The European Dream?

Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika (Nederlands versie)

2012-02-03T16:05:00.000+01:00

I wanted to make sure that this resource was available on the internet. It is quite a nice and interesting legal document.
Suggested citation: Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika, Verdrag Nummer 008392, (Den Haag, 27 Maart 1956).
The English and Dutch language versions are equally authentic. The English version is here. The official Dutch version with all subsequent protocol(s) and notes exchanged is below:

Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika        

Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika, verlangend de banden van vrede en vriendschap, welke van oudsher tussen hen bestaan, te versterken en nauwere economische en culturele betrekkingen tussen hun volkeren aan te moedigen, en zich bewust van de bijdragen welke te dien einde kunnen worden geleverd door overeenkomsten welke wederzijds voordelig handelsverkeer bevorderen, beleggingen tot wederzijds voordeel aanmoedigen en wederzijds rechten en voorrechten vastleggen, hebben besloten een Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart te sluiten, waaraan in het algemeen de beginselen van het wederzijds toekennen van nationale behandeling en van onvoorwaardelijke meestbegunstiging ten grondslag liggen, en hebben te dien einde benoemd als hun Gevolmachtigden: Hare Majesteit de Koningin der Nederlanden: Z.E. Mr. J. W. Beyen, Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, en Z.E. Mr. J. M. A. H. Luns, Minister zonder Portefeuille, en de President van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika: Z.E. de Heer H. Freeman Matthews, buitengewoon en gevolmachtigd Ambassadeur van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika te 's-Gravenhage,  die, na elkander hun volmachten te hebben overgelegd, welke in orde werden bevonden, als volgt zijn overeengekomen:       

Artikel I

1.  De ene Partij zal te allen tijde de onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij, alsmede hun eigendommen, ondernemingen en andere belangen, behoorlijk en rechtvaardig behandelen.

2.  Tussen de grondgebieden van de twee Partijen zal, in overeenstemming met de bepalingen van het onderhavige Verdrag, vrijheid van handel en scheepvaart bestaan.

Artikel II

1.  Het zal onderdanen van de ene Partij zijn geoorloofd, het grondgebied van de andere Partij te betreden en daarbinnen te verblijven: (a) ten einde handel te drijven tussen de grondgebieden van de twee Partijen en zich bezig te houden met daarmede samenhangende of in verband staande werkzaamheden op handelsgebied; (b) ten einde de bedrijfsuitoefening van een onderneming waarin zij een aanzienlijk kapitaal hebben belegd of waarin zij daadwerkelijk bezig zijn zulks te doen, te ontwikkelen en te leiden; en (c) voor andere doeleinden met inachtneming van de wetten met betrekking tot de toelating en het verblijf van vreemdelingen.

2.  Ieder der Partijen verbindt zich, aan toeristen en andere bezoekers het reizen, voor zover doenlijk, te vergemakkelijken, zowel met betrekking tot hun toelating, verblijf en vertrek, als tot het verspreiden van inlichtingen voor toeristen.

3.  Het zal onderdanen van de ene Partij binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij zijn geoorloofd: (a) daarin vrijelijk te reizen en te wonen op plaatsen van hun keuze; (b) gewetensvrijheid te genieten; (c) zowel besloten als openbare godsdienstoefeningen te houden; (d) gegevens te verzamelen en deze door te geven ter verspreiding onder het publiek in het buitenland; en (e) met andere personen, zowel binnen als buiten dat grondgebied, in verbinding te staan per post, telegraaf of ander middel, dat openstaat voor algemeen openbaar gebruik.

4.  De bepalingen van dit artikel laten het recht van ieder der Partijen onverlet om maatregelen toe te passen, welke noodzakelijk zijn ter handhaving van de openbare orde en ter bescherming van de volksgezondheid, de goede zeden en de veiligheid.

Artikel III

1.  Onderdanen van de ene Partij zal binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij op geen enkele wijze overlast worden aangedaan; zij zullen te allen tijde bescherming en veiligheid genieten. Zij zullen onder gelijke omstandigheden niet ongunstiger worden behandeld dan onderdanen van die andere Partij ten aanzien van de bescherming en veiligheid van hun persoon en hun rechten. In geen geval zullen zij in dit opzicht een ongunstiger behandeling genieten dan die, welke onderdanen van een derde land genieten, of wordt vereist door het volkenrecht.

2.  Indien binnen het grondgebied van de ene Partij een onderdaan van de andere Partij in bewaring wordt gesteld, zal, op verzoek van die onderdaan, de dichtst bijzijnde consulaire vertegenwoordiger van zijn land terstond worden ingelicht, die het recht zal hebben die onderdaan te bezoeken en zich met hem in verbinding te stellen. Die onderdaan zal (a) behoorlijk en menselijk worden behandeld; (b) prompt in kennis worden gesteld van de tegen hem ingebrachte beschuldigingen; (c) zo spoedig als te verenigen valt met een behoorlijke voorbereiding van zijn verdediging worden berecht; en (d) kunnen beschikken over alle middelen, welke redelijkerwijze voor zijn verdediging noodzakelijk worden geacht, met inbegrip van de diensten van een bevoegd raadsman te zijner keuze.

Artikel IV

1.  Onderdanen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling genieten bij de toepassing van wetten en voorschriften, welke een geldelijke vergoeding of andere uitkering of tegemoetkoming toekennen op grond van ziekte, letsel of dood ontstaan als gevolg van en gedurende het bestaan van hun dienstbetrekking, of te wijten aan de aard daarvan.

2.  Naast de rechten en voorrechten omschreven in het eerste lid van dit artikel zullen onderdanen van de ene Partij binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling genieten bij de toepassing van wetten en voorschriften, welke een stelsel van verplichte sociale verzekering inhouden, krachtens welke uitkeringen geschieden zonder dat van geval tot geval een onderzoek naar de financiële behoefte wordt ingesteld, en wel in de volgende gevallen: (a) ziekte, met inbegrip van tijdelijke arbeidsongeschiktheid, en moederschap; (b) invaliditeit of arbeidsonbekwaamheid; (c) dood van vader, echtgenoot of echtgenote of enig andere kostwinner; (d) werkloosheid.

Artikel V

1.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling genieten met betrekking tot het recht zich in elke aanleg te wenden tot de gewone rechter, administratieve scheidsgerechten en instanties, zowel ter verkrijging als ter verdediging van hun recht. Het is wel verstaan, dat vennootschappen van de ene Partij, welke niet werkzaam zijn binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, hetzelfde recht zullen hebben, zonder dat inschrijving of vestiging zal zijn vereist.

2.  (a) Overeenkomsten tussen onderdanen of vennootschappen van de ene Partij en onderdanen of vennootschappen van de andere Partij, krachtens welke geschillen door scheidsrechterlijke uitspraak zullen worden beslecht, zullen niet onuitvoerbaar worden geoordeeld binnen het grondgebied van die andere Partij alleen op grond van het feit, dat de plaats aangewezen voor de scheidsrechterlijke procedure gelegen is buiten dat grondgebied, of een of meer van de scheidsmannen niet de nationaliteit van die andere Partij bezitten. (b) In overeenstemming met het hierna gestelde onder (1) en (2) van deze bepaling zullen scheidsrechterlijke uitspraken — welke krachtens dergelijke overeenkomsten naar behoren zijn gewezen, definitief zijn en ten uitvoer kunnen worden gelegd op grond van de wetten van de plaats, waar die uitspraak is gewezen — beslissend worden geacht in procedures over de tenuitvoerlegging, welke voor de bevoegde rechter van ieder der Partijen zijn gebracht. (1) Wat betreft erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging in de Verenigde Staten van Amerika zullen die scheidsrechterlijke uitspraken voor een rechter in een hunner Staten slechts voor erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging vatbaar zijn op dezelfde voet als scheidsrechterlijke uitspraken gewezen in andere hunner Staten. (2) Wat betreft tenuitvoerlegging in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden zullen die scheidsrechterlijke uitspraken worden behandeld op dezelfde wijze als scheidsrechterlijke uitspraken bedoeld in het op 26 september 1927 te Genève gesloten Verdrag nopens de tenuitvoerlegging van in het buitenland gewezen scheidsrechterlijke uitspraken.

Artikel VI

1.  Eigendommen van onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij te allen tijde bescherming en beveiliging genieten.

2.  Aan de woonhuizen, kantoren, pakhuizen, fabrieken en andere percelen van onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij, gelegen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, zal geen overlast worden aangedaan; zij zullen niet worden betreden zonder rechtsgeldige reden. Die percelen en hun inhoud zullen, indien een dergelijk onderzoek noodzakelijk is, slechts overeenkomstig de wet en met zorgvuldige inachtneming van het gerief der bewoners en van de belangen van de bedrijfsuitoefening ambtelijk worden door- en onderzocht.

3.  Geen van beide Partijen zal onredelijke of discriminerende maatregelen nemen, welke inbreuk zouden maken op de rechten of belangen binnen haar grondgebied van onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij, hetzij in hun vermogen, hetzij in hun ondernemingen en de eigendommen daarvan, hetzij in de ervaring, kennis of techniek, welke zij ter beschikking hebben gesteld.

4.  Eigendommen van onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij zullen niet aan hen worden onttrokken, tenzij voor een doel te algemenen nutte, noch zullen zij aan hen worden onttrokken zonder prompte betaling van een rechtvaardige vergoeding. Zulk een vergoeding zal zó geschieden, dat zij daadwerkelijk in geld kan worden omgezet, en zal gelijkwaardig zijn aan de onttrokken eigendommen; en vóór of bij de onttrekking zal afdoend worden voorzien in de vaststelling en uitbetaling van deze vergoeding.

5.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen in geen geval binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij een minder gunstige behandeling genieten dan nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie met betrekking tot de aangelegenheden behandeld in het tweede en vierde lid van dit artikel. Bovendien zullen ondernemingen, waarin onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij een aanmerkelijk belang hebben, binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij geen minder gunstige behandeling genieten dan nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie met betrekking tot alle zaken in verband met de onteigening van particuliere ondernemingen en met het plaatsen van die ondernemingen onder toezicht of beheer van Overheidswege.

Artikel VII

1.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling genieten bij alle op winst gerichte activiteit op handels-, industrieel-, financieel- en ander gebied (zakelijke activiteit), hetzij dat deze rechtstreeks wordt uitgeoefend, hetzij door een vertegenwoordiger, hetzij door middel van elke andere wettelijk toegelaten rechtsvorm. Bijgevolg zal het aan die onderdanen en vennootschappen binnen dat grondgebied zijn geoorloofd: (a) filialen, agentschappen, kantoren, fabrieken en andere vestigingen, welke geschikt zijn voor de uitoefening van hun bedrijf, op te richten en in stand te houden; (b) hetzij rechtstreeks, hetzij door middel van een of meer tussenschakels, vennootschappen op te richten overeenkomstig de algemene wettelijke bepalingen van die andere Partij op het stuk van vennootschappen, en het overwegend belang te verwerven in vennootschappen van die andere Partij en (c) ondernemingen, welke zij hebben gevestigd of verworven, te beheersen en te besturen. Bovendien zullen ondernemingen, welke zij beheersen, ongeacht de vorm, hetzij als eigen bedrijf, hetzij als vennootschap of anderszins, met betrekking tot alles wat verband houdt met de uitoefening van het bedrijf, niet ongunstiger worden behandeld dan vergelijkbare ondernemingen, beheerst door onderdanen en vennootschappen van die andere Partij.

2.  Ieder der Partijen behoudt zich het recht voor, beperkingen te stellen aan de mate, waarin vreemdelingen binnen haar grondgebied ondernemingen mogen oprichten, daarin belangen verwerven, of drijven, op het gebied van verbindingen, het vervoer te water of door de lucht, bankzaken op het gebied van het in deposito nemen van gelden en waarden, alsmede op het gebied van bewindvoering, of de exploitatie van land of andere natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Nieuwe door een van beide Partijen uit te vaardigen beperkingen ten aanzien van de mate, waarin aan vreemdelingen nationale behandeling is toegekend met betrekking tot het uitoefenen van die werkzaamheden binnen haar grondgebied, zullen evenwel niet van toepassing zijn op ondernemingen, welke die werkzaamheden reeds aldaar uitoefenen op het tijdstip, waarop die nieuwe beperkingen worden ingesteld, en welke eigendom zijn van, of worden beheerst door onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij. Bovendien zal geen van beide Partijen aan vennootschappen van de andere Partij op het gebied van vervoer, verbindingen en bankwezen het recht ontzeggen, filialen en agentschappen in overeenstemming met de toepasselijke wetten en voorschriften te hebben, dienstig voor in hoofdzaak internationale zaken, waarmede zij zich bezig houden.

3.  De bepalingen van het eerste lid van dit artikel laten onverlet het recht van ieder der Partijen, bijzondere vormvoorschriften uit te vaardigen met betrekking tot de vestiging binnen haar grondgebied van ondernemingen, beheerst door vreemdelingen; maar die voorschriften mogen het wezen van de in genoemd lid omschreven rechten niet aantasten.

4.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van ieder der Partijen alsook ondernemingen, beheerst door die onderdanen en vennootschappen, zullen met betrekking tot de in dit artikel genoemde aangelegenheden in ieder geval de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten.

Artikel VIII

1.  Aan onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zal het zijn geoorloofd, binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij zich te doen bijstaan door accountants en andere technische deskundigen, leiding gevend personeel, rechtskundigen, vertegenwoordigers en andere specialisten te hunner keuze. Bovendien zal het aan die onderdanen en vennootschappen zijn geoorloofd, zich te doen bijstaan door accountants en andere technische deskundigen, ongeacht de mate waarin zij bevoegd zijn binnen het grondgebied van die andere Partij een beroep uit te oefenen, ten einde in het bijzonder onderzoeken in te stellen, accountantsverslagen op te maken en technische onderzoeken te verrichten voor, en verslag uit te brengen aan die onderdanen en vennootschappen in verband met het organiseren en leiden van hun eigen ondernemingen en van ondernemingen, waarin zij een geldelijk belang hebben, binnen dat grondgebied.

2.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling en behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten met betrekking tot het zich bewegen op het gebied van wetenschap, onderwijs, godsdienst en liefdadigheid en zullen het recht hebben verenigingen voor dat doel op te richten overeenkomstig de wetten van die andere Partij.

Artikel IX

1.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden zullen binnen het grondgebied van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika: (a) nationale behandeling genieten met betrekking tot het tijdelijk verkrijgen van de beschikking over land, opstallen en ander onroerend goed, geschikt voor de uitoefening van de activiteit, welke zij mogen ontwikkelen ingevolge artikel VII en artikel VIII, en met het doel ze te bewonen, alsook met betrekking tot het bezit en het gebruik van dat onroerend goed; en (b) andere rechten op onroerend goed kunnen uitoefenen overeenkomstig de bepalingen van de toepasselijke wetten van de Staten, gebiedsdelen en bezittingen van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika.

2.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika zullen binnen het grondgebied van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden nationale behandeling genieten met betrekking tot verkrijging door koop, huur, pacht, erfpacht of anderszins en met betrekking tot de eigendom, het bezit en het gebruik van land, opstallen en ander onroerend goed. In het geval evenwel, dat zulk een onderdaan is gevestigd in, of zulk een vennootschap is opgericht volgens de wetten van een Staat, gebiedsdeel of bezitting van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika, welke minder dan nationale behandeling in dit opzicht toestaat aan onderdanen en vennootschappen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, zal het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden niet verplicht zijn, zulk een onderdaan of vennootschap gunstiger te behandelen in dit opzicht dan die Staat, dat gebiedsdeel of die bezitting onderdanen en vennootschappen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden behandelt.

