Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T12:40:20.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dutch-Surinam Treaty on Development Assistance: A Correct Appeal to A Fundamental Change of Circumstances?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Dionne Bosma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1982 the Netherlands suspended the operation of a treaty between Surinam and the Netherlands which obliges the Netherlands to render development assistance to Surinam. This was justified by invoking a fundamental change of circumstances: a coup d'etat which destroyed democracy and led to serious human rights violations. Bosma examines both substantive and procedural aspects of the suspension and concludes that the Netherlands did not correctly invoke a fundamental change of circumstances.

Type
Student Contributions
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 201 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Overeenkomst tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Republiek Suriname, Arts. 2, 5, 1975 Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederianden, No. 140 (hereinafter Overeenkomst).

2. Id. Art. 2. This programme was adapted by the parties in 1980.

3. Id. Art.6.

4. Id. Arts. 8, 9. In 1989, after the Netherlands resumed the development assistance, this part of the procedure was replaced by bilateral talks twice a year.

5. H.R.C., Communications No. 146/1983 and Nos. 148–154/1983 (Decision of April 4, 1985); 10 N.J.C.M.-Bulletin 384 (1985). Similar conclusions were reached by the I.A.C.H.R., O.A.S./Ser. L/II 61 Doc. 6 Rev. 1, 9 N.J.CM.-BuUetin 86–87 (1984); U.N. Rapporteur S.A. Wako, U.N. Doc. E/C.N.4/1985/17, Annex V; Amnesty International Suriname, Violations of Human Rights 17 (1987).

6. 198–1983 Hand. No. 12, at 1116. The wording of this note is based on the policy document Mensenrechten in het Buitenlands Beleid, 1978–1979 Hand. Annexes 1557, Nos. 1–2.

7. 1983 Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederianden No.6, at 2.

8. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (France v. Switzerland), 1932 P.C.I.J.Rep. (Ser. A/B No.46, 157).

9. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (U.K. v. Iceland), 1973 I.GJ. Rep. 17 (Judgment of Feb. 2, 1973).

10. U.N. Doc. A/Conf.39/27 (1969), 63 AJIL 894 (1969). This Treaty was adopted by the General Assembly on May 22, 1969 and entered into force on Jan. 27, 1980.

11. The Netherlands are a party since May 9, 1985, but Surinam is not. The fact that Surinam did not accede is not the only reason why the Convention formally cannot be applied in the case of the Development Treaty. According to Art. 4, the Vienna Convention only applies to treaties which are concluded after the entry into force of the Convention with regard to the parties to these treaties.

12. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, supra note 9, at 18.

13. Reports of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly, 1966 II Y.B. I.L.C. 258.

14. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, supra note 9, at 18–19, 21.

15. Id. at 21.

16. Vamvoukos, A., Termination of Treaties in International Law; The Doctrines of Rebus Sic Stantibus and Desuetude 195 (1985).Google Scholar

17. Jain, S.C., Rebus Sic Stantibus Revisited in the Light of the I.L.C.-Draft.The Supreme Court Journal,07 1966, at 9.Google Scholar

18. Elias, T.O., The Modem Law of Treaties 121 (1970).Google Scholar

19. I.L.C., supra note 13, at 258.

20. David, A.E., The Strategy of Treaty Termination; Lawful Breaches and Retaliations 46 (1975).Google Scholar

21. Schwarzenberger, G., A Manual of International Law 196 (Vol.1, 1969).Google Scholar

22. Id..

23. D.P. O'Connell, International Law 296 (Vol. I).

24. I.L.C., supra note 13, at 259.

25. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, supra note 9, at 21.

26. Id..

27. J.W.H. Verzijl, IV International Law in Historical Perspective 362 (1973).

28. Id. at 364; A. Vamvoukos, supra note 6, at 189: B.V.A. Röling, De'Clausula Rebus Sic Slanlibuś in net Volkenrecht, 1972 RMT 600.

29. Art. 33 indicates the following means of pacific settlement: negotiations, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of own choice. A. David, supra note 20, at 160.

30. Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine (Canada v. U.S.A.), 1984 I.C.J. Rep. 290 (Judgment of Oct. 12, 1984).

31. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (W. Ger. v. Den.; W. Ger. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. Rep. 47 (Judgment of Feb. 20, 1969).

32. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, supra note 9, at 20.

33. Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland Case (Railway Sector Landwarow- Kaisiadorys), 1931 P.C.I.J. Rep. (Ser. A/B No. 42, 116).

34. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, supra note 31, at 47. See also Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine, supra note 30, at 299.

35. A. Vamvoukos, supra note 16, at 212; B.V.A. Roling, supra note 28; and Haraszti, G., Treaties and Fundamental Change of Circumstances, 146 Recueil des Cours de ľAcadémie de Droit International 85–86 (1975).Google Scholar

36. I.L.C., supra note 13, at 236.

37. Case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine, supra note 30, at 299.

38. A.E. David, supra note 20, at 174.

39. Statute of the I.C.J., An. 38(1); Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law 3 (1979).Google Scholar

40. Mendes, H.K. Femandes, Aclief Nederlands Beleid inzake Ontwikkelingsrelalie met Suriname Noodzaak, 38 Internationale Spectator 349, 353–354 (1984)Google Scholar; Lindemann, H.-H., Die Auswirkungen der Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Surinam auf die Venragsbeziehungen zwischen den Niederlanden und Surinam, 44 ZaöVR 74 (1984).Google Scholar

41. H.R.C., Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Art. 40 of the Covenant, C.C.P.R./C/4 Add. 4, at 30 (1979).

42. International Alert (Suriname), An International Alert Report 17–18 (1988).

43. I.A.C.H.R., Report on the situation in Surinam. O.A.S./Ser.L/II 61 Doc. 6 Rev.l; International Alert,Id., at 20 (1988).

44. J. Griffiths and M. Bossuyt, Human Rights in Suriname. Report of the Second Mission of the International Commission of Jurists to Suriname (1983), 1983 N.J.B. 941.

45. International Alert, supra note 42, at 15–16 and J. Moerland, Suriname 19, 43–46 (Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Landendocumentarie No. 1, 1984).

46. H.R.C., supra note 41.

47. J. Griffiths, Recent Developments relating to Human Rights; Report of a Mission to Suriname in February 1981, 1982 I.C.J.-Newsletter, No. 8, at 51–62.

48. For a reconstruction of the events See International Commission of Jurists, The events in Paramaribo, Suriname; 8–13 December 1982: The Violent Death of 14 Surinamers and 1 Dutchman. The Dutch version is published by the N.J.C.M., 8 N.J.C.M.-Bulletin 17–178 (1983).

49. I.A.C.H.R., supra note 43, at 26.

50. J. Griffiths et al, supra note 43, at 493.

51. S.A. Wako, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. S. Amos Wako, pursuant to Social Council Resolution 1987/60, U.N. Doc. E/C.N.4/1988/22, at 48 (1988).

52. N.R.C. Handelsblad, Dec. 20, 1982, at 1.

53. Overeenkomst, supra note 1, Art.2.

54. Protocol voor Procedureregels inzake de Ontwikkelingssamenwerking, Art. 1, 1976 Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden No.8 (hereinafter Protocol).

55. Overeenkomst, supra note 1, Arts. 8–9 and Protocol, supra note 54, Arts. 4–5.

56. A.E. van Niekerk, Swinaamse Lessen, 23 Civis Mundi 36 (1984).

57. Adviescommissie Mensenrechten en Buitenlands Beleid, Hulp voor Mensenrechten, Suriname en de Rechten van de Mens 23–24 (1984); H.K. Femandes Mendes, supra note 40, at 353; and S.K. Girjasing,Surinaams Bewind Moet Niet Eenzijdig Worden Gestraft, N.R.C. Handelsblad, Dec. 1, 1982, at 7.

58. van Gelder, P., Meer Zorg dan Hoop, De Onlwikkelingsrelatie tussen Nederland en Suriname na de Sergeantencoup van Februari 1980, 39 Internationale Spectator, table 1, at 741 (1983).Google Scholar

59. Id. at 740, n. 8.

60. N.J.C.M., Suriname, 8 N.J.C.M-Bulletin 1–2 (1983) and H.K. Femandes Mendes, supra note 39, at 353–354.

61. P. van Gelder, supra note 58, at 740, n.7.

62. Overeenkomst, supra note 1, at 1.

63. P. Kooymans, Verdrag Suriname Wetlig Opgeschort, Standrechtelijke Executies in Flagrante Strijd met Mensenrechten, N.R.C. Handelsblad, Dec. 14, 1982, at 7.

