1. As defined in Art. 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; see n. 13.

2. The question of the admittance (and residence) of aliens is beyond the scope of the right to leave and to return. Cf., Van, Dijk and Van, Hoof, De Europese Conventie in theorie en praktijk (Utrecht: Ars Aequi Libri – Rechten van de Mens – 2, 1979) pp. 321–2Google Scholar. See also Section 2.

3. Only the passport will be referred to here, other travel documents will not.

4. See n. 22.

5. Cf., Art. 13(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State”. See also n. 133.

6. This was also the standpoint of the Netherlands Government; for a detailed discussion of the meaning of the term “freedom of movement”, see Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 474, No. 2 p. 6. et seq.

7. Cf., Inglés, , Study of discrimination in respect of the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (New York: United Nations, 1963)Google Scholar UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub. 2/229 [read: 220]/Rev. 1 p. 9. Inglés regards the right to leave and to return as a mere extension of the freedom of movement. “Moreover, when one has no freedom of movement within a State – for example, when he [sic] is confined to a particular locality or reservation – he is in effect prevented from leaving the State itself. At the same time, freedom of movement and residence carries with it by implication the right of a national to enter or return to his country for that purpose”.

8. The right to return also comprises the right to enter, the right of nationals to admittance, and the like. See also infra, Section 2.

9. See n. 2. See also infra, Section 2.

10. With respect to the Netherlands, reference may here be made, by way of example, to the regimes on free movement of persons within the framework of Benelux and the EEC.

11. In this context, see Bijl. Hand II 1962/63, B 6900, ch. II No. 10 p. 3. Cf., the Directive of the Council of the EEC of 15 October 1968 (68/360/EEC), JO 19 October 1968, No. L 257/13, Arts. 2 and 3, and the Directive of 21 May 1973 (73/148 EEC), OJ 28 June 1973, No. L 172/14, Art. 2; see also the Directive of 25 February 1964 (64/221/EEC), JO 4 April 1964, No. P. 850/64, Art. 3. In Van Duyn v. Home Office (41/74 [1974], ECR p. 1351, para. 22), the Court of Justice of the EEC held that “… it is a principle of international law, which the EEC Treaty cannot be assumed to disregard in the relations between Member States, that a State is precluded from refusing its own nationals the right of entry or residence”.

12. Cf., the European Social Charter of 18 October 1961, Trb. 1962 No. 3, 1963 No. 90, 529 UNTS p. 89, in which (Part. II, Art. 18(4)) the Contracting Parties undertook to recognize “the right of their nationals to leave the country to engage in a gainful occupation in the territories of the other Contracting Parties”; cf., Part 1(18).

13. A/Res/217(III), 10 December 1948. For a succinct historical survey of the developments concerning the right to leave and to return, see Inglés, op.cit., pp. 1–8.

14. E/CN.4/L.610, 2 April 1962, “Use of the terms ‘declaration’ and ‘recommendation’.” On the binding force of resolutions of the General Assembly of the UN see, Van, Dijk, “Het Internationale recht inzake de rechten van de mens”, in Rechten van de Mens in Mundiaal en Europees Perspectief (Utrecht: Ars Aequi Libri – Rechten van de Mens – 1, 1978) Ch. I pp. 1–44 at p. 26Google Scholar, and the literature mentioned there. On the importance and influence of the Universal Declaration, see also, The United Nations and Human Rights, (New York, 1978) pp. 24–7.Google Scholar

15. Trb. 1969 No. 99 and 1970 No. 52.

16. Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto, 26 September 1963, Trb. 1964 No. 15.

17. 660 UNTS p. 195; Trb. 1966 No. 237; 1967 No. 48; this convention entered into force for the Netherlands on 9 January 1972 (Trb. 1972 No. 38).

18. The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination need not be discussed further here, given the similarity between its formulation and that of Art. 13(2) of the Universal Declaration.

19. The draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted by the Third Committee of the General Assembly at its 959th meeting on 17 November 1959; see Inglés, op.cit., p. 12.