3.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten met betrekking tot verwerving door koop, huur of anderszins en met betrekking tot eigendom en bezit van alle soort roerende zaken, zowel lichamelijke als onlichamelijke. Ieder der Partijen kan evenwel beperkingen opleggen aan eigendom van vreemdelingen ten aanzien van zaken, welke een gevaar kunnen opleveren uit een oogpunt van openbare veiligheid, en aan eigendom van vreemdelingen ten aanzien van belangen in ondernemingen, welke zich bezighouden met bepaalde soorten activiteit, doch slechts voor zover zulks kan geschieden zonder inbreuk te maken op de rechten en voorrechten neergelegd in artikel VII of in enige andere bepaling van dit Verdrag.

4.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling genieten met betrekking tot het verkrijgen van alle soort zaken bij erfopvolging bij versterf of krachtens uiterste wil, of tengevolge van rechterlijk vonnis. Zouden zij, tengevolge van het feit, dat zij vreemdelingen zijn, niet gerechtigd zijn als eigenaar te blijven optreden, dan zal hun een redelijke tijd worden gelaten om de betrokken zaken op gebruikelijke wijze en tegen marktwaarde te verkopen.

5.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van ieder der Partijen zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten met betrekking tot het beschikken over alle soort zaken. Met betrekking tot verkrijging, eigendom en gebruik van en beschikking over goederen van welke aard ook binnen het grondgebied van de ene Partij zullen voorts vennootschappen, welke zijn opgericht overeenkomstig de wetten van die Partij, en worden beheerst door onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij, een behandeling genieten niet minder gunstig dan die, welke binnen dat grondgebied, vennootschappen van die andere Partij of vennootschappen, welke op overeenkomstige wijze zijn opgericht, en worden beheerst door de onderdanen en vennootschappen van een derde land, genieten.

Artikel X

1.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling genieten met betrekking tot het verkrijgen en in stand houden van octrooirechten en met betrekking tot de rechten van handelsmerk, handelsnaam, handelsetiket en iedere vorm van industriële eigendom.

2.  De Partijen zijn het eens, dat het gewenst is door samenwerking en andere geëigende middelen uitwisseling en gebruik van wetenschappelijke en technische kennis te bevorderen, in het bijzonder met het oog op de opvoering van de produktiviteit en de verhoging van het levenspeil binnen ieders grondgebied.

Artikel XI

1.  Onderdanen van de ene Partij, woonachtig binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, en onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene partij, die zich binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij bezighouden met handel of een ander op winst gericht streven, of werkzaam zijn op het gebied van wetenschap, onderwijs, godsdienst of liefdadigheid, zullen niet worden onderworpen dan drukkender belastingen, rechten en heffingen geheven van of gelegd op inkomsten, vermogen, transacties, werkzaamheden of enig ander object, of aan drukkender vereisten ten aanzien van de heffing en inning daarvan, dan waaraan onderdanen en vennootschappen van die andere Partij worden onderworpen.

2.  Met betrekking tot onderdanen van de ene Partij, die noch woonachtig zijn, noch zich bezighouden met handel of een ander op winst gericht streven binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, en met betrekking tot vennootschappen van de ene Partij, welke zich niet bezighouden met handel of een ander op winst gericht streven binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, zal die andere Partij er naar streven, in het algemeen het beginsel omschreven in het eerste lid van dit artikel toe te passen.

3.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen in geen geval binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij worden onderworpen aan drukkender belastingen, rechten en heffingen, geheven van of gelegd op inkomsten, vermogen, transacties, werkzaamheden of enig ander object, of aan drukkender vereisten ten aanzien van de heffing en inning daarvan, dan waaraan onderdanen, inwoners en vennootschappen van een derde land worden onderworpen.

4.  In het geval van vennootschappen en van niet binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij woonachtige onderdanen van de ene Partij, welke zich bezig houden met handel of een ander op winst gericht streven binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, zal die andere Partij geen belastingen, rechten of heffingen heffen van of leggen op inkomsten, vermogen, of enige andere grondslag, welke uitgaan boven hetgeen redelijkerwijs kan worden toegerekend of toebedeeld aan haar grondgebied, noch zal zij aftrekken toestaan, noch vrijstellingen verlenen lager dan hetgeen redelijkerwijze kan worden toegerekend of toebedeeld aan haar grondgebied. Een dergelijke regel zal eveneens van toepassing zijn in het geval van vennootschappen, uitsluitend opgericht voor, en werkzaam op het gebied van wetenschap, onderwijs, godsdienst of liefdadigheid.

5.  Ieder der Partijen behoudt zich het recht voor: (a) bepaalde belastingvoordelen te verlenen op voet van wederkerigheid; (b) bijzondere belastingvoordelen toe te kennen op grond van een overeenkomst ter voorkoming van dubbele belasting of ter wederzijdse veiligstelling van inkomsten; en (c) haar eigen onderdanen en inwoners van aangrenzende landen gunstigere vrijstellingen van persoonlijke aard toe te kennen met betrekking tot inkomsten- en successiebelastingen dan aan andere niet-inwoners worden toegekend.

Artikel XII

1.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen vanwege de andere Partij nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten met betrekking tot betalingen, overmakingen en transfers van gelden of waardepapieren tussen de grondgebieden van de twee Partijen alsook tussen het grondgebied van die andere Partij en van een derde land.

2.  Geen van beide Partijen zal deviezenbeperkingen als omschreven in lid 5 van dit artikel instellen, behalve voor zover zulks nodig is om haar monetaire reserves voldoende op peil te houden of weer te brengen, in het bijzonder in verhouding tot haar buitenlandse commerciële en financiële behoeften. Het is wel verstaan dat de bepalingen van dit artikel geen wijzigingen brengen in de verplichtingen, welke ieder der Partijen eventueel heeft tegenover het Internationale Monetaire Fonds, noch het instellen van bijzondere beperkingen uitsluiten, wanneer het Fonds een Partij uitdrukkelijk machtigt of verzoekt deze bijzondere beperkingen in te stellen.

3.  Indien een van beide Partijen deviezenbeperkingen instelt overeenkomstig lid 2 van dit artikel zal zij, nadat de nodige voorzieningen zijn getroffen om te verzekeren, dat voldoende deviezen beschikbaar zijn voor goederen en diensten, welke van wezenlijk belang zijn voor de gezondheidstoestand en het welzijn van haar bevolking, redelijke voorzieningen treffen voor het opnemen in vreemde valuta in de geldsoort van de andere Partij — in aanmerking genomen de bijzondere behoeften ten aanzien van andere transacties — van: (a) de vergoeding bedoeld in artikel VI, lid 4, (b) inkomsten, hetzij in de vorm van lonen, rente, dividenden, commissiegelden en provisies, royalties, betalingen voor technische diensten, of anderszins, en (c) bedragen voor de aflossing van leningen, afschrijvingen van rechtstreekse investeringen en, voor zoveel mogelijk, overmaking van kapitaal. Indien meer dan een wisselkoers geldt, zal op de omrekening van de op te nemen bedragen die koers worden toegepast, welke uitdrukkelijk door het Internationale Monetaire Fonds voor zodanige transacties is goedgekeurd, of, bij gebreke van zulk een goedgekeurde koers, een werkelijke koers, welke met inbegrip van eventuele belastingen of extra heffingen op overmakingen naar het buitenland rechtvaardig en redelijk is.

4.  Deviezenbeperkingen mogen door geen van beide Partijen worden ingesteld op een wijze welke onnodig nadelig of willekeurig discriminerend is ten aanzien van vorderingen, beleggingen, vervoer, handel en andere belangen van onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij, of van hun mogelijkheden te concurreren. De ene Partij zal te allen tijde de andere Partij voldoende gelegenheid tot overleg geven met betrekking tot de toepassing van dit artikel.

5.  De term „deviezenbeperkingen”, als gebruikt in het artikel, omvat alle beperkingen, regelingen, heffingen, belastingen of andere vereisten, ingesteld door een van beide Partijen, welke bezwarend of belemmerend werken ten aanzien van betalingen, overmakingen of transfers van gelden of waardepapieren tussen de grondgebieden van beide Partijen.

6.  Kwesties, welke zich voordoen in het kader van dit Verdrag met betrekking tot deviezencontrole zijn onderworpen aan de bepalingen van dit artikel.

Artikel XIII Handelsreizigers, die onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij vertegenwoordigen, die binnen het grondgebied daarvan zaken doen, zullen bij toelating tot en vertrek uit het grondgebied van de andere Partij en gedurende hun verblijf aldaar, de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten met betrekking tot douane- en andere aangelegenheden, met inbegrip van — onverminderd de uitzonderingen, voorzien in lid 5 van artikel XI — belastingen en heffingen, welke van toepassing zijn op henzelf, hun monsters en het aannemen van orders, en van de voorschriften, waaraan de uitoefening van hun beroep is onderworpen.       

Artikel XIV

1.  De ene Partij zal de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie toekennen aan produkten van de andere Partij, ongeacht de plaats van waar en het soort vervoermiddel, waarmede zij worden aangevoerd, alsook aan produkten bestemd voor uitvoer naar het grondgebied van die andere Partij, ongeacht de weg waarlangs en het vervoermiddel waarmee zulks zal geschieden, wat betreft in- en uitvoerrechten en heffingen van welke aard ook, opgelegd bij of in verband met de in- of de uitvoer, of opgelegd ten aanzien van de overmaking naar het buitenland van de betaling voor ingevoerde of uitgevoerde goederen, en met betrekking tot de wijze van heffing van die rechten en heffingen en met betrekking tot alle regels en vormvoorschriften in verband met in- en uitvoer.

2.  Geen van beide Partijen mag beperkingen of verboden instellen met betrekking tot de invoer van enig produkt van de andere Partij of tot de uitvoer van enig produkt naar het grondgebied van de andere Partij, tenzij de invoer van het overeenkomstige produkt uit, of de uitvoer van het overeenkomstige produkt naar alle andere landen op gelijke wijze is beperkt of verboden.

3.  Indien de ene Partij kwantitatieve beperkingen instelt ten aanzien van de in- of uitvoer van enig produkt, waarbij de andere Partij aanzienlijk belang heeft: (a) zal zij in het algemeen van te voren het totaal van het produkt, naar hoeveelheid of waarde, dat mag worden ingevoerd of uitgevoerd gedurende een aangegeven periode, en de eventuele wijzigingen in dat totaal of die periode bekend maken; en (b) zal zij, indien zij toewijzingen geeft aan een derde land, die andere Partij een aandeel toekennen evenredig tot het totaal van het produkt, naar hoeveelheid of waarde, hetwelk door of aan haar gedurende een voorafgaande representatieve periode werd geleverd, waarbij eventuele bijzondere factoren, welke de handel in dat produkt beïnvloeden in aanmerking worden genomen.

4.  De ene Partij mag verboden uitvaardigen en beperkingen instellen op grond van sanitaire of andere gebruikelijke overwegingen van niet-commerciële aard of om bedriegelijke en oneerlijke praktijken te voorkomen, mits die verboden of beperkingen niet willekeurig discrimineren ten nadele van de handel van de andere Partij.

5.  Onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij zullen vanwege de andere Partij nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten ten aanzien van alle aangelegenheden betreffende in- en uitvoer.

6.  Niettegenstaande het bepaalde bij lid 2 en lid 3 (b) van dit artikel mag een Partij beperkingen op, of een vergunningsstelsel voor de invoer en de uitvoer van goederen instellen, welke een overeenkomstig gevolg hebben als, of noodzakelijk zijn voor de werking van overeenkomstig artikel XII toegepaste deviezenbeperkingen. Die beperkingen of dat vergunningsstelsel mogen echter niet meer dan noodzakelijk is afwijken van het bepaalde bij de bovengenoemde artikelleden en moeten in overeenstemming zijn met een beleid, gericht op het bevorderen van een zo groot mogelijke ontwikkeling van de buitenlandse handel, waarbij niet wordt gediscrimineerd, en op het zo snel mogelijk bereiken van een stand van de betalingsbalans en van de monetaire reserves, welke het instandhouden van zulke beperkingen niet meer noodzakelijk maakt.

Artikel XV

1.  Ieder der Partijen zal prompt de wetten, regelingen en administratieve beslissingen van algemene gelding bekend maken met betrekking tot de tarieven van rechten, belastingen en andere heffingen tot de indeling van goederen voor douanedoeleinden en tot de voorschriften en beperkingen terzake van invoer en uitvoer of de overmaking van betalingen daarvoor, of welke van invloed zijn op de verkoop, de verspreiding of het gebruik daarvan; en zij zal die wetten, regelingen en beslissingen op uniforme, onpartijdige en redelijke wijze toepassen. In het algemeen zullen nieuwe administratieve voorschriften of beperkingen, welke van invloed zijn op de invoer — met uitzondering van die, welke uit hoofde van sanitaire overwegingen of de openbare veiligheid worden ingesteld — niet in werking treden dan na een, de omstandigheden in aanmerking genomen, redelijk tijdsverloop.

2.  De ene Partij zal ervoor zorg dragen, dat onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij en importeurs van produkten van die andere Partij in beroep kunnen gaan en op korte termijn onpartijdig een nieuwe behandeling, en, indien daarvoor grond bestaat, herziening in gunstige zin kunnen krijgen van administratieve beslissingen met betrekking tot douane-aangelegenheden, waaronder begrepen het opleggen van boeten en straffen, het verbeurd verklaren en beslissingen met betrekking tot de indeling en waardebepaling van goederen voor douanedoeleinden door de administratieve autoriteiten.

3.  Door een van beide Partijen opgelegde straffen wegens overtreding van de wetten op het gebied van in- en uitvoer en scheepvaart en van de voorschriften betreffende de documenten, welke moeten kunnen worden overgelegd, zullen niet hoger zijn dan nodig is om louter als waarschuwing te dienen, indien het schrijffouten betreft of fouten, welke werden gemaakt zonder bedriegelijke opzet of grove nalatigheid.

4.  Met betrekking tot voorschriften omtrent het merken van ingevoerde goederen zal ieder der Partijen in het algemeen: (a) toestaan, dat voorgeschreven merken van oorsprong na invoer worden aangebracht; (b) geen aanduidingen toelaten, welke leiden tot een verkeerde voorstelling van de werkelijke oorsprong van de produkten; en (c) geen voorschriften toepassen, welke kosten met zich brengen, welke economisch prohibitief werken of zouden leiden tot ernstige beschadiging van het produkt.

5.  Geen van beide Partijen mag een maatregel nemen welke door zijn discriminerende aard de importeurs of exporteurs van produkten van beide landen belemmert of verhindert een zeeverzekering te sluiten voor die produkten bij vennootschappen van elk van beide Partijen.

Artikel XVI

1.  Op produkten van de ene Partij zal binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij nationale behandeling en de behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie worden toegepast in alle aangelegenheden, welke van invloed zijn op belastingheffing, verkoop, verspreiding, opslag en gebruik in het binnenland.

2.  Goederen, voortgebracht door onderdanen en vennootschappen van de ene Partij binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, of door vennootschappen van laatstgenoemde Partij, beheerst door bedoelde onderdanen en vennootschappen, zullen binnen dat grondgebied niet minder gunstig worden behandeld dan soortgelijke goederen van nationale oorsprong, voortgebracht door welke persoon of vennootschap ook, in alle aangelegenheden welke van invloed zijn op uitvoer, belastingheffing, verkoop, verspreiding, opslag en gebruik.

