion to a number of authors who have taken a retrospective look at the 1970's.

Since 1973 developments have taken place in the field of international divorce law in the Netherlands. In the case of 23 February 1973, NJ 1973, 366, the Supreme Court ceased following the doctrine formulated in the Boon-Schmidt case (13 December 1907, W. 8636). Since then the Supreme Court has been repeatedly called upon to give its opinion on the question of which law should be applied in an international divorce granted in the Netherlands. The developments have (temporarily) stopped due to the entry into force (on 10 April 1981) of the Act of 25 March 1981 (Staatsblad1981 no. 166), containing the regulation of conflict of laws concerned with the dissolution of marriage and separation, and the recognition of these, in connection with the entry into force of the Conventions of Luxembourg and The Hague concerning the recognition of decisions on marriage and the recognition of divorce and separation.