20. Cf., Art. 29 of the Universal Declaration. The possible restrictions on the right to leave and to return will not be further explored. On this, see Van Dijk and Van Hoof, op.cit., pp. 321–9 and pp. 368–92; see also, Rona, Aybay, “The right to leave and to return: The international aspect of Freedom of Movement”, 1 Comparative Law Yearbook (1977) pp. 121–36, at pp. 125–8Google Scholar; and Council of Europe Doc. H(70)7 pp. 33–4 (Report of the Committee of Experts on Human Rights to the Committee of Ministers: Problems arising from the co-existence of the United Nations Covenants on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights (1970). As regards the grounds for refusing the issue of a passport, and connected matters in Dutch passport law, see, Groenendijk, , Op weg naar een Nederlandse paspoortwet (Deventer, 1973) p. 12 et seq.Google Scholar; see also, Alkema, , Studies over Europese grondrechten (Deventer, 1978) p. 13.Google Scholar

21. “It was thought inconceivable, for example, that a State should prohibit one of its nationals from entering its territory for reasons of health or morality”, Inglés, op.cit., p. 92. A restriction advocated by some states concerned the case of exiles, but on this point the views were too controversial for a provision to be incorporated. See Inglés, op.cit., pp. 82–92.

22. According to Williams, , “British Passports and the Right to Travel”, 23 ICLQ (1974) pp. 642–56, at p. 642CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 4, “‘freedom’ is used to describe a situation where the law neither proscribes nor prescribes activity on any person involved”.

23. See Council of Europe Doc. H(65) 16, 18 October 1965, concerning the Fourth Protocol (Report of the Committee of Experts on Human Rights to the Committee of Ministers concerning the draft texts of the Fourth Protocol). The text of the commentary on the (draft) articles of the Fourth Protocol in this document (pp. 7–34) was later reproduced in Doc. H(71)11 (pp. 37–58): Explanatory Reports on the Second to Fifth Protocols to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1971).

24. Doc. H(65)16 p. 13.

25. Doc. H(65)16 p. 13.

26. Schermers, , “Het Vierde Protocol bij het Europese Verdrag tei bescherming van de Rechten van de Mens”, NJB (1964) pp. 393–400, at p. 395.Google Scholar

27. Cf., Prins, , “De vrijheid van verplaatsing van de Nederlander”, 11 Het Personeel Statuut (1960) pp. 1–15, at p. 5.Google Scholar

28. Inglés, op.cit., p. 89.

29. Inglés, op.cit., p. 89.

30. Inglés, op.cit., p. 92.

31. Amendment of Argentina, Belgium, Iran, Italy, and the Philippines, A/C.3/L.812/Rev.2, mentioned by Inglés, op.cit., p. 91.

32. Doc. H(65)16 p. 20.

33. Doc H(65) 16 p. 22.

34. Doc. H(70)7 p. 35.

35. Van Dijk and Van Hoof, op.cit. (1979), p. 329.

36. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76, 13 932 (R 1037), No. 3 p. 23.

37. Here the question is one of the “returnability” of holders of travel documents in relation to the international recognition of these documents. In this context it is not so much a right of the persons involved to return, but whether there is an obligation or guarantee under international law whereby states are to re-admit after a stay abroad, persons (in this case non-nationals) to whom they have issued travel documents. National law and international customary or treaty law on this point are closely related to each other. As to travel documents for refugees and stateless persons, see Grahl-Madsen, , The Status of Refugees in International Law (Leyden, 1966/1971) vol. II pp. 292–300, 330Google Scholar and passim. For a recent example of Dutch practice involving this question with respect to “aliens passports”, see X NYIL (1979) pp. 337–38. See also, Aanh. Hand. II 1979/80, No. 129 p. 253. On the question of passports and “returnability” in general, see Goodwin-Gill, , International Law and the Movement of Persons between States (Oxford, 1978) pp. 44–6 and 50.Google Scholar

38. Doc. H(65)16 p. 21.

39. Doc. H(65)16 p. 21; cf., Schermers, loc.cit., p. 397.

40. Doc. H(65)16 p. 21; see also Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76, 13 932 (R1037), No. 3 p. 16. In connection with the said examples of the Committee of Experts, however, see Van Dijk and Van Hoof, op.cit. (1979), p. 327.