Artikel XVII

1.  De ene Partij verplicht zich ervoor te zorgen (a) dat ondernemingen, welke haar Regering in eigendom heeft of beheerst, en monopolies of instanties, aan wie uitsluitende rechten of bijzondere voorrechten binnen haar grondgebied zijn verleend, hun inkopen en verkopen, waarbij hetzij invoer hetzij uitvoer is betrokken en waardoor de handel van de andere Partij wordt beïnvloed, uitsluitend zullen verrichten op grond van commerciële overwegingen, zoals prijs, kwaliteit, beschikbaarheid, verkoopbaarheid, vervoer en andere voorwaarden van koop of verkoop; en (b) dat de onderdanen, vennootschappen en de handel van die andere Partij voldoende gelegenheid zullen krijgen in overeenstemming met het geldende handelsgebruik mede te dingen bij zulke kopen en verkopen.

2.  De ene Partij zal de onderdanen, vennootschappen en handel van de andere Partij behoorlijk en onpartijdig behandelen in verhouding tot de onderdanen, vennootschappen en de handel van andere landen, met betrekking tot: (a) de aankoop van goederen door de Regering; (b) het verlenen van concessies en andere Regeringscontracten; en (c) de verkoop van een dienst, welke de Regering of een monopolie of een instantie, welke uitsluitende rechten of bijzondere voorrechten heeft, ten verkoop aanbiedt.

Artikel XVIII

1.  Partijen erkennen, dat gelijke voorwaarden voor mededinging behoren te worden gehandhaafd in het geval dat ondernemingen op het gebied van handel en fabricage, welke eigendom zijn van of worden beheerst door de overheid van de ene Partij binnen haar grondgebied in concurrentie treden met particuliere ondernemingen, welke eigendom zijn van en worden beheerst door onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij. Dienovereenkomstig behoren aan die overheidsondernemingen geen bijzondere economische voorrechten te worden gegeven met het oogmerk de concurrentiemogelijkheden van die particuliere ondernemingen te schaden. Dit beginsel mag evenwel niet zó worden uitgelegd, dat het een der of beide Partijen zou verhinderen dergelijke bijzondere gunsten toe te staan ten behoeve van overheidsondernemingen, welke nodig worden geacht in tijden van economische crisis, in het bijzonder ter bestrijding van werkloosheid. Dit beginsel doet bovendien niets af aan bijzondere voordelen toegekend in verband met: (a) het vervaardigen van goederen bestemd voor gebruik door de Regering of het leveren van goederen en diensten aan de Regering te haren behoeve; of (b) het tegen prijzen, welke belangrijk lager liggen dan de concurrerende prijzen voorzien in de behoeften van bepaalde bevolkingsgroepen aan onontbeerlijke goederen en diensten, welke die groepen anders ternauwernood zouden kunnen verkrijgen.

2.  Geen onderneming van de ene Partij met inbegrip van rechtspersonen, verenigingen en Regeringsinstanties en -organen, eigendom van, of beheerst door de overheid mag, voor zover zij zich bezighoudt met handel, industrie, scheepvaart of andere zakelijke activiteit, binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, hetzij voor zichzelf of voor haar eigendommen, binnen dat grondgebied aanspraak maken op of vrijdom genieten ten aanzien van belastingheffing, rechtsvervolging, tenuitvoerlegging van vonnissen of enige andere verplichting, waaraan ondernemingen in eigendom van of beheerst door particulieren binnen dat grondgebied zijn onderworpen.

Artikel XIX

1.  Schepen onder de vlag van de ene Partij, voorzien van de volgens haar wetten vereiste scheepspapieren ten bewijze van hun nationaliteit, zullen worden geacht schepen te zijn van die Partij, zowel in volle zee, als in de havens, plaatsen en wateren van de andere Partij.

2.  Schepen van de ene Partij zullen vrij en op gelijke voorwaarden als schepen van de andere Partij en op gelijke voorwaarden als schepen van derde landen met hun lading mogen komen naar alle havens, plaatsen en wateren van die andere Partij, welke openstaan voor buitenlandse handel en scheepvaart. Die schepen en lading zullen in ieder opzicht nationale behandeling en behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten in de havens, plaatsen en wateren van die andere Partij; maar ieder der Partijen behoudt zich voor, uitsluitend aan haar eigen schepen rechten en voorrechten in te ruimen met betrekking tot de kustvaart en de binnenscheepvaart.

3.  Schepen van de ene Partij zullen nationale behandeling en behandeling van de meestbegunstigde natie genieten met betrekking tot het recht alle lading te vervoeren, welke verscheept mag worden naar of van het grondgebied van de andere Partij.

4.  Goederen vervoerd door schepen onder de vlag van de ene Partij van en naar het grondgebied van de andere Partij zullen dezelfde voorrechten genieten als wanneer zij worden vervoerd met schepen onder de vlag van die andere Partij. Dit geldt in het bijzonder voor in- en uitvoerrechten en alle andere rechten en heffingen, premies, teruggave van invoerrechten en andere voorrechten van deze aard alsook voor het douane-regime en het vervoer naar en van de haven per spoor en ander vervoermiddel.

5.  Indien een schip van de ene Partij aan de grond loopt of schipbreuk lijdt op de kust van de andere Partij of indien het in nood verkeert en een haven van de andere Partij moet binnenlopen, zal de laatstgenoemde Partij zowel het schip als zijn bemanning, de passagiers, de persoonlijke eigendommen van de bemanning en van de passagiers en de lading van het schip op dezelfde wijze beschermen en helpen als zij zou hebben gedaan in het geval van een schip onder haar eigen vlag in overeenkomstige omstandigheden; en zij zal het schip, nadat het hersteld is, toestaan de reis voort te zetten met overeenkomstige toepassing van de wetten, welke gelden voor schepen onder haar eigen vlag. Goederen geborgen uit het schip zullen vrij zijn van alle invoerrechten, tenzij zij in het vrije verkeer worden gebracht; maar ten aanzien van goederen, welke niet in het vrije verkeer worden gebracht, mogen, zolang zij nog niet zijn uitgevoerd, maatregelen worden genomen ten einde de belangen van de Schatkist veilig te stellen.

6.  Onder de uitdrukking „schepen”, als hier gebruikt, wordt verstaan alle soorten schepen, hetzij particulier eigendom of voor een particulier varend, hetzij eigendom van de overheid of voor haar varend, met uitzondering van oorlogsschepen. Deze uitdrukking heeft geen betrekking op vissersvaartuigen behalve in de leden 1 en 5 van dit artikel en in artikel XX.

Artikel XX

1.  In alle havens van de ene Partij zal het aan kapiteins van alle schepen onder de vlag van de andere Partij, waarvan de bemanning niet meer voltallig is ten gevolge van ziekte of een andere oorzaak, zijn geoorloofd de zeelieden aan te monsteren die nodig zijn om de reis voort te zetten.

2.  Zeelieden, die onderdaan zijn van de ene Partij, zullen naar havens van de andere Partij kunnen worden gezonden om zich naar schepen van hun nationaliteit onder toezicht van consulaire ambtenaren te begeven, hetzij alleen, of in groepen, en voorzien van papieren voor zeelieden uitgegeven in plaats van paspoorten. Evenzo zal het aan onderdanen van de ene Partij zijn geoorloofd te reizen door het grondgebied van de andere Partij om zich naar een schip te begeven of om naar het vaderland terug te keren, daarbij gebruik makend van papieren voor zeelieden in plaats van paspoorten.

Artikel XXI Er zal vrijheid van doorreis en doorvoer bestaan door het grondgebied van de ene Partij langs de daarvoor in het internationale verkeer meest geschikte wegen: (a) voor onderdanen van de andere Partij met hun bagage; (b) voor andere personen met hun bagage op weg naar of van het grondgebied van die andere Partij; en (c) voor goederen van welke oorsprong ook op hun weg naar of van het grondgebied van die andere Partij. Die personen en zaken op doorreis of in doorvoer zullen vrij zijn van in- en uitvoerrechten, van rechten geheven wegens doorvoer en van onredelijke heffingen en vereisten en zullen niet onnodig worden opgehouden of aan onnodige beperkingen onderworpen. Zij zullen evenwel zijn onderworpen aan maatregelen als bedoeld in lid 4 van artikel II en aan niet discriminerende voorschriften, welke nodig zijn om misbruik van het voorrecht van doorreis of doorvoer te voorkomen.       

Artikel XXII

1.  Dit Verdrag laat onverlet het recht van ieder der Partijen maatregelen toe te passen: (a) welke de invoer of uitvoer van goud of zilver regelen; (b) met betrekking tot splijtbaar materiaal, radioactieve nevenprodukten, welke ontstaan bij het gebruik of de verwerking daarvan of tot materialen, welke als grondstof dienen voor splijtbaar materiaal; (c) welke de produktie van of de handel in wapenen, ammunitie en oorlogswerktuigen regelen, of de handel in andere materialen rechtstreeks of middellijk bestemd voor de bevoorrading van een militaire inrichting; (d) welke nodig zijn ter nakoming van haar verplichtingen met betrekking tot de handhaving of het herstel van de internationale vrede en veiligheid of ter bescherming van wezenlijke belangen in verband met haar veiligheid; (e) welke aan een vennootschap, waarin onderdanen van een derde land of derde landen rechtstreeks of middellijk het overwegend belang hebben, de voordelen van dit Verdrag ontzeggen, behalve ten aanzien van de erkenning van haar bestaan in rechte en van de toegang tot de rechter; en (f) welke haar nationale visserij en de aanlanding van de produkten daarvan betreffen.

2.  De bepalingen omtrent de meestbegunstiging in dit Verdrag zijn niet van toepassing op voordelen toegekend: (a) door de Verenigde Staten van Amerika of hun gebiedsdelen en bezittingen over en weer, aan de Republiek Cuba, aan de Republiek der Philippijnen, aan het Trustgebied van de Stille Zuidzee-eilanden of aan de Panama Kanaal Zone; of (b) door de Delen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden over en weer, door Nederland aan zijn deelgenoten in de Benelux (België met inbegrip van haar Overzeese en Trustgebieden, en Luxemburg), of door het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden aan de Republiek Indonesië.

3.  De bepalingen omtrent de meestbegunstiging in dit Verdrag zijn niet van toepassing op voordelen door de ene Partij toegekend aan aangrenzende landen ten einde het grensverkeer te vergemakkelijken, of uit hoofde van een douane-unie of een vrij handelsgebied, waarbij een der Partijen zich mocht aansluiten, na de andere Partij van haar plannen in kennis te hebben gesteld en haar de gelegenheid te hebben gegeven haar zienswijze dienaangaande kenbaar te maken.

4.  De bepalingen van dit Verdrag welke betrekking hebben op de behandeling van goederen, laten onverlet het recht van ieder der Partijen te handelen, zoals is vereist of uitdrukkelijk is toegestaan krachtens de Algemene Overeenkomst betreffende Tarieven en Handel, zolang die Partij verdragsluitende partij is bij de Algemene Overeenkomst. Evenzo zijn de bepalingen van meestbegunstiging in dit Verdrag niet van toepassing op bijzondere voordelen, welke krachtens bedoelde Overeenkomst worden toegekend.

5.  Onderdanen van de ene Partij, die op het grondgebied van de andere Partij zijn toegelaten voor beperkte doeleinden, zullen niet het recht hebben om op winst gerichte werkzaamheden te vervullen in strijd met de hun uitdrukkelijk overeenkomstig de wet opgelegde beperkingen, welke de voorwaarde voor hun toelating waren.

6.  Niets in dit Verdrag zal worden geacht uitdrukkelijk of stilzwijgend recht te verlenen tot het ontwikkelen van politieke activiteit.

Artikel XXIII

1.  Onder „nationale behandeling” wordt verstaan een behandeling binnen het grondgebied van een Partij, welke niet minder gunstig is dan de behandeling, welke, in overeenkomstige omstandigheden, binnen dat gebied aan onderdanen, vennootschappen, produkten, schepen of andere zaken, al naar het geval zich voordoet, van die Partij wordt toegekend.

2.  Onder „behandeling van meestbegunstiging” wordt verstaan een behandeling binnen het grondgebied van een Partij, welke niet minder gunstig is dan de behandeling, welke in overeenkomstige omstandigheden, binnen dat gebied aan onderdanen, vennootschappen, produkten, schepen of andere zaken, al naar het geval zich voordoet, van een derde land wordt toegekend.

3.  Onder de uitdrukking „vennootschappen” als gebruikt in dit Verdrag wordt verstaan maatschappijen, maatschappen, vennootschappen, stichtingen, verenigingen en andere juridische eenheden („legal entities”) of rechtspersonen, met of zonder beperkte aansprakelijkheid of met of zonder winstoogmerk. Vennootschappen, opgericht binnen het grondgebied van de ene Partij overeenkomstig de geldende wetten en voorschriften, zullen worden geacht vennootschappen van die Partij te zijn en hun bestaan in rechte als zodanig zal worden erkend binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij.

4.  Nationale behandeling overeenkomstig de bepalingen van dit Verdrag aan vennootschappen toegekend zal: (a) wat betreft vennootschappen van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, in een Staat, gebiedsdeel of bezitting van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika zijn de behandeling, welke daarin wordt toegekend aan vennootschappen, opgericht in andere Staten, gebiedsdelen en bezittingen van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika; en (b) wat betreft vennootschappen van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika, in een Deel van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden de behandeling, welke daarin wordt toegekend aan vennootschappen opgericht in een ander Deel van het Koninkrijk, Voorts zal in een Deel van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden buiten Europa de nationale behandeling, welke aan onderdanen van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika wordt toegekend, de behandeling zijn, welke in dat Deel wordt toegekend aan Nederlandse onderdanen, die niet in dat Deel zijn geboren.

Artikel XXIV Het grondgebied, waarop dit Verdrag van toepassing is, omvat alle landstreken en wateren onder de rechtsmacht van ieder der Partijen alsook ieder gebied, waarvoor zij internationaal verantwoordelijk is, met uitzondering van de Panama Kanaal Zone en het Trust-gebied van de Stille Zuidzee-eilanden, met dien verstande, dat het niet eerder van toepassing is op onderscheidenlijk Suriname of de Nederlandse Antillen dan na een maand nadat de Regering van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika de kennisgeving heeft ontvangen, dat het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden het Verdrag daarop zal toepassen.       

Artikel XXV

1.  De ene Partij zal de vertogen, welke de andere Partij tot haar mocht richten met betrekking tot een aangelegenheid betreffende de werking van dit Verdrag in welwillende overweging nemen en voldoende gelegenheid geven voor overleg dienaangaande.

2.  Een geschil tussen Partijen met betrekking tot de uitlegging of toepassing van dit Verdrag zal, indien niet tot tevredenheid opgelost langs diplomatieke weg, worden onderworpen aan het Internationale Gerechtshof, tenzij Partijen overeenkomen het op andere vreedzame wijze te regelen.

Artikel XXVI Dit Verdrag treedt in de plaats van het Verdrag van handel en scheepvaart, ondertekend te Washington 26 augustus 1852, en de overeenkomst met betrekking tot handelsmerken bij notawisseling, ondertekend te Washington 10 en 16 februari 1883.       