64. J. Griffiths et al., supra note 44; Mendes, H.K. Femandes, Nederland en de Mensenrechten in Suriname, 38 Internationale Spectator 676 (1984). The Dutch Minister of Development Assistance, however, contended that, technically, it was impossible to spare some developments projects. N.R.C.Handelsblad, Dec. 17, 1982, at 3.Google Scholar

65. P. Kooymans, supra note 63, at 7.

66. N.J.C.M., supra note 60, at 1–2 and H.K. Fernandes Mendes supra note 40, at 353–354.

67. H.-H. Lindemann, supra note 40, at 75–76. The document is the Wet van 28 Oku 1954, Houdende Aanvaarding van een Statuut voor net Koninkrijk der Nederianden, Staatsblad, No. 503, at 1283 (1954).

68. N.R.C. Handelsblad, supra note 52.

69. S.K. Girjasing, supra note 57.

70. See also H.K. Fernandes Mendes, supra note 40, at 354 and S.K. Girjasing, supra note 57.

71. P. Kooymans, supra note 63, at 7.

72. Tractalenblad, supra note 7.

73. H.-H. Lindemann, supra note 40, at 80 and N.J.C.M., Suriname en Indonesie: Exponenten van het Nederlands Buitenlands Beleid op het Gebied van de Menseivechten, 9 N.J.GM.-Bulletin 95 (1984). In Dutch Parliament, the spokesmen of the socialist and the liberal party (P.v.d.A. and V.V.D.) declared in August 1985 that the Bouterse regime had only itself to blame for the economic collapse of the country.Suriname would know better times if the Dutch demand to restore democracy and the constitutional state would have been satisfied. De Volkskrant, Aug. 22, 1985, at 3.

74. H.K. Femandes Mendes, supra note 40, at 353.

75. Unfortunately, the suspension coincided with a fall in bauxite prices, combined with a strong competition on the world market Bauxite is a major source of income for Surinam.

76. S.A. Wako, supra note 51, at 44 and Amnesty International, supra note 5, at 7–14.

77. H.-H. lindemann, supra note 40, at 80.

78. N.J.C.M, supra note 60, at 2.

79. Adviescommissie Mensenrechten en Buitenlands Beleid, supra note 57, at 22; M. van Schaaijck &J. van der Straaten, Suriname's Economie en de Ontwikkelingssamenwerldng Tussen Nederland en Surinam, 69 ESB 1045 (1984).

80. See also N.J.C.M., supra note 73, at 95 and N.J.C.M, Nogmaals: Surname en Indonesie, 10 N.J.C.M.Bulletin 364 (1985) and Adviescommissie Mensenrechten en Buitenlands Beleid, supra note 57, at 27 and H.K. Femandes Mendes, supra note 40, at 356.

81. J. VerLoren van Themaat, Mensenrechten en Ontwikkelingshulp: Testcase Swiname, 40 Socialisme en Democratic, No. 6, at 13.

82. Id..

83 E.g., in 1982, the Netherlands spent 825 Dfl. per capita per year on development aid to Suriname, whilst in Upper-Volta, the second most important beneficiary of aid, only 7,50 Dfl.. India received 035 Dfl. in 1982. J. van der Straaten, Opschorting Hulp aan Suriname was Enige Weg voor Nederland, N.R.C.Handelsblad, Jaa 3, 1983, at 7.

84. H.K. Femandes Mendes, supra note 40, at 354.

85. This aspect of the suspension was often criticized Commander-in-Chief Bouterse already put the argument forward right after the decision to suspend. N.R.C. Handelsblad, Dec. IS, 1982, at 1. See also Adviescommissie Mensenrechten en Buitenlands Beleid, supra note 57, at 127; H.K. Fernandas Mendes,supra note 40, at 352 and N.J.C.M., supra note 73, at 95–96; and J. Verloren van Themaat, supra note 81, at 12.