41. Doc. H(70)7 p. 35. See also pp. 10–12. Cf., Van Dijk and Van Hoof, op.cit. (1979), p. 329.

42. Doc. H(70)7 p. 12.

43. See Inglés, op.cit., (n. 7). On this Study, see also Inglés, , “The United Nations Study of discrimination etc.”Google Scholar and Liskofsky, , “The Contribution of José D. Inglés”, both in Vasak, and Liskofsky, , eds., The right to leave and to return, papers and recommendations of the International Colloquium held in Uppsala, Sweden, 19–20 June 1972, (The American Jewish Committee, 1976) pp. 475–86 and 487–92 respectively.Google Scholar

44. The text of the Draft Principles has been included in Inglés, op.cit., (1963), Annex VI. On the Draft Principles, see also Turack, , The Passport in International Law (Toronto, London, 1972) pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

45. On further developments, see also, besides the authors mentioned in n. 43, inter alia. Res. 1788 (LIV), 27 Yearbook of the United Nations (1973) pp. 567 and 578–9, and The Review of the International Commission of Jurists (June 1973) p. 1Google Scholar (Notes and Comments on the 29th Session of the UN Human Rights Commission).

46. According to data furnished by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

47. Bijl. Hand. I and II, 13 932 (R 1037); Trb. 1978, No. 177.

48. Bijl. Hand. I and II, 15 396 (R 1110).

48a. On this term see Ko Swan, Sik, “The Netherlands and the law concerning Nationality”, in Van Panhuys, et al. , eds., International law in the Netherlands, vol. 3, (Alphen aan den Rijn, 1980) p. 3 at p. 4 n. 1.Google Scholar

49. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 3 p. 4; on other obstacles to the adoption of in particular the Fourth Protocol, see Alkema, op.cit., pp. 12–13.

49a. The Netherlands Antilles consists of the islands of Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, St. Maarten (Southern half) and St. Eustatius.

50. See Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 3 p. 8. Cf., NJB (1978) p. 977.

51. But see infra Section 3.5 (n. 130a).

52. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76, 13 932 (R 1037), No. 4 p. 62; see also No. 3 pp. 23–24 for a further elucidation. Trb. 1978 No. 177 p. 38.

53. Infra Section 3.5.

54. Koopmans, , Compendium van het Staatsrecht (Deventer, 1972) p. 30.Google Scholar

55. For the standpoint of the Netherlands Government on this matter, see Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76, 13 932 (R 1037), No. 3 pp. 9–11 and pp. 40–42. Cf., Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 5 p. 1. See also Doc. H(70)7 p. 9 and the report mentioned therein.

56. Going abroad, A report on passports, published for Justice (Chicester and London, 1974) p. 14.Google Scholar

57. See n. 20.

58. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 3 p. 7.

59. United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities, Conference Room Paper No. 21 (29 December 1961) p. 1.

60. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76, 13 932 (R 1037), No. 3 p. 13.

61. Aanh. Hand. II 1953/54, No. 1 p. 3.

62. Court of Appeal of Arnhem, 8 August 1977, NJ 1977, No. 567. In this case, the time fixed for the giant of a conditional release, viz., on the day of the return to Surinam of the person concerned, was considered wrong by the Court, because release was made to depend on the departure abroad of the person in question, which, according to the Court, constituted an infringement of the principle involved.

63. Cf., Partsch, et al. , “[The right to leave and to return in] Western Europe and other non-communist European States”, in: The Right to Leave and to Return (Collected papers of the 1972 Uppsala Colloquium, see n. 43), para. 13: The Netherlands pp. 80–5, at pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

64. Commission on Human Rights, Third Session (May-June 1948), E/800, and Drafting Committee, Second Session (May 1948), E/CN.4/95, cited by Inglés, op.cit. (1963), p. 84.

65. Doc. A/C.3/L.796, cited by Inglés, op.cit. (1963), p. 90. See also Doc. A/2910/add. 3 (13 March 1955): Observations by the Netherlands Government on the Draft International Covenants on Human Rights.