Artikel XXVII

1.  Dit Verdrag zal worden bekrachtigd en de bekrachtigingsoorkonden zullen zo spoedig mogelijk te Washington worden uitgewisseld.

2.  Dit Verdrag zal in werking treden een maand na de dag van de uitwisseling der bekrachtigingsoorkonden. Het zal gedurende tien jaren van kracht blijven en daarna van kracht blijven, totdat het wordt beëindigd op de wijze als in dit artikel bepaald.

3.  Ieder der Partijen kan dit Verdrag na afloop van het oorspronkelijke tijdvak van tien jaren of te eniger tijd daarna met betrekking tot al het grondgebied, waarop het van toepassing is, of met betrekking tot Suriname of de Nederlandse Antillen beëindigen door middel van een schriftelijke mededeling aan de andere Partij en met inachtneming van een opzeggingstermijn van een jaar.

TEN BLIJKE WAARVAN de onderscheidene Gevolmachtigden dit Verdrag hebben ondertekend en daaraan hun zegel hebben gehecht. GEDAAN in tweevoud in de Nederlandse en de Engelse taal, zijnde beide teksten gelijkelijk authentiek, te 's-Gravenhage, de 27e maart 1956. Voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: (w.g.) J. LUNS (w.g.) J. W. BEYEN Voor de Verenigde Staten van Amerika: (w.g.) H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS        

Protocol        

Bij het ondertekenen van het Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika hebben de ondergetekende Gevolmachtigden, behoorlijk gemachtigd door hun onderscheidene Regeringen, verder overeenstemming bereikt ten aanzien van de volgende bepalingen, welke zullen worden geacht een integrerend deel van genoemd Verdrag uit te maken:       

1. De echtgenoot of echtgenote en de ongehuwde minderjarige kinderen van een persoon, die overeenkomstig de bepalingen van artikel II, lid 1 (a) en (b), is toegelaten, zullen eveneens worden toegelaten, indien zij hem of haar vergezellen of voor gezinshereniging nareizen.

2. De bepalingen van artikel II, lid 1 (b), zijn eveneens van toepassing op personen, die onderdanen en vennootschappen van eigen nationaliteit, welke een aanzienlijk kapitaal hebben belegd of daadwerkelijk bezig zijn zulks te doen in een onderneming binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, vertegenwoordigen en te hunnen dienste werkzaam zijn in een verantwoordelijke functie.

3. Met betrekking tot artikel II, lid 1, en de eerste zin van artikel VIII, lid 1, zullen onderdanen van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika in een Deel van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden buiten Europa dezelfde behandeling genieten als Nederlandse onderdanen, die niet in dat Deel zijn geboren.

4. De bepalingen van artikel IV, lid 2, hebben alleen betrekking op wetten en voorschriften, welke hetzij nationale wetten of voorschriften zijn of geheel of gedeeltelijk berusten op bepalingen van nationale wetten of voorschriften. Voorts sluit dat lid niet de mogelijkheid uit, dat ieder der Partijen vreemdelingen, die tijdelijk ingezetenen van haar grondgebied zijn, niet doet vallen onder haar stelsel van sociale verzekering, welke het betalen van een premie voorschrijft.

5. Het recht bedoeld in artikel V, lid 1, omvat onder meer het recht op rechtskundige bijstand, op kosteloos procederen en op vrijstelling van het storten van een waarborgsom voor de kosten.

6. De bepalingen van artikel VI, lid 4, welke voorzien in de betaling van schadevergoeding, zijn eveneens van toepassing op belangen, welke onderdanen en Vennootschappen van ieder der Partijen rechtstreeks of middellijk bezitten in eigendommen, welke binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij worden onttrokken aan belanghebbenden.

7. De bepalingen van artikel VII leggen geen van beide Partijen de verplichting binnen haar grondgebied op aan onderdanen en vennootschappen van de andere Partij toe te staan zakelijke activiteit te ontwikkelen zonder te voldoen aan de algemeen geldende wettelijke voorschriften.

8. De uitoefening van een beroep valt niet onder de activiteit bedoeld in artikel VII, lid 1.

9. Met betrekking tot artikel VII, lid 1, is het wel verstaan, dat ieder der Partijen, in overeenstemming met de woorden en de geest van dit Verdrag, bijzondere eisen kan stellen aan buitenlandse verzekeringsmaatschappijen, ten einde een mate van verantwoording en solvabiliteit te waarborgen vergelijkbaar met die, welke van soortgelijke binnenlandse maatschappijen wordt geëist, mits die eisen niet tot gevolg hebben, dat in wezen wordt gediscrimineerd ten nadele van die buitenlandse maatschappijen.

10. Partijen zijn overeengekomen, dat de eerste zin van artikel VII, lid 2, op voet van wederkerigheid, niet van toepassing is op de vestiging van, of het verkrijgen van belangen in, of de beheersing van, de bedrijfsuitoefening van en de leiding van vennootschappen van de ene Partij met het doel petroleum en andere delfstoffen op te sporen en te ontginnen binnen het grondgebied van die Partij, door onderdanen of vennootschappen van de andere Partij.

11. De bepalingen van de eerste zin van artikel VIII, lid 1, laten onverlet het recht van Nederland voor te schrijven, dat vreemdelingen in Nederland slechts mogen worden tewerkgesteld, mits de vereiste vergunningen zijn verkregen. De voorschriften betreffende tewerkstelling zullen echter, in overeenstemming met de bepalingen van bedoeld lid, soepel worden toegepast.

12. Dit Verdrag vervangt generlei bepaling van het Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Verenigde Staten van Amerika met betrekking tot inkomsten- en zekere andere belastingen, ondertekend te Washington 29 april 1948.

13. De behandeling, bedoeld in artikel XII, lid 1, juncto de bepalingen van artikel XXIII, lid 1 en lid 2, heeft alleen de strekking discriminatie op grond van nationaliteit uit te sluiten en sluit bij voorbeeld niet uit een verschillende behandeling van verschillende geldsoorten of naar plaats van ingezetenschap.

14. Ieder der Partijen mag de beperkingen stellen aan de invoer van buitenlands kapitaal, welke eventueel nodig zijn om haar monetaire reserves overeenkomstig artikel XII, lid 2, te beschermen of om ernstige monetaire verstoringen, voortvloeiende uit speculatieve financiële handelingen, te voorkomen.

15. Wat betreft artikel XVII, lid 1, is het wel verstaan, dat, onder een commerciële overweging mede wordt begrepen het kunnen beschikken over middelen tot betaling.

16. De bepalingen van artikel XVII, lid 2 (b) en (c), en van artikel XIX, lid 3, zijn niet van toepassing op postdiensten.

17. Partijen zijn overeengekomen, dat onder het woord lading, als gebruikt in artikel XIX, lid 2 en lid 3, zowel passagiers als goederen zijn begrepen.

18. Wat betreft artikel XXII, lid 1 (d), is het wel verstaan, dat het voorbehoud omtrent veiligheidsoverwegingen niet ten doel heeft een grond op te leveren om bovenmatig lange tijd af te wijken van een bepaling van het Verdrag. Anderzijds maakt ieder der Partijen naar eigen beste weten uit, welke maatregelen zij noodzakelijk acht ter bescherming van haar wezenlijke belangen in verband met haar veiligheid.

19. De bepalingen van artikel XXII, lid 2, zijn van toepassing op Puertorico, ongeacht de wijzigingen, welke zich mochten voltrekken in zijn politieke status.

20. Artikel XXIV is niet van toepassing op een gebied onder het gezag van een der Partijen, alleen als militaire basis of wegens tijdelijke militaire bezetting.

TEN BLIJKE WAARVAN de onderscheidene Gevolmachtigden dit Protocol hebben ondertekend en daaraan hun zegel hebben gehecht. GEDAAN in tweevoud in de Nederlandse en de Engelse taal, zijnde beide teksten gelijkelijk authentiek,

te 's-Gravenhage, de 27e maart 1956. 

Voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden: (w.g.) J. LUNS  (w.g.) J. W. BEYEN 

Voor de Verenigde Staten van Amerika: (w.g.) H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS        

_____

Protocol

1. De echtgenoot of echtgenote en de ongehuwde minderjarige kinderen van een persoon, die overeenkomstig de bepalingen van artikel II, lid 1 (a) en (b), is toegelaten, zullen eveneens worden toegelaten, indien zij hem of haar vergezellen of voor gezinshereniging nareizen.

2. De bepalingen van artikel II, lid 1 (b), zijn eveneens van toepassing op personen, die onderdanen en vennootschappen van eigen nationaliteit, welke een aanzienlijk kapitaal hebben belegd of daadwerkelijk bezig zijn zulks te doen in een onderneming binnen het grondgebied van de andere Partij, vertegenwoordigen en te hunnen dienste werkzaam zijn in een verantwoordelijke functie.

5. Het recht bedoeld in artikel V, lid 1, omvat onder meer het recht op rechtskundige bijstand, op kosteloos procederen en op vrijstelling van het storten van een waarborgsom voor de kosten.

8. De uitoefening van een beroep valt niet onder de activiteit bedoeld in artikel VII, lid 1.

15. Wat betreft artikel XVII, lid 1, is het wel verstaan, dat, onder een commerciële overweging mede wordt begrepen het kunnen beschikken over middelen tot betaling.

16. De bepalingen van artikel XVII, lid 2 (b) en (c), en van artikel XIX, lid 3, zijn niet van toepassing op postdiensten.

17. Partijen zijn overeengekomen, dat onder het woord lading, als gebruikt in artikel XIX, lid 2 en lid 3, zowel passagiers als goederen zijn begrepen.

18. Wat betreft artikel XXII, lid 1 (d), is het wel verstaan, dat het voorbehoud omtrent veiligheidsoverwegingen niet ten doel heeft een grond op te leveren om bovenmatig lange tijd af te wijken van een bepaling van het Verdrag. Anderzijds maakt ieder der Partijen naar eigen beste weten uit, welke maatregelen zij noodzakelijk acht ter bescherming van haar wezenlijke belangen in verband met haar veiligheid.

19. De bepalingen van artikel XXII, lid 2, zijn van toepassing op Puertorico, ongeacht de wijzigingen, welke zich mochten voltrekken in zijn politieke status.

20. Artikel XXIV is niet van toepassing op een gebied onder het gezag van een der Partijen, alleen als militaire basis of wegens tijdelijke militaire bezetting.

TEN BLIJKE WAARVAN de onderscheidene Gevolmachtigden dit Protocol hebben ondertekend en daaraan hun zegel hebben gehecht.

GEDAAN in tweevoud in de Nederlandse en de Engelse taal, zijnde beide teksten gelijkelijk authentiek, te 's-Gravenhage, de 27e maart 1956.

Voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden:

(w.g.) J. LUNS

(w.g.) J. W. BEYEN

Voor de Verenigde Staten van Amerika:

(w.g.) H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS

No. I

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The Hague, 27th March 1956.

Excellency:

We have the honor to refer to the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed this day, during the course of which extensive conversations were held between the representatives of the two countries concerning the most-favored-nation aspects of the Treaty in relation to forwardlooking regional arrangements designed to bring closer cooperation, or integration, among European countries.

The common view emerging from these conversations is that European regional arrangements which do not involve the raising of barriers of any kind to intercourse with the rest of the world but which are designed to promote peace and prosperity, to expand trade, to increase productivity and to raise standards of living, are mutually advantageous. Accordingly, it is recognized in principle that the Netherlands should continue to be able to participate in European regional arrangements which serve these aims and the broad interests of both Parties, even though the Netherlands may thereunder be obliged to grant some reciprocal advantages to other participating countries which it is unable to grant to non-participating countries.

It is determined that any necessary reconciliation between the terms of the Treaty and existing European arrangements in which the Netherlands now participates is adequately provided in Article XXII, paragraph 4. It is agreed that, should this provision be insufficient to meet future contingencies, the two Parties will at the request of either Party consult with a view to determining what further adjustments might be necessary. Should such consultation fail to lead to a mutually satisfactory result, either Party, notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXVII, shall be entitled to suspend the operation of particular most-favored-nation provisions of the Treaty to the extent deemed appropriate to the situation, upon giving two months' written notice to the other Party. With respect to the subject matter of any provision so affected, however, it would be the policy of the Parties to proceed in general as follows: The United States of America would accord to the Kingdom of the Netherlands treatment no less favorable in like situations than that accorded other countries participating in the arrangement in question, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands would accord to the United States of America treatment no less favorable in like situations than that accorded countries not so participating.

If the above is acceptable to the United States Government, we have the honor to suggest that this note and your Excellency's reply to that effect shall be considered as constituting an agreement between our two Governments, forming an integral part of the above-mentioned Treaty.

Please accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of our highest consideration and esteem.

(sd.) J. LUNS

(sd.) J. W. BEYEN

To His Excellency

Mr. H. Freeman Matthews,

Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary

of the United States of America

at The Hague.

No. I

MINISTERIE VAN BUITENLANDSE ZAKEN

's-Gravenhage, 27 maart 1956.

Excellentie,

Wij hebben de eer te verwijzen naar de onderhandelingen, welke geleid hebben tot het sluiten van het Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart, dat vandaag is ondertekend; in de loop dezer onderhandelingen werd uitvoerig van gedachten gewisseld tussen de vertegenwoordigers van onze beide landen over de meestbegunstigingsaspecten van het Verdrag in verband met op de toekomst gerichte regionale overeenkomsten, welke ten doel hebben nauwere samenwerking tussen, of integratie van Europese landen tot stand te brengen.

Deze gedachtenwisselingen hebben geleid tot het gemeenschappelijk inzicht, dat Europese regionale overeenkomsten, welke niet meebrengen dat hinderpalen van welke aard ook worden opgeworpen voor het verkeer met de rest van de wereld, doch ten doel hebben vrede en welvaart te bevorderen, de handel uit te breiden, de produktiviteit op te voeren en de levensstandaard te verhogen, strekken tot wederzijds voordeel. Dienovereenkomstig wordt in beginsel erkend, dat Nederland in de gelegenheid moet zijn ook in de toekomst deel te nemen aan Europese regionale overeenkomsten, welke dienstig zijn aan de verwezenlijking van die doelstellingen en in brede trekken aan de belangen van beide Partijen ondanks het feit dat Nederland krachtens die overeenkomsten verplicht zou kunnen zijn enige voordelen op basis van wederkerigheid toe te kennen aan andere deelnemende landen, welke voordelen Nederland niet kan geven aan niet-deelnemende landen.

Vastgesteld is, dat, voorzover aanpassing tussen de bepalingen van het Verdrag en de bestaande Europese overeenkomsten, waarbij Nederland thans partij is, noodzakelijk mocht zijn, artikel XXII, lid 4, daarin op voldoende wijze voorziet. Overeengekomen is dat, indien deze voorziening onvoldoende mocht zijn om toekomstige onvoorziene verwikkelingen tot oplossing te brengen, de Partijen, op het verzoek van een van beiden, overleg zullen plegen om vast te stellen, welke verdere aanpassingen noodzakelijk zouden kunnen zijn. Zou dat overleg niet leiden tot een wederzijds bevredigend resultaat, dan zal ieder der Partijen, ondanks de bepalingen van artikel XXVII, gerechtigd zijn de werking van specifieke meestbegunstigingsbepalingen van het Verdrag op te schorten in de mate, welke onder de omstandigheden passend wordt geoordeeld door een schriftelijke kennisgeving aan de andere Partij met een termijn van twee maanden. Ten aanzien van de materie, waarop een aldus opgeschorte bepaling betrekking heeft, zullen echter in het algemeen de volgende gedragslijnen door Partijen worden in achtgenomen: de Verenigde Staten van Amerika zullen aan het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden een behandeling toekennen, welke niet minder gunstig zal zijn dan die, welke in overeenkomstige omstandigheden wordt toegekend aan andere landen welke partij zijn in de betreffende overeenkomst, en het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden zal aan de Verenigde Staten van Amerika een behandeling toekennen welke niet minder gunstig zal zijn dan die, welke in Overeenkomstige omstandigheden wordt toegekend aan niet-deelnemende landen.

Indien het bovenstaande voor de Regering van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika aanvaardbaar is, hebben wij de eer voor te stellen, dat deze nota en Uwer Excellentie's daartoe strekkend antwoord, zullen worden beschouwd een overeenkomst te vormen tussen onze beide Regeringen, welke een integrerend deel uitmaakt van het bovenvermelde Verdrag.

Gelief, Excellentie, de hernieuwde verzekering van onze bijzondere hoogachting en waardering te aanvaarden.

(w.g.) J. LUNS

(w.g.) J. W. BEYEN

Aan Zijne Excellentie

de Heer H. Freeman Matthews,

buitengewoon en gevolmachtigd Ambassadeur

van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika

te 's-Gravenhage.

No. II

AMERICAN EMBASSY

The Hague, 27th March 1956.

Excellencies:

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellencies' note of to day, which reads as follows:

“We have the honor to refer to the negotiations lealing to the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed this day, during the course of which extensive conversations were held between the representatives of the two countries concerning the most-favored-nation aspects of the Treaty in relation to forwardlooking regional arrangements designed to bring closer cooperation, or integration, among European countries.

“The common view emerging from these conversations is that European regional arrangements which do not involve the raising of barriers of any kind to intercourse with the rest of the world but which are designed to promote peace and prosperity, to expand trade, to increase productivity and to raise standards of living, are mutually advantageous. Accordingly, it is recognized in principle that the Netherlands should continue to be able to participate in European regional arrangements which serve these aims and the broad interests of both Parties, even though the Netherlands may thereunder be obliged to grant some reciprocal advantages to other participating countries which it is unable to grant to non-participating countries.

“It is determined that any necessary reconciliation between the terms of the Treaty and existing European arrangements in which the Netherlands now participates is adequately provided in Article XXII, paragraph 4. It is agreed that, should this provision be insufficient to meet future contingencies, the two Parties will at the request of either Party consult with a view to determining what further adjustments might be necessary. Should such consultation fail to lead to a mutually satisfactory result, either Party, notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXVII, shall be entitled to suspend the operation of particular most-favored-nation provisions of the Treaty to the extent deemed appropriate to the situation, upon giving two months' written notice to the other Party. With respect to the subject matter of any provision so affected, however, it would be the policy of the Parties to proceed in general as follows: The United States of America would accord to the Kingdom of the Netherlands treatment no less favorable in like situations than that accorded other countries participating in the arrangement in question, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands would accord to the United States of America treatment no less favorable in like situations than that accorded countries not so participating.

“If the above is acceptable to the United States Government, we have the honor to suggest that this note and your Excellency's reply to that effect shall be considered as constituting an agreement between our two Governments, forming an integral part of the above-mentioned Treaty.”

I have the honor to inform your Excellencies that the contents of your Excellencies' note are acceptable to my Government and I herewith confirm that your Excellencies' note and the present reply thereto shall be considered as constituting an agreement between our two Governments, forming an integral part of the above-mentioned Treaty.

As your Excellencies are aware, the United States Government welcomes progress in the development of European cooperation and integration insofar as arrangements for cooperation and integration contribute to a freer flow of trade, a more efficient use of manpower and materials, and greater unity. In this connection, it may be recalled that the United States Government has given concrete support to such organizations as the European Coal and Steel Community and concurred in the waiver relative thereto granted by the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, bearing in mind the benefits expected to accrue from arrangements designed to create a dynamic competitive common market within the Community and to insure sound economic relations between the Community and outside countries. The United States Government is prepared to consider sympathetically in the same spirit other proposals which the Kingdom of the Netherlands might make.

Please accept, Excellencies, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration and esteem.

(sd.) H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS

To Their Excellencies

Mr. J. W. Beyen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and

Mr. J. M. A. H. Luns, Minister without Portfolio,

at The Hague.

No. II

AMERIKAANSE AMBASSADE

's-Gravenhage, 27 maart 1956.

Excellenties,

Ik heb de eer de ontvangst te bevestigen van Uwer Excellenties nota van heden, welke als volgt luidt:

„Wij hebben de eer te verwijzen naar de onderhandelingen, welke geleid hebben tot het sluiten van het Verdrag van vriendschap, handel en scheepvaart, dat vandaag is ondertekend; in de loop dezer onderhandelingen werd uitvoerig van gedachten gewisseld tussen de vertegenwoordigers van onze beide landen over de meestbegunstigingsaspecten van het Verdrag in verband met op de toekomst gerichte regionale overeenkomsten, welke ten doel hebben nauwere samenwerking tussen, of integratie van Europese landen tot stand te brengen.

Vastgesteld is, dat, voorzover aanpassing tussen de bepalingen van het Verdrag en de bestaande Europese overeenkomsten, waarbij Nederland thans partij is, noodzakelijk mocht zijn, artikel XXII, lid 4, daarin op voldoende wijze voorziet. Overeengekomen is dat, indien deze voorziening onvoldoende mocht zijn om toekomstige onvoorziene verwikkelingen tot oplossing te brengen, de Partijen, op het verzoek van een van beiden, overleg zullen plegen om vast te stellen, welke verdere aanpassingen noodzakelijk zouden kunnen zijn. Zou dat overleg niet leiden tot een wederzijds bevredigend resultaat, dan zal ieder der Partijen, ondanks de bepalingen van artikel XXVII, gerechtigd zijn de werking van specifieke meestbegunstigingsbepalingen van het Verdrag op te schorten in de mate, welke onder de omstandigheden passend wordt geoordeeld door een schriftelijke kennisgeving aan de andere Partij met een termijn van twee maanden. Ten aanzien van de materie, waarop een aldus opgeschorte bepaling betrekking heeft, zullen echter in het algemeen de volgende gedragslijnen door Partijen worden in achtgenomen: de Verenigde Staten van Amerika zullen aan het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden een behandeling toekennen, welke niet minder gunstig zal zijn dan die, welke in overeenkomstige omstandigheden wordt toegekend aan andere landen welke partij zijn in de betreffende overeenkomst, en het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden zal aan de Verenigde Staten van Amerika een behandeling toekennen welke niet minder gunstig zal zijn dan die, welke in overeenkomstige omstandigheden wordt toegekend aan niet-deelnemende landen.

Ik heb de eer Uwe Excellenties te berichten, dat de inhoud van Uwer Excellenties nota voor mijn Regering aanvaardbaar is, en ik bevestig hiermede, dat Uwer Excellenties nota en dit antwoord daarop zullen worden beschouwd een overeenkomst te vormen tussen onze twee Regeringen en een integrerend deel zullen uitmaken van het bovenbedoeld Verdrag.

Zoals Uwe Excellenties bekend is, juicht de Regering van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika iedere stap voorwaarts op de weg naar Europese samenwerking en integratie toe, voorzover op samenwerking en integratie gerichte overeenkomsten bijdragen tot een vrijer handelsverkeer, een doelmatiger gebruik van mankracht en materiaal, en groter eenheid. In dit verband zij er aan herinnerd, dat de Regering van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika daadwerkelijk steun heeft gegeven aan organisaties als de Europese Gemeenschap voor Kolen en Staal en heeft ingestemd met de ontheffing, welke in dit verband werd verleend door de VERDRAGSLUITENDE PARTIJEN bij de Algemene Overeenkomst betreffende Tarieven en Handel, gedachtig aan de voordelen, welke, naar men verwacht, zullen voortspruiten uit overeenkomsten, welke ten doel hebben een dynamische, concurrerende, gemeenschappelijke markt te scheppen binnen de Gemeenschap en gezonde economische betrekkingen te verzekeren tussen de Gemeenschap en de landen daarbuiten. De Regering van de Verenigde Staten is bereid in dezelfde geest andere voorstellen, welke het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden zou willen doen, welwillend te overwegen.

Gelief, Excellenties, de hernieuwde verzekering van mijn bijzondere hoogachting en waardering te aanvaarden.

(w.g.) H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS

Aan Hunne Excellenties

Mr. J. W. Beyen, Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, en

Mr. J.M. A. H. Luns, Minister zonder Portefeuille,

te 's-Gravenhage.

Dutch American Friendship Treaty (Full text in English)

2012-02-03T15:51:00.005+01:00

I am posting the text of the Dutch American Friendship Treaty (DAFT). I wanted to make sure that this resource was available on the internet. It is quite a nice and interesting legal document.

The Dutch and English versions are equally authentic. Dutch version of the treaty is available here.

Suggested Citation: Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, with Protocol and Exchange of Notes, 8 UST 2043; TIAS 3942; 285 UNTS 231, (The Hague, 27 March 1956).

Here it is:

Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, with Protocol and Exchange of Notes

WHEREAS a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between the United States of America and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, together with a protocol and an exchange of notes relating thereto, was signed at The Hague on March 27, 1956;

WHEREAS the originals of the said treaty and protocol in the English and Netherlands languages and the text of the exchange of notes signed in the English language are word for word as follows:

The United States of America and the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

desirous of strengthening the bonds of peace and friendship traditionally existing between them and of encouraging closer economic and cultural relations between their peoples, and being cognizant of the contributions which may be made toward these ends by arrangements promoting mutually advantageous commercial intercourse, encouraging mutually beneficial investments, and establishing mutual rights and privileges,

have resolved to conclude a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, based in general upon the principles of national and unconditional most-favored-nation treatment reciprocally accorded,

and for that purpose have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

the President of the United States of America:

H.E. Mr. H. Freeman Matthews, Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the United States of America at The Hague,

and Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands:

H.E. Dr. J.W. Beyen, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and

H.E. Dr. J. M. A. H. Luns, Minister without Portfolio, who, having communicated to each other their full powers found to be in due form, have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. Each Party shall at all times accord fair and equitable treatment to the nationals and companies of the other Party, and to their property, enterprises and other interests.

2. Between the territories of the two Parties there shall be, in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty, freedom of commerce and navigation.

Article II

1. Nationals of either Party shall be permitted to enter the territories of the other Party and to remain therein:

(a) for the purpose of carrying on trade between the territories of the two Parties and engaging in related commercial activities;

(b) for the purpose of developing and directing the operations of an enterprise in which they have invested, or in which they are actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital; and

2. Each Party undertakes to make available the best facilities practicable for travel by tourists and other visitors with respect to their entry, sojourn and departure, and for the distribution of information for tourists.

3. Nationals of either Party, within the territories of the other Party, shall be permitted:

(a) to travel therein freely, and to reside at places of their choice;

(b) to enjoy liberty of conscience;

(d) to gather and to transmit material for dissemination to the public abroad; and

(e) to communicate with other persons inside and outside such territories by mail, telegraph and other means open to general public use.

4. The provisions of the present Article shall be subject to the right of either Party to apply measures that are necessary to maintain public order and protect the public health, morals and safety.

Article III

1. Nationals of either Party within the territories of the other Party shall be free from molestations of every kind, and shall receive the most constant protection and security. They shall be accorded in like circumstances treatment no less favorable than that accorded nationals of such other Party for the protection and security of their persons and their rights. The treatment accorded in this respect shall in no case be less favorable than that accorded nationals of any third country or that required by international law.

2. If, within the territories of either Party, a national of the other Party is taken into custody, the nearest consular representative of his country shall on the demand of such national be immediately notified and shall have the right to visit and communicate with such national. Such national shall:

(a) receive reasonable and humane treatment;

(b) be promptly informed of the accusations against him;

(d) enjoy all means reasonably necessary to his defense, including the services of competent counsel of his choice.

Article IV

1. Nationals of either Party shall be accorded national treatment in the application of laws and regulations within the territories of the other Party that establish a pecuniary compensation or other benefit or service, on account of disease, injury or death arising out of and in the course of employment or due to the nature of employment.

2. In addition to the rights and privileges provided in paragraph 1 of the present Article, nationals of either Party shall, within the territories of the other Party, be accorded national treatment in the application of laws and regulations establishing compulsory systems of social security, under which benefits are paid without an individual test of financial need in the following cases:

(a) sickness, including temporary disability for work, and maternity;

(b) invalidity, or occupational disability;

(d) unemployment.

Article V

1. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded national treatment with respect to access to the courts of justice and to administrative tribunals and agencies within the territories of the other Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in pursuit and in defense of their rights. It is understood that companies of either Party not engaged in activities within the territories of the other Party shall enjoy such access therein without any requirement of registration or domestication.

2. (a) Contracts entered into between nationals or companies of either Party and nationals or companies of the other Party, that provide for the settlement by arbitration of controversies, shall not be deemed unenforceable within the territories of such other Party merely on the grounds that the place designated for the arbitration proceedings is outside such territories or that the nationality of one or more of the arbitrators is not that of such other Party.

(b) In conformity with subparagraphs (1) and (2) hereof, awards duly rendered pursuant to any such contracts, which are final and enforceable under the laws of the place where rendered, shall be deemed conclusive in enforcement proceedings brought before the courts of competent jurisdiction of either Party.

(1) As regards recognition and enforcement in the United States of America, such awards shall be entitled in any court in any State thereof only to the same measure of recognition and enforcement as awards rendered in other States thereof.

(2) As regards enforcement in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, such awards shall be dealt with in the same way as awards as referred to in the Convention on the execution of foreign arbitral awards concluded at Geneva on September 26, 1927.

Article VI

1. Property of nationals and companies of either Party shall receive the most constant protection and security within the territories of the other Party.

2. The dwellings, offices, warehouses, factories and other premises of nationals and companies of either Party located within the territories of the other Party shall not be subject to molestation or to entry without just cause. Official searches and examinations of such premises and their contents, when necessary, shall be made only according to law and with careful regard for the convenience of the occupants and the conduct of business.

3. Neither Party shall take unreasonable or discriminatory measures that would impair the rights or interests within its territories of nationals and companies of the other Party, whether in their capital, or in their enterprises and the property thereof, or in the skills, arts or technology which they have supplied.

4. Property of nationals and companies of either Party shall not be taken within the territories of the other Party except for a public interest, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment of just compensation. Such compensation shall be in an effectively realizable form and shall represent the equivalent of the property taken; and adequate provision shall have been made at or prior to the time of taking for the determination and payment thereof.

5. Nationals and companies of either Party shall in no case be accorded, within the territories of the other Party, less than national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment with respect to the matters set forth in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the present Article. Moreover, enterprises in which nationals and companies of either Party have a substantial interest shall be accorded, within the territories of the other Party, not less than national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment in all matters relating to the taking of privately owned enterprises into public ownership and to the placing of such enterprises under public control or administration.

Article VII

1. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded national treatment with respect to engaging in all types of commercial, industrial, financial and other activity for gain (business activities) within the territories of the other Party, whether directly or by agent or through the medium of any form of lawful juridical entity. Accordingly, such nationals and companies shall be permitted within such territories:

(a) to establish and maintain branches, agencies, offices, factories and other establishments appropriate to the conduct of their business;

(b) either directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, to organize companies under the general company laws of such other Party and to acquire the controlling interest in companies of such other Party;

(c) to control and manage enterprises which they have established or acquired. Moreover, enterprises which they control, whether in the form of individual proprietorships, companies or otherwise, shall in all that relates to the conduct of the activities thereof, be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded like enterprises controlled by nationals and companies of such other Party.