66. Control Regulation (Bewakingsvoorschrift) 1946 (Decree of the Minister of Justice, 22 March 1946, Stc. 1946 No. 63), Art. 6(1).

67. By a decree of the Minister of Justice of 6 October 1956, Stc. 1956 No. 209.

68. See Prins, loc.cit., pp. 8–9, who attributes the drastic form of the said provision, in part, to the time at which it was adopted, to the absence of disquieted reactions, and to the fact that few people actually knew about it (given its publication only in the Nederlandse Staatscourant) (Official Gazette). Cf., Duynstee, , Vreemdelingenrecht, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voorInternationaal Recht, No. 36 (03 1956) pp. 27–98, at p. 32Google Scholar. See also Hand. II 1954/55 pp. 2137 and 2155:, in this case the Minister of Foreign Affairs, referring to the then current (Cold War) situation, disputed an opinion expressed in Parliament that this provision was an anomaly. However, the matter was already under investigation at that time. See also Bijl. Hand. II 1962/63, 6900, VI, No. 8 p. 2 and No. 10 p. 3.

69. Art. 6(2) Control Regulation 1946.

70. Cf., Conference Room Paper No. 21 p. 1; see also Prins, op.cit., p. 9.

71. Conference Room Paper No. 21 p. 6. The breach of Art. 6(1) of the Control Regulation had been provided for and made punishable in Art. 4 in conjunction with Art. 2 of the Act of 10 January 1920, Stb. 11, which contained provisions on frontier control.

72. cf., supra Section 1.

73. Bijl. Hand. I 1961/62, B 6500, ch. VI, No. 54b p. 3. But see in this connection also Hand. II 1956/57 pp. 331 and 352–3.

74. Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet), 13 January 1965, Stb. No. 40; Aliens Decree (Vreemdelingenbesluit), 19 September 1966, Stb. No. 387, and Aliens Regulation (Voorschrift Vreemdelingen), 22 September 1966, Stc. No. 188. This legislation replaced the old Aliens Act of 13 August 1849, Stb. No. 39, cum annexis (see Art. 47 of the Aliens Act 1965). On the Netherlands law on aliens in general, see Ko Swan, Sik, 1 NYIL (1970) pp. 247–267Google Scholar; at p. 250 the author explains the differences between the above-mentioned instruments. See also, Swart, , “The Dutch Law on Aliens”, in Van Panhuys, et al. , eds., International Law in the Netherlands, vol. 3 (Alphen aan den Rijn, 1980) pp. 81–108.Google Scholar

75. In this context see the Supreme Court decision of 26 June 1962, NJ 1963, No. 31, with a note by Röling. It appears from this case that the shifting of the frontier control of persons to the external borders of the Benelux area caused some confusion to the populace, the administration, and the judiciary. This confusion was primarily around the question of whether, under the new treaty provisions, Dutch nationals were still obliged to carry a travel document in moving between the Netherlands and Belgium. This matter became an issue before the detailed conditions for the, already established, free movement of persons had been laid down. In these conditions it was provided that the nationals of the Parties are to carry an identity document, it being possible for a passport to serve this purpose.

76. The provisions in the aliens legislation concerning Dutch nationals here discussed, are incorporated in ch. II of the Aliens Decree, which deals with frontier control.

77. Cf., Aanh. Hand. II 1975/76, No. 184 p. 367.

78. Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Decree pp. 916–17. Cf., supra n. 61.

79. Art. 25 Aliens Decree.

80. Cf., Aanh. Hand. II 1977/78, No. 68 p. 141; see also infra Section 3.3.

81. According to the instructions of the Minister of Justice as formulated in the Aliens Circular [Vreemdelingencirculaire], see Ko Swan Sik, loc.cit., p. 250.

82. Existing exceptions are not discussed here.

83. Leaving the country does not only imply leaving the Netherlands via the land frontiers; the aliens legislation (Art. 19(2) of the Aliens Decree) understands by it “going or being aboard a ship or aircraft with a destination outside the Netherlands as well as being in a frontier municipality, with a manifest intention of leaving the Netherlands”.