2. Each Party reserves the right to limit the extent to which aliens may within its territories establish, acquire interests in, or carry on enterprises engaged in communications, air or water transport, banking involving depository or fiduciary functions, or the exploitation of land or other natural resources. However, new limitations imposed by either Party upon the extent to which aliens are accorded national treatment, with respect to carrying on such activities within its territories, shall not be applied as against enterprises which are engaged in such activities therein at the time such new limitations are adopted and which are owned or controlled by nationals and companies of the other Party. Moreover, neither Party shall deny to transportation, communications and banking companies of the other Party the right to maintain branches and agencies, in conformity with the applicable laws and regulations, to perform functions necessary for essentially international operations in which they engage.

3. The provisions of paragraph 1 of the present Article shall not prevent either Party from prescribing special formalities in connection with the establishment of alien-controlled enterprises within its territories; but such formalities may not impair the substance of the rights set forth in said paragraph.

4. Nationals and companies of either Party, as well as enterprises controlled by such nationals and companies, shall in any event be accorded most-favored-nation treatment with reference to the matters treated in the present Article.

Article VIII

1. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be permitted to engage, within the territories of the other Party, accountants and other technical experts, executive personnel, attorneys, agents and other specialists of their choice. Moreover, such nationals and companies shall be permitted to engage accountants and other technical experts regardless of the extent to which they may have qualified for the practice of a profession within the territories of such other Party, for the particular purpose of making examinations, audits and technical investigations for, and rendering reports to, such nationals and companies in connection with the planning and operation of their enterprises, and enterprises in which they have a financial interest, within such territories.

2. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded national treatment and most favored-nation treatment with respect to engaging in scientific, educational, religious and philanthropic activities within the territories of the other Party, and shall be accorded the right to form associations for that purpose under the laws of such other Party.

Article IX

1. Nationals and companies of the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall be accorded, within the territories of the United States of America:

(a) national treatment with respect to leasing land, buildings and other real property appropriate to the conduct of activities in which they are permitted to engage pursuant to Articles VII and VIII and for residential purposes and with respect to occupying and using such property; and

(b) other rights in real property permitted by the applicable laws of the States, Territories and possessions of the United States of America.

2. Nationals and companies of the United States of America shall be accorded, within the territories of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, national treatment with respect to acquiring by purchase, lease, or otherwise, and with respect to owning, occupying and using land, buildings and other real property. However, in the case of any such national domiciled in, or any such company constituted under the laws of, any State, Territory or possession of the United States of America that accords less than national treatment to nationals and companies of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in this respect, the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall not be obligated to accord to such national or company treatment more favorable in this respect than such State, Territory or possession accords to nationals and companies of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

3. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded within the territories of the other Party national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment with respect to acquiring, by purchase, lease, or otherwise, and with respect to owning and possessing, personal property of all kinds, both tangible and intangible. However, either Party may impose restrictions on alien ownership of materials dangerous from the standpoint of public safety and alien ownership of interests in enterprises carrying on particular types of activity, but only to the extent that this can be done without impairing the rights and privileges secured by Article VII or by other provisions of the present Treaty.

4. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded national treatment within the territories of the other Party with respect to acquiring property of all kinds by testate or intestate succession or through judicial process. Should they because of their alienage be ineligible to continue to own any such property, they shall be allowed a reasonable period in which to dispose of it, in a normal manner at its market value.

5. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded within the territories of the other Party national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment with respect to disposing of property of all kinds. Furthermore, with respect to the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property of all kinds within the territories of either Party, companies constituted under the laws of that Party, which are controlled by nationals and companies of the other Party, shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded within such territories to companies of such other Party or to companies similarly constituted which are controlled by nationals and companies of any third country.

Article X

1. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded, within the territories of the other Party, national treatment with respect to obtaining and maintaining patents of invention, and with respect to rights in trade marks, trade names, trade labels and industrial property of every kind.

2. The Parties agree as to the desirability of furthering, through cooperative or other appropriate means, the interchange and use of scientific and technical knowledge, particularly in the interest of increasing productivity and improving standards of living within their respective territories.

Article XI

1. Nationals of either Party residing within the territories of the other Party, and nationals and companies of either Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit or in scientific, educational, religious or philanthropic activities within the territories of the other Party, shall not be subject to the payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, within the territories of such other Party, more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other Party.

2. With respect to nationals of either Party who are neither resident nor engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit within the territories of the other Party, and with respect to companies of either Party which are not engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit within the territories of the other Party, it shall be the aim of such other Party to apply in general the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present Article.

3. Nationals and companies of either Party shall in no case be subject, within the territories of the other Party, to the payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, more burdensome than those borne by nationals, residents and companies of any third country.

4. In the case of companies and of non-resident nationals of either Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit within the territories of the other Party, such other Party shall not impose or apply any tax, fee or charge upon any income, capital or other basis in excess of that reasonably allocable or apportionable to its territories, nor grant deductions and exemptions less than those reasonably allocable or apportionable to its territories. A comparable rule shall apply also in the case of companies organized and operated exclusively for scientific, educational, religious or philanthropic purposes.

5. Each Party reserves the right to:

(a) extend specific tax advantages on the basis of reciprocity;

(b) accord special tax advantages by virtue of agreements for the avoidance of double taxation or the mutual protection of revenue; and

(c) accord to its own nationals and to residents of contiguous countries more favorable exemptions of a personal nature with respect to income and inheritance taxes than are accorded to other non-resident persons.

Article XII

1. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded by the other Party national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment with respect to payments, remittances and transfers of funds or financial instruments between the territories of the two Parties as well as between the territories of such other Party and of any third country.

2. Neither Party shall impose exchange restrictions as defined in paragraph 5 of the present Article except to the extent necessary to maintain or restore adequacy in its monetary reserves, particularly in relation to its external commercial and financial requirements. It is understood that the provisions of the present Article do not alter the obligations either Party may have to the International Monetary Fund or preclude imposition of particular restrictions whenever the Fund specifically authorizes or requests a Party to impose such particular restrictions.

3. If either Party imposes exchange restrictions in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present Article, it shall, after making whatever provision may be necessary to assure the availability of foreign exchange for goods and services essential to the health and welfare of its people, make reasonable provision for the withdrawal, in foreign exchange in the currency of the other Party, of:

(a) the compensation referred to in Article VI, paragraph 4,

(b) earnings, whether in the form of salaries, interest, dividends, commissions, royalties, payments for technical services, or otherwise, and

(c) amounts for amortization of loans, depreciation of direct investments, and capital transfers to the extent feasible, giving consideration to special needs for other transactions. If more than one rate of exchange is in force, the rate applicable to such withdrawals shall be a rate which is specifically approved by the International Monetary Fund for such transactions or, in the absence of a rate so approved, an effective rate which, inclusive of any taxes or surcharges on exchange transfers, is just and reasonable.

4. Exchange restrictions shall not be imposed by either Party in a manner unnecessarily detrimental or arbitrarily discriminatory to the claims, investments, transport, trade, and other interests of nationals and companies of the other Party, nor to the competitive position thereof. Each Party shall afford the other Party adequate opportunity for consultation at any time regarding application of the present Article.

5. The term "exchange restrictions" as used in the present Article includes all restrictions, regulations, charges, taxes, or other requirements imposed by either Party which burden or interfere with payments, remittances, or transfers of funds or of financial instruments between the territories of the two Parties.

6. Questions arising under the present Treaty concerning exchange control are governed by the provisions of the present Article.

Article XIII

Commercial travelers representing nationals and companies of either Party engaged in business within the territories thereof shall, upon their entry into and departure from the territories of the other Party and during their sojourn therein, be accorded most-favored-nation treatment in respect of the customs and other matters, including, subject to the exceptions in paragraph 5 of Article XI, taxes and charges applicable to them, their samples and the taking of orders, and regulations governing the exercise of their functions.

Article XIV

1. Each Party shall accord most-favored-nation treatment to products of the other Party, from whatever place and by whatever type of carrier arriving, and to products destined for exportation to the territories of such other Party, by whatever route and by whatever type of carrier, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international transfer of payments for imports or exports, and with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation and exportation.

2. Neither Party shall impose restrictions or prohibitions on the importation of any product of the other Party, or on the exportation of any product to the territories of the other Party, unless the importation of the like product of, or the exportation of the like product to, all third countries is similarly restricted or prohibited.

3. If either Party imposes quantitative restrictions on the importation or exportation of any product in which the other Party has an important interest:

(a) it shall as a general rule give prior public notice of the total amount of the product, by quantity or value, that may be imported or exported during a specified period, and of any change in such amount or period; and

(b) if it makes allotments to any third country, it shall afford such other Party a share proportionate to the amount of the product, by quantity or value, supplied by or to it during a previous representative period, due consideration being given to any special factors affecting the trade in such product.

4. Either Party may impose prohibitions or restrictions on sanitary or other customary grounds of a non-commercial nature, or in the interest of preventing deceptive or unfair practices, provided such prohibitions or restrictions do not arbitrarily discriminate against the commerce of the other Party.

5. Nationals and companies of either Party shall be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment by the other Party with respect to all matters relating to importation and exportation.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 (b) of the present Article, a Party may apply restrictions or controls on importation and exportation of goods that have effect equivalent to, or which are necessary to make effective, exchange restrictions applied pursuant to Article XII. However, such restrictions or controls shall depart no more than necessary from the aforesaid paragraphs and shall be conformable with a policy designed to promote the maximum development of nondiscriminatory foreign trade and to expedite the attainment both of a balance-of-payments position and of monetary reserves which will obviate the necessity of such restrictions.

Article XV

1. Each Party shall promptly publish laws, regulations and administrative rulings of general application pertaining to rates of duty, taxes or other charges, to the classification of articles for customs purposes, and to requirements or restrictions on imports and exports or the transfer of payments therefore, or affecting their sale, distribution or use; and shall administer such laws, regulations and rulings in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner. As a general practice, new administrative requirements or restrictions affecting imports, with the exception of those imposed on sanitary grounds or for reasons of public safety, shall not go into effect before the expiration of a reasonable time, in the light of circumstances.

2. Each Party shall provide an appeals procedure under which nationals and companies of the other Party, and importers of products of such other Party, shall be able to obtain prompt and impartial review, and correction when warranted, of administrative action relating to customs matters, including the imposition of fines and penalties, confiscations, and rulings on questions of customs classification and valuation by the administrative authorities.

3. Penalties imposed by either Party for infractions of the customs and shipping laws and regulations concerning documentation shall be no greater than necessary to serve merely as a warning in the case of clerical errors and of errors made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence.

4. With reference to marking requirements applicable to imported products, each Party shall as a general practice:

(a) allow required marks of origin to be affixed after importation;

(b) not permit markings that result in misrepresenting the true origin of the products; and

(c) not apply requirements that entail an expense which is economically prohibitive or that result in seriously damaging the product.

5. Neither Party shall impose any measure of a discriminatory nature that hinders or prevents the importer or exporter of products of either country from obtaining marine insurance on such products in companies of either Party.

Article XVI

1. Products of either Party shall be accorded, within the territories of the other Party, national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment in all matters affecting internal taxation, sale, distribution, storage and use.

2. Articles produced by nationals and companies of either Party within the territories of the other Party, or by companies of the latter Party controlled by such nationals and companies, shall be accorded therein treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like articles of national origin by whatever person or company produced, in all matters affecting exportation, taxation, sale, distribution, storage and use.

Article XVII

1. Each Party undertakes:

(a) that enterprises owned or controlled by its Government, and that monopolies or agencies granted exclusive or special privileges within its territories, shall make their purchases and sales involving either imports or exports affecting the commerce of the other Party solely in accordance with commercial considerations, including price, quality, availability marketability, transportation and other conditions of purchase or sale; and

(b) that the nationals, companies and commerce of such other Party shall be afforded adequate opportunity, in accordance with customary business practice, to compete for participation in such purchases and sales.

2. Each Party shall accord to the nationals, companies and commerce of the other Party fair and equitable treatment, as compared with that accorded to the nationals, companies and commerce of any third country, with respect to:

(a) the governmental purchase of supplies;

(b) the awarding of concessions and other government contracts; and

Article XVIII

1. The Parties recognize that conditions of competitive equality should be maintained in situations in which publicly owned or controlled trading or manufacturing enterprises of either Party engage in competition, within the territories thereof, with privately owned and controlled enterprises of nationals and companies of the other Party. Accordingly, such state-owned enterprises should not be given special economic privileges in order to injure the competitive position of such private enterprises. However, this principle shall not be construed to prevent either Party from making such special concessions in aid of state-owned enterprises as it deems necessary during periods of economic crisis, especially to relieve unemployment. This principle, moreover, is without prejudice to special advantages given in connection with:

(a) manufacturing goods for government use, or supplying goods and services to the Government for government use; or

(b) supplying, at prices substantially below competitive prices, the needs of particular population groups for essential goods and services not otherwise practically obtainable by such groups.

2. No enterprise of either Party, including corporations, associations, and government agencies and instrumentalities, which is publicly owned or controlled shall, to the extent that it engages in commercial, industrial, shipping or other business activities within the territories of the other Party, claim or enjoy, either for itself or for its property, immunity therein from taxation, suit, execution of judgment or other liability to which privately owned and controlled enterprises are subject therein.

Article XIX

1. Vessels under the flag of either Party, and carrying the papers required by its laws in proof of nationality, shall be deemed to be vessels of that Party both on the high seas and within the ports, places and waters of the other Party.

2. Vessels of either Party shall have liberty, on equal terms with vessels of the other Party and on equal terms with vessels of any third country, to come with their cargoes to all ports, places and waters of such other Party open to foreign commerce and navigation. Such vessels and cargoes shall in all respects be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment within the ports, places and waters of such other Party; but each Party may reserve exclusive rights and privileges to its own vessels with respect to the coasting trade and inland navigation.

3. Vessels of either Party shall be accorded national treatment and most-favored-nation treatment with respect to the right to carry all cargo that may be carried by vessel to or from the territories of the other Party.

4. Goods carried by vessels under the flag of either Party to or from the territories of the other Party shall enjoy the same favors as when transported in vessels sailing under the flag of such other Party. This applies especially with regard to customs duties and all other fees and charges, to bounties, drawbacks and other privileges of this nature, as well as to the administration of the customs and to transport to and from port by rail and other means of transportation.

5. If a vessel of either Party runs aground or is wrecked on the coasts of the other Party, or if it is in distress and must put into a port of the other Party, the latter Party shall extend to the vessel as well as to the crew, the passengers, the personal property of crew and passengers, and to the cargo of the vessel, the same protection and assistance as would have been extended to a vessel under its own flag in like circumstances; and shall permit the vessel after repairs to proceed with its voyage upon conformity with the laws applicable alike to vessels under its own flag. Articles salvaged from the vessel shall be exempt from all customs duties unless they pass into internal consumption; but articles not entered for consumption may be subject to measures for the protection of the revenue pending their exit from the country.

6. The term "vessels", as used herein, means all types of vessels, whether privately owned or operated, or publicly owned or operated, except vessels of war. This term does not, except with reference to paragraphs 1 and 5 of the present Article and Article XX, include fishing vessels.