84. Goodwin-Gill, op.cit., p. 35; see also Inglés, op.cit., (1963) p. 55 and Rona Aybay, loc. cit., pp. 121–36, at p. 135, n. 33. For the Netherlands, see Art. 7(2) and (3) of the Aliens Act and the Explanatory Memorandum thereto p. 14, as well as Arts. 27(1) and 28(1) of the Aliens Act, elaborated further in Ait. 88 of the Aliens Decree.

85. Hand. II 1978/79 p. 2143. Cf., Hand. II 1974/75, 13 023 (R 959), No. 9 p. 3.

86. See n. 3.

87. Within the framework of the automation of frontier control the frontier-crossing post at Schiphol national airport (Amsterdam) is connected to a computerized register of persons (at the Central Criminal Investigation Department) in The Hague. This method of computerized frontier control of persons replaces the system of the “Investigation Register”, in which the same information was stored in bookform; because of this, the frontier control of persons by reference to the Investigation Register could take place only on a random basis, or in those cases where there was a reason for it. At the frontier-crossing post on the road from Heerlen to Aachen the frontier control of persons is also computerized, and it is intended to introduce this form of control in the future at a larger number of frontier crossings. See Bijl. Hand II 1978/79 15 322, No. 1 p. 7, Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79, No. 1741 p. 3451 and Aanh. Hand. II 1980/81, No. 675 p. 1313.

88. See Elseviers Magazine, 13 November 1976 pp. 31–3.

89. In this context, cf., Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79, No. 1741 p. 3451.

90. Ibid.

91. See supra Section 1.

92. See Duynstee, op.cit., pp. 30–1. Art. 4 of the Constitution reads: “1. All persons who are on the territory of the Kingdom shall have equal rights to protection of their persons and goods. 2. The admittance and expulsion of aliens and the general conditions under which, in respect of their extradition, treaties may be concluded with foreign powers shall be regulated by law.”

93. See the Final Report of the State Commission (Van Schaik Commission) for the revision of the Constitution (The Hague, 1954) p. 73, mentioned by Prins, op.cit., p. 5.

94. This is the view of Struycken, for example; see Prins, op.cit., p. 5. Cf., Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2767 and Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77, 14 200 (R 1048), No. 3 p. 7.

95. “Nationaliteit en Woonrecht”, 2 Het Personeel Statuut (1951) pp. 4–7, at p. 5.Google Scholar

96. Swart, , De toelatingen uitzetting van vreemdelingen (Deventer, 1978) p. 39Google Scholar; see also pp. 385–7.

97. Conference Room Paper No. 21 p. 1 (the square brackets round the word “expressed” are also to be found in the cited source); see also p. 6. Cf., Aanh. Hand. II 1976/77, No. 334 p. 665.

98. See n. 71.

99. Op.cit., in n. 95 p. 6.

100. Op.cit., in n. 95 p. 6.

101. Conference Room Paper No. 21 p. 6.

102. Conference Room Paper No. 21 p. 6.

103. Conclusion of the Attorney-General in the Supreme Court decision of 14 December 1965, NJ 1966, No. 447.

104. Cf., Hand. II 1976/77, No. 334 p. 665.

105. Cf., Aanh. Hand. II 1975/76, No. 184 p. 367.

106. Aanh. Hand. II 1976/77, No. 334 p. 665 (emphasis added).

107. Control Regulation 1946, Art. 6a(1).

108. Arts. 22 and 23 Aliens Decree. The term “travel document” is chosen here as a translation ol the Dutch “document voor grensoverschrijding”, which has a particular meaning within Dutch law.

109. Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Decree p. 918.

110. Conference Room Paper No. 21 p. 7.

111. Bijl. Hand. I and II 1976/77 and 1978/79, 14 200 (R 1048).

112. Bijl. Hand. II 1970/71 and 1976/77,11 052 (R 764).

113. See Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77, 14 200 (R 1048), No. 3 p. 3, and Ko Swan Sik, loc.cit., (1980), at p. 4 n. 1.

114. Art. A 1.2; see Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77, 14 200 (R 1048), No. 2 p. 2.

115. Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77, 14 200 (R 1048), No. 3 pp. 9–10.