Article XX

1. In all ports of either Party the masters of all vessels under the flag of the other Party, whose crews have ceased to be fully constituted on account of illness or for any other cause, shall be permitted to engage such seamen as may be necessary for the continuation of the voyage.

2. Nationals of either Party who are seamen may be sent to ports of the other Party to join national vessels, in care of consular officers, either individually or in groups on the basis of seamen's papers issued in lieu of passports. Likewise, nationals of either Party shall be permitted to travel through the territory of the other Party on their way to join vessels or to be repatriated on the basis of seamen's papers used in lieu of passports.

Article XXI

There shall be freedom of transit through the territories of each Party by the routes most convenient for international transit:

(a) for nationals of the other Party, together with their baggage;

(b) for other persons, together with their baggage, en route to or from the territories of such other Party; and

(c) for products of any origin en route to or from the territories of such other Party. Such persons and things in transit shall be exempt from customs duties, from duties imposed by reason of transit, and from unreasonable charges and requirements; and shall be free from unnecessary delays and restrictions. They shall, however, be subject to measures referred to in paragraph 4 of Article II, and to nondiscriminatory regulations necessary to prevent abuse of the transit privilege.

Article XXII

1. The present Treaty shall not preclude the application of measures by either Party:

(a) regulating the importation or exportation of gold or silver;

(b) relating to fissionable materials, to radioactive by-products of the utilization or processing thereof, or to materials that are the source of fissionable materials;

(c) regulating the production of or traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war, or traffic in other materials carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment;

(d) necessary to fulfil its obligations for the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, or necessary to protect its essential security interests;

(e) denying to any company in which nationals of any third country or countries enjoy directly or indirectly the controlling interest, the advantages of the present Treaty, except with respect to recognition of juridical status and with respect to access to courts; and

(f) regarding its national fisheries and the landing of the products thereof.

2. The most-favored-nation provisions of the present Treaty shall not apply to advantages accorded by:

(a) the United States of America or its Territories and possessions to one another, to the Republic of Cuba, to the Republic of the Philippines, to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or to the Panama Canal Zone; or

(b) by the Parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to one another, by the Netherlands to its Benelux-partners (Belgium, including its Overseas and Trust Territories, and Luxembourg), or by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Republic of Indonesia.

3. The most-favored-nation treatment provisions of the present Treaty shall not apply to advantages accorded by either Party to adjacent countries in order to facilitate frontier traffic, or by virtue of a customs union or free trade area of which either Party may become a member, after having informed the other Party of its plans and having afforded it opportunity to express its views thereon.

4. The provisions of the present Treaty relating to the treatment of goods shall not preclude action by either Party which is required or specifically permitted under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade during such time as such Party is a contracting party to the General Agreement. Similarly, the most-favored-nation provisions of the present Treaty shall not apply to special advantages accorded by virtue of the aforesaid Agreement.

5. Nationals of either Party admitted into the territories of the other Party for limited purposes shall not enjoy rights to engage in gainful occupations in contravention of limitations expressly imposed, according to law, as a condition of their admittance.

6. Nothing in the present Treaty shall be deemed to grant or imply any right to engage in political activities.

Article XXIII

1. The term "national treatment" means treatment accorded within the territories of a Party upon terms no less favorable than the treatment accorded therein, in like situations, to nationals, companies, products, vessels or other objects, as the case may be, of such Party.

2. The term "most-favored-nation treatment" means treatment accorded within the territories of a Party upon terms no less favorable than the treatment accorded therein, in like situations, to nationals, companies, products, vessels or other objects, as the case may be, of any third country.

3. As used in the present Treaty, the term "companies" means corporations, partnerships, companies, foundations, associations, and other legal entities or juridical person, whether or not with limited liability and whether or not for pecuniary profit. Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations within the territories of either Party shall be deemed companies thereof and shall have their juridical status recognized within the territories of the other Party.

4. National treatment accorded under the provisions of the present Treaty to companies shall:

(a) as regards companies of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in any State, Territory or possession of the United States of America, be the treatment accorded therein to companies created or organized in other States, Territories and possessions of the United States of America; and

(b) as regards companies of the United States of America, in any Part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, be the treatment accorded therein to companies created or organized in any other Part of the Kingdom. Furthermore, in any Part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands outside Europe, national treatment accorded to nationals of the United States of America shall be the treatment accorded in such Part to Netherlands nationals not born in that Part.

Article XXIV

The territories to which the present Treaty extends shall comprise all areas of land and water under the jurisdiction of each Party, as well as any territory for which it has international responsibility, other than the Panama Canal Zone and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, provided that it shall not apply with respect to Surinam or the Netherlands Antilles, respectively, until one month after the receipt by the Government of the United States of America of notifications of such application by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Article XXV

1. Each Party shall accord sympathetic consideration to, and shall afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding, such representations as the other Party may make with respect to any matter affecting the operation of the present Treaty.

2. Any dispute between the Parties as to the interpretation or application of the present Treaty, not satisfactorily adjusted by diplomacy, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, unless the Parties agree to settlement by some other pacific means.

Article XXVI

The present Treaty shall replace the convention of commerce and navigation signed at Washington August 26, 1852, and the agreement in regard to trade marks effected by exchange of notes signed at Washington February 10 and 16, 1883.

Article XXVII

1. The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications thereof shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.

2. The present Treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of ratifications. It shall remain in force for ten years and shall continue in force thereafter until terminated as provided herein.

3. Either Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter with respect to all the territories to which it applies or with respect to Surinam or the Netherlands Antilles.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty and have affixed hereunto their seals.

DONE in duplicate, in the English and Netherlands languages, both texts being equally authentic, at The Hague, this 27th day of March, one thousand nine hundred fifty-six.

For the United States of America: H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS

For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: J W BEYEN, J M A H LUNS

Protocol

At the time of signing the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, duly authorized by their respective Governments, have further agreed on the following provisions, which shall be considered integral parts of the aforesaid Treaty:

1. The spouse and unmarried minor children of a person permitted entry under the provisions of Article II, paragraph 1(a) and (b), shall also be permitted entry if accompanying him or following to join him.

2. The provisions of Article II, paragraph 1 (b), shall be construed to extend to persons who represent nationals and companies of the same nationality which have invested or are actively in the process of investing a substantial amount of capital in an enterprise in the territories of the other Party, and who are employed by such nationals and companies in a responsible capacity.

3. With respect to Article II, paragraph 1, and the first sentence of Article VIII, paragraph 1, nationals of the United States of America shall be accorded in any Part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands outside Europe the treatment accorded therein to Netherlands nationals not born in that Part.

4. The provisions of Article IV, paragraph 2, refer only to laws or regulations which either are national laws or regulations or are based in whole or in part on requirements of national laws or regulations. Moreover, that paragraph shall not be construed to prevent a Party from relieving aliens temporarily resident within its territories from coverage under its contributory social security system.

5. The term "access" as used in Article V, paragraph 1, comprehends, among other things, legal aid, cost-free access to the courts and exemption from security for costs.

6. The provisions of Article VI, paragraph 4, providing for the payment of compensation shall extend to interests held directly or indirectly by nationals and companies of either Party in property which is taken within the territories of the other Party.

7. The provisions of Article VII do not obligate either Party to permit nationals and companies of the other Party to carry on businesses in its territories without fulfilling the requirements which are generally applicable by law.

8. The activities referred to in Article VII, paragraph 1, do not include the practice of professions.

9. With reference to Article VII, paragraph 1, it is understood that either Party may, consistently with the terms and intent of the Treaty, apply special requirements to alien insurance companies with a view to assuring that such companies maintain standards of accountability and solvency comparable with those required of like domestic companies, so long as such requirements do not have the effect of discrimination in substance against such alien companies.

10. It is agreed that, on a reciprocity basis, the first sentence of Article VII, paragraph 2, shall not apply to the establishment of, or the acquisition of interests in, or the control, operation and management of, companies of either Party for engaging in the exploration for and exploitation of petroleum and other mineral resources within the territories of that Party, by nationals or companies of the other Party.

11. The provisions of the first sentence of Article VIII, paragraph 1, shall not be construed to affect the right of the Netherlands to require that aliens may not be employed in the Netherlands unless the appropriate permits have been granted. However, in keeping with the terms of that paragraph, the regulations governing employment shall be applied in a liberal fashion.

12. Nothing in the present Treaty shall be construed to supersede any provision of the Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America with respect to taxes on income and certain other taxes, signed at Washington April 29, 1948.

13. The treatment provided in Article XII, paragraph 1, as clarified by reference to Article XXIII, paragraphs 1 and 2, is designed only to preclude discrimination on the ground of nationality and does not, for instance, preclude different treatment of different currencies or the application of residence requirements.

14. Either Party may impose restrictions on the introduction of foreign capital as may be necessary to protect its monetary reserves as provided in Article XII, paragraph 2, or to prevent serious monetary disturbances arising from speculative financial operations.

15. It is understood that for the purposes of Article XVII, paragraph 1, availability of means of payment is considered to be a commercial consideration.

16. The provisions of Article XVII, paragraph 2 (b) and (c), and of Article XIX, paragraph 3, shall not apply to postal services.

17. It is understood that the word "cargoes" as used in paragraph 2 and the word "cargo" as used in paragraph 3, of Article XIX, shall be deemed to comprehend passengers as well as goods.

18. With reference to Article XXII, paragraph 1 (d), it is understood that it is not the purpose of the security reservation to create a basis for unduly prolonged departures from any provision of the Treaty. On the other hand, each Party determines, according to its own best judgment, the measures deemed necessary to protect its essential security interests.

19. The provisions of Article XXII, paragraph 2, shall apply in the case of Puerto Rico regardless of any change that may take place in its political status.

20. Article XXIV does not apply to territories under the authority of either Party solely as a military base or by reason of temporary military occupation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Protocol and have affixed hereunto their seals.

DONE in duplicate, in the English and Netherlands languages, both texts being equally authentic, at The Hague, this 27th day of March, one thousand nine hundred fifty-six.

For the United States of America: H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS

For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: J W BEYEN, J M A H LUNS

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

THE HAGUE, 27th March, 1956.

EXCELLENCY:

We have the honor to refer to the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed this day, during the course of which extensive conversations were held between the representatives of the two countries concerning the most-favored-nation aspects of the Treaty in relation to forward-looking regional arrangements designed to bring closer cooperation, or integration, among European countries.

Please accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of our highest consideration and esteem.

J.M.A.H. LUNS

J.W. BEYEN

To His Excellency Mr. H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS,

Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the United States of America at The Hague.

AMERICAN EMBASSY

The Hague, March 27, 1956

EXCELLENCIES:

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellencies' note of today, which reads as follows:

"We have the honor to refer to the negotiations leading to the conclusion of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed this day, during the course of which extensive conversations were held between the representatives of the two countries concerning the most-favored-nation aspects of the Treaty in relation to forward-looking regional arrangements designed to bring closer cooperation, or integration, among European countries.

"The common view emerging from these conversations is that European regional arrangements which do not involve the raising of barriers of any kind to intercourse with the rest of the world but which are designed to promote peace and prosperity, to expand trade, to increase productivity and to raise standards of living, are mutually advantageous. Accordingly, it is recognized in principle that the Netherlands should continue to be able to participate in European regional arrangements which serve these aims and the broad interests of both Parties, even though the Netherlands may thereunder be obliged to grant some reciprocal advantages to other participating countries which it is unable to grant to non-participating countries.

"It is determined that any necessary reconciliation between the terms of the Treaty and existing European arrangements in which the Netherlands now participates is adequately provided in Article XXII, paragraph 4. It is agreed that, should this provision be insufficient to meet future contingencies, the two Parties will at the request of either Party consult with a view to determining what further adjustments might be necessary. Should such consultation fail to lead to a mutually satisfactory result, either Party, notwithstanding the provisions of Article XXVII, shall be entitled to suspend the operation of particular most-favored-nation provisions of the Treaty to the extent deemed appropriate to the situation, upon giving two months' written notice to the other Party. With respect to the subject matter of any provision so affected, however, it would be the policy of the Parties to proceed in general as follows: The United States of America would accord to the Kingdom of the Netherlands treatment no less favorable in like situations than that accorded other countries participating in the arrangement in question, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands would accord to the United States of America treatment no less favorable in like situations than that accorded countries not so participating.

"If the above is acceptable to the United States Government, we have the honor to suggest that this note and your Excellency's reply to that effect shall be considered as constituting an agreement between our two Governments, forming an integral part of the above-mentioned Treaty."

H. FREEMAN MATTHEWS

To Their Excellencies Mr. J. W. BEYEN, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. J.M.A.H. LUNS, Minister without Portfolio, at The Hague.

WHEREAS the Senate of the United States of America by their resolution of July 11, 1956, two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein, did advise and consent to the ratification of the said treaty, together with the said protocol and exchange of notes relating thereto;

WHEREAS the said treaty, protocol and notes were ratified by the President of the United States of America on September 14, 1956, in pursuance of the aforesaid advice and consent of the Senate, and have been duly ratified on the part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

WHEREAS the respective instruments of ratification of the said treaty, protocol and notes were duly exchanged at Washington on November 5, 1957;

AND WHEREAS it is provided in Article XXVII of the said treaty that the treaty shall enter into force one month after the day of exchange of ratifications and in the said protocol and exchange of notes, respectively, that the provisions thereof shall be considered an integral part of the treaty;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it known that I, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and make public the said treaty, protocol and notes to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith on and after December 5, 1957, one month after the day of exchange of ratifications, by the United States of America and by the citizens of the United States of America and all other persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred fifty-seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred eighty-second.

DWIGHT D EISENHOWER

By the President: JOHN FOSTER DULLES

Secretary of State

Some Dutch Mennonite Views on the Occupy Movement

2011-11-04T12:43:00.002+01:00

In the most recent edition of Doopsgezind NL, the newspaper published by the Algemeen Doopsgezind Sociëteit (the Dutch Mennonite Association), two articles were published about the Occupy movement. I have reprinted them here because I am proud of our church's support for this important movement. The first article is written by a pastor that we know from when he worked at the Utrecht Mennonite Church and the second is written by the chairman of the Dutch Mennonite Association. I will work on getting English translation.

---------

DoopsgezindNL

29-10-11

pagina10

Occupybeweging

Pieter Post

Rob van Wijk van hetInstituut Clingendael schreef in Trouw van21 oktober dat de Occupybeweging voor hem niet groot genoeg kan zijn.The Economist hadopgeroepen tot 'Be Afraid' zolang de politici niet met antwoordenkomen op de wereldwijde economische crisis. Deze zogenaamdeOccupisten zijn wereldwijd verspreid, ook in ons land in een flinkaantal plaatsen. In Amsterdam op het Beursplein. Deze bewegingverdient 100 procent onze solidariteit tegen de graaicultuur. Maarhet is oorverdovend stil in kerkelijk Nederland. Noch de NederlandseRaad van Kerken, noch onze Broederschap spelen in op dezeevangelische gebeurtenis. In deze Occupisten zien wij Jezus langstollenaar Mattheus lopen en tegen hem zeggen: “Volg mij” (Matt.9:9013). En hij staat op, dat wil zeggen, hij staat metJezus op (hetzelfde werkwoord)en gebruikt vervolgens een maaltijd met een flink aantal bankiers enbonusjagers en andere zondaars. Als de Occupisten blijven volhardenin wat hen beweegt, kan het tot effect hebben dat er een omwentelingplaatsvindt in het denken over en in het omgaan met geld. Zij zoudendan hebben bereikt dat er meer vanuit barmhartigheid geleefd engewerkt wordt, dan vanuit een offercultuur die de rijke rijker maakten de arme armer. Want daar gaat het om in het bijbelse opstaan. Dater een omwenteling zal plaatsvinden in de patronen vanzelfverrijking, tweedeling en instabiliteit. De Occupisten verdienenondersteuning. Bezoek ze in de buurt en steek hun een hart onder deriem!