116. Act of 28 June 1979, Stb. No. 389. See Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2918 and Hand. I 1978/ 79 p. 1206. This was the so-called first reading of the revision of the Constitution with regard to this draft amendment. The Constitution lays down that the two Chambers of the States-General must be dissolved, after which the draft must be introduced for a second reading. For an actual amendment of the Constitution it is necessary that the Act be adopted by a two-thirds majority in both the Second and First Chambers. It is expected that both the Chambers will be dissolved, partly for this reason, when the next general election for the Second Chamber is due in 1981.

117. See the Advice of the Council of State, Bijl. Hand. II 1976/77, 14 200 (R 1048), No. 5; see also the interim rapport, idem, No. 6; Hand. II 1976/77 pp. 2764 et seq., Bijl. Hand. I 1978/79, 14 200 (R 1048), Nos. 95/95a; Hand. I 1978/79, inter alia, pp. 1194–5.

118. See also supra, Section 2.

119. Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2777.

120. Where the Netherlands is mentioned hereafter, it is the Realm in Europe that is referred to.

121. Cf., Hand. II 1976/77 pp. 2765 and 2766.

122. Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2765.

123. Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2720; see also pp. 2766 and 2774.

124. Hand. II 1976/77 pp. 2765, 2777; Hand. I 1978/79 p. 1167; Bijl. Hand. II 1980/81, 15 936 (R 1110), No. 6 p. 11. But see n. 130a.

125. Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2766.

126. Cf., Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2777; Hand. I 1978/79 p. 1197.

127. Hand. I 1978/79 p. 1168.

128. See n. 124.

129. Hand. II 1976/77 pp. 2765, 2777; Hand. I 1978/79 p. 1167; Bijl. Hand. II 1980/81, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 6 p. 11.

130. Cf., Hand. I 1978/79 p. 1203.

130a. On 2 December 1980 Parliament has adopted a motion on a possible restrictive admittance policy in relation to Antilleans, see Hand II 1980/81 pp. 1470, 1769–71.

131. See also supra Section 2.

132. Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2765.

133. For the “right to freedom of movement (and residence) within the borders of each State”, see, besides Art. 13(1) Universal Declaration (see n. 5), also Art. 12(1) UN Covenant, Art. 2(1) Fourth Protocol; cf., Section 1.

134. Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76, 13 932 (R 1037), No. 3 p. 24.

135. See Plender, , International Migration Law (Leiden, 1972) pp. 74–7.Google Scholar

136. See n. 133.

137. See supra Section 2.

138. Council of Europe Doc. H(65)16 p. 30.

139. Ibid.

140. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 3 p. 8. Van Dijk and Van Hoof, op.cit. (1979), p. 327, rightly observe that Dutch nationality legislation does not recognize a distinction as here referred to, but the correctness of their conclusion that “the provision of Art. 5(4) is not relevant for the Netherlands when the Fourth Protocol is ratified, unless the law is amended”, is to be doubted.

141. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79, 15 396 (R 1110), No. 2 p. 2 (emphasis added); but see, in this context, Van Dijk and Van Hoof, op.cit., (1979) p. 327.

142. Hand. II 1976/77 p. 2767;cf., p. 2774. Dutch law recognizes two meanings of the term “law”. The Dutch term “wet in formele zin” (“law in the formal sense”) means an Act of the Queen and Parliament; it is contrasted with the term “wet in materiële zin” (“law in the material sense”), which means any binding rule of a general character, irrespective of its origin. Cf., 9 NYIL 1978 p. 219, n. 97, and Aanh. Hand. I 1978/79, No. 82 p. 163.

143. See Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76,13 932 (R 1037), No. 3 p. 15; 9 NYIL 1978 pp. 219–20.

144. Cf., Bijl. Hand II 1976/77, 14 200 (R 1048) No. 7 p. 3; Swart, op.cit. (1978), p. 501. On the relation between international and national fundamental rights, see also the Second Report of the State Commission on the Constitution and Electoral Law (The Hague, 1969) pp. 31–2Google Scholar, and Burkens, , “De proeve van een nieuwe grondwet en de grondrechten”, NJB 1967 pp. 245–52.Google Scholar