---------

Doopsgezind NL

29-10-11

pagina 7

Arm en Rijk

Otto Bleker

De Occupy-beweging isbegonnen in Wall Street en is ook aangekomen in ons land. Mensenmaken zich zorgen over de toenemende kloof tussen arm en rijk entreden nu naar buiten. Dat is een goede zaak, die ook de aandacht vanonze doopsgezinde geloofsgemeenschap verdient.

Wat is een mens eigenlijkwaard? Wat is een redelijk verschil tussen het laagste en het hoogsteinkomen? Een factor tien lijkt alleszins redelijk. Een factor twintigvoor de topinkomens voor de topposities met topverantwoordelijkheidmisschien nog net; maar die zijn zeer zeldzaam. Die redelijkheid isal lang zoek. Bankiers en bestuurders van grote ondernemingen zijnver over de schreef gegaan. Deze witte boordencriminalitiet overtreftin omvang verre de economische en morele schade van de gewonecriminaliteit. Deze criminaliteit is echter veel beter georganiseerden blijkt in de praktijk niet of nauwelijks aan te pakken. Alleen eenbreed gedragen protest, een volksbeweging, heeft enige kans aan dezeexcessen een halt toe te roepen, wat heet, het teveel verdiende geldterug te halen naar de gemeenschap. Die veranderingen kunnen nu nogworden bereikt door redelijk overleg. Als niet op tijd wordtingegrepen dreigt een gewelddadige strijd; een strijd die wijdoopsgezinden, voorstanders van de geweldloze samenleving, nietwillen. De politici zijn, zoals altijd bij echt belangrijke kwesties,muisstil. Van die kant kan geen ingrijpen worden verwacht. Hun wachtna de politieke carrière een meer dan goed verdienende baan in hetbedrijfsleven of bij de (semi-)overheid.

Hier kan het christendomwel een belangrijke bijdrage leveren. Christus verdreef de tollenaarsuit de tempel. Of het echt is gebeurd of niet is niet van belang. Hetbeeld is duidelijk: woekerpraktijken (zoals extreem hoge inkomens)worden afgewezen. Twintig eeuwen christendom zijn niet bij machtegebleken die treurige praktijken te veranderen. Kees van Duin zegtdaarover dat de statenwereld van het oude Egypte nog immer overeindstaat. Hij meent dat de revolutie van het christendom is ten ondergegaan door staatsgodsdienst te worden onder keizer Constantijn. Eninderdaad, de geschiedenis van de kerk is een voortdurend hand inhand optrekken met de macht. De geschiedenis van de kerk is met demond belijden, maar in de praktijk anders doen. De kerk heeft zichniet bekommerd om de mens, maar zich gesteld boven de mens.

De kerk heeft de boodschapvan de bijbel niet verstaan. Van Duin is daar heel helder over: Decentrale boodschap van de Schrift is de exodus (de uitgang) vanIsrael uit Egypte. Dat betekent dat de staat, de statenwereld, demaatschappij van macht en geweld, van verdeel en heers, van arm enrijk, plaats moet maken voor de vernieuwde mensheid. Die boodschap isnog steeds actueel. Die boodschap wordt niet verstaan door de kerk,maar kan door mensen worden gehoord en verstaan. Wij dromen van hetland van vrede en gerechtigheid, het land van melk en honing voorallen. Die droom is nog steeds actueel en kan waarheid worden, doorons allen, door het opstaan van mensen in een vreedzaam proces vanverandering. Het is de hoogste tijd.

A few of the most recent developments at Weaver & Henderson On Point Legal.

2011-09-29T12:53:00.001+02:00

What we've been up to:

September 2011	Victory for Gay Dutch Couples Seeking Fair Treatment Abroad Working with Van Hoof Advocaten BV and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, On Point Legal was able to secure a victory in a gay rights case. Laura Henderson, of On Point Legal, was involved in submitting an application to the European Court of Human Rights that led to a friendly settlement this month. The case began when one of the territories in the Kingdom of The Netherlands illegally refused to recognize a Dutch woman's wife as a 'spouse' for purposes of an insurance law based on a 'public policy' against homosexuality. On Point Legal argued that this was a discriminatory interference with her right to property (the insurance benefit) and violated the prohibition on discrimination with regard to any right laid down by law.
1 September 2011	Victory in Race Discrimination Case On Point Legal won an anti-discrimination case at the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (Commissie Gelijke Behandeling, or CGB). The case involved a Chilean national who was denied entry to Havana Cafe in downtown Utrecht. The Commission held that the applicant had established the basic facts for a case of indirect discrimination on the basis of race, and that the circumstances of the incident, such as the Cafe's failure to display and follow clear, objective rules, allowed the Commission to come to no other conclusion than that discrimination on the basis of race had occurred.
August 2011	Tax Status of Religious and Charitable Organizations On Point Legal has been involved in a number of cases across Europe assisting with the proper application of the European Convention on Human Rights in national disputes. One case involves litigation over the issue: Under what conditions may the French Government revoke a religious or charitable organization's tax-exempt status without unreasonably interfering with their freedom of religion? On Point Legal has argued that the French Government did not do the proper balancing in their client's case. This argument is bolstered by the fact that, in another recent case involving over 57 million euros in tax money (application no. 8916/05), the European Court of Human Rights declared that France had been revoking the tax status of certain religious organizations in a way that unreasonably and illegally interfered with their rights.

For more information, you can find us at www.OnPointLegal.eu

Left Politicians Are Simply Bad at Negotiating

2011-08-30T12:57:00.000+02:00

So, we have observed lately Obama's repeated failures at negotiation and adopting right-wing framing of issues. I also have an example from The Netherlands about how politicians on the left simply such at negotiating.

The results of the last election made it very difficult to form a government. The biggest reason why is that the right-wing fascist PVV got third place. Previously, the party seemed like they could never be allowed in government, but with those results, it becomes hard to get enough other parties to work together to get a government without the PVV. The second difficulty is that there are 11 parties in The Netherlands. After the election, three possibilities emerged. First, a right-wing government with three parties: the stable two right of center parties who just finally let the PVV into government for the first time. Second, a centrist government formed by the parties on the left and the VVD, which is more to the right of the other stable right of center party, the CDA. This is what the left proposed, but they failed. The third possibility is that the left parties band together and then invite the most moderate of the three right of center parties (the CDA) to join them. I must add that the CDA has done this multiple times in history. It seems very logical to me, but that was not even put on the table!

What ended up happening is the first option, with a slight modification. Instead of the radical, fascist, PVV having ministerial seats in government, the two right of center parties would form a government and appoint all of the department heads themselves and the PVV would co-negotiate and sign the government's policy program, support the government in parliament, but not take any ministerial posts. Well, even with this arrangement, the government had a majority in only one of the houses of parliament. So, now, they have to also rely on the two votes of a tiny, right-wing Christian theocratic party. The result, in my opinion, is just a disaster. Who would have thought, much less wanted, the entire country to be held hostage and every policy decision held hostage by a fascist party that was previously though incapable of governing and a theocratic Christian party that both its members and other parties view as incapable of governing (it calls itself a 'witness party'). Absurd.

So yesterday, a Dutch poll asked people about their desired government after the last election. The third option of a center-left government (PvdA, CDA, SP, GL, D66) had only 1% less support than the current right-wing minority government. Oh, and it would have actually had a majority, which I thought was rule #1 in a parli system! Instead, the left proposed a centrist cabinet (Paars Plus), which failed.

My conclusion is that it is simply pathetic how the left can't be forceful and can't work together. When the party opposite you threatens to back out and go with a radical solution that is win-lose (they win, you lose), then you have to counter-threat with a solution that is lose-win (you win, they lose) in order to force a compromise and also to prevent an option that is absolutely unacceptable. Once they threaten to go with an unacceptable, unreasonable option, you cannot just shrug it off as unreasonable. Unreasonable results happen in negotiation when you are unwilling to play tit-for-tat and when you do not have a back-up plan. You always have to have a back-up plan because having a back-up allows you to evaluate the point at which the negotiated agreement with the other side is not worth signing onto because it is worse than your back-up plan. Then you are confident enough to walk away and work on your back-up plan. However, the left never seems to get this. Why is this?

I submit that is has to do with a difference between left and right worldviews. You see, the left-wing people tend to study political science and hard sciences. They belief in the Enlightenment dogma of the inherent goodness and rationality of human beings, and they approach social situation with that worldwiew in mind. In contrast, conservatives are more likely to go to business school and to believe in the free market ideology that holds that aggressive pursuit of self-interest leads to the best societal result (the 'greed is good' economic and political hypothesis that drives Thatcherism/Reaganism).

So, what happens when two people from these different backgrounds sit down at a negotiating table? The left person assumes that there is an objectively correct position for society that they are all working toward. Thus, the propose that solution right away. The example given here is the centrist Paars Plus proposal from the left. However, the right thinking person believes that negotiation is part of the social process of parties with divergent interests aggressively pursuing their self interest unhindered by social convention. Indeed, the writer that Republicans worship as a prophet, Ayn Rand, argues that is is immoral (!) to let one's pursuit of self-interest be hindered by social conventions and morality. Thus, from this perspective, the right thinking person proposes the most far right-wing idea and the starting point for negotiation and then tries to get as much as the can for themselves and their supporters regardless of the overall wishes of the voters or social convention and niceties.

We have seen this over and over again in the US as well. I will provide three examples.

First, we saw this with the health care debate, where Obama proposed the center-right individual mandate, a policy proposal originally offered by the right-wing Heritage Foundation as an alternative to universal government-driven health care. The Republicans then moved further to the right and their proposal was to do nothing and let fifty thousand people continue to die each and every year due to a dysfunctional health care system. The end result as no public option, and a plan that is very unpopular across ideological lines in the US and is half-way between the center position and the extreme right-wing. There was no public option, the centrist position of a public option is not there, not is expanding medicaid or medicare coverage to include more people, there is a center-right individual mandate, long-term cost containment and structural issues are not addressed, and doing a truly universal single-payer system was never even part of the negotiation.

Second, the exact same process happened with the negotiations over extending the Bush tax cuts. Obama took the reasonable, centrist or center-right position that the government should keep the tax cuts for middle-income people during the recession, but that the tax cuts on the higher-income people should expire as they were planned to do in order to help pay down the deficit. The republicans took the position that they only care about the tax cuts in the highest bracket and those cuts must be extended. Thus, the higher-income tax cuts were extended in exchange for Republicans not shutting down the government. What a crappy deal!

For a third example, the same dynamics played out in the recent deficit deal. Obama proposed the most centrist position possible -- we raise the debt ceiling as we have done 27 times without any fuss. The Republicans counter-proposed that the government cut one trillion in spending, including medicare and social security, or the Republicans will destroy the country, the government, and the economy. Obama should have never negotiated on such a silly proposal and in such 'crisis' circumstances. Obama certainly should not have started negotiating without a back-up plan, such as declaring the debt ceiling to be raised using a good Constitutional argument, or letting the Republicans sabotage the government and then use his executive power to make the cuts he wants, and blame the Republicans for any unpopular cuts. Thus, Obama had to give in repeatedly. Obama started with a moderate proposal of 50% tax increases and 50% spending cuts, and it went all downhill from there. In the end, he gave the Republicans more than 100% of what they initially requested (they initially proposed 1 trillion in cuts, which people thought was bold and absurd). The end result was a Republican bill that Obama signed that did 2.7 trillion in cuts, with 0 dollars in increased tax revenues! Absurd and pathetic result.

The medium compromise point keeps moving further to the right and there has been nothing to stop it.

Is Internet Freedom Here to Stay?

2011-08-26T16:06:00.020+02:00

We are living in a time of unprecedented and likely temporary internet freedom. This freedom increases our access to information, our ability to communicate with others and our ability to participate in political activity. Enjoy it while it lasts and do your part to keep it around for your kids. Here are just a few of the amazing freedoms internet gives us and a few of the main threats to that freedom.

Internet freedoms we now enjoy:

1. A seemingly endless and ever-expanding range of music, films and books freely (or nearly freely) available at the click of a mouse.

2 Cheap, fast internet that allows you to send instantaneous messages to friends half a world away. Smart phone technology is allowing us to receive those messages at all times during the day, no matter where we are or what time it is. Recently, Finland declared access to such internet connections a civil right.

3. Free, high-quality knowledge. Wikipedia is a massive depository of knowledge of all things. Ranging from quantum mechanics to the history of your college to the favorite colors of your favorite band, it is all there. And if you are more one for visual acquisition of knowledge, try out Khan Academy where high level classes are made available to anyone, at zero cost to the viewer. This amazing availability of knowledge has made obsolete every Introduction "101" course ever taught (note to teachers: if your class is not better quality than the wikipedia article on the topic, consider a new profession because your internet savvy students will be considering a new teacher)

4. Internet provides a platform for promoting greater transparency as can be seen by internet's role in the Wikileaks leaks. Even if you're not a fan of Wikileaks, think of things like Dead Drops and the proliferation of online whistleblowing cites. Such initiatives help hold people in power accountable and, if used, can help prevent oil spills, Enrons, media corruption and war crimes (think Daniel Ellsberg, Richard A. Clarke, Bradley Manning).

Threats to internet freedom:

1. An Internet kill switch:

During the protests in Egypt and the riots in the UK the government desired to cut of internet access to stifle unrest. Although in the UK this did not actually happen, Prime Minister Cameron has started work on figuring out how to make this possible in the future. While the United States is toying with this very idea on the federal level, government actors in San Fransisco seem to be way ahead of the game. On August 12th, 2011, San Fransisco's BART subway system decided to cut off cell phone networks when it got word that a protest was being planned against the police shooting of Charles Hill.

2. Net non-neutrality

Steps toward an internet world in which bandwidth providers get to determine which type of data has priority to be transmitted on their bandwidth seems to threaten to reduce levels of internet freedom. Although people disagree about what the effect of net unneutrality would actually be, it seems logical to conclude that it would lead to an increased level of data discrimination, simply because the bandwidth providers will give priority to the data that ends up making them the most money.

3. Blocking internet access

In 2009, the French parliament passed the HADOPI law. This law allows the government to block internet access to IP addresses that had been caught illegally file sharing. Initially, the bill proposed to allow the government to do this of its own accord, but this provision was struck down by the French constitutional court. The bill was reworked to require judicial review before cutting of internet access.

This law can be criticized as a severe infringement on the right to freedom of expression and the right to access to information. The extreme nature of shutting down internet service completely for up to a year leads to serious concerns about whether this law is disproportionate to the aim of securing the property rights of the owners of the data being shared illegally. The extreme nature of this measure is highlighted by the fact that the goal of protecting property rights of data owners can be met with a measure that is far less intrusive into the rights of internet users: have internet users pay a standard monthly fee that grants them unlimited downloading. The fee is used to compensate the artists for the use of their intellectual property. Such a solution, first proposed by the national secretary for France's Socialist Party, Patrick Bloche, is non-intrusive and leads to a fair and reasonable balance between the rights of internet users and IP owners. Moreover, it leads to a situation that is the best possible outcome for both sides: internet users still have unlimited access to data, without having to change their internet downloading behavior at all, and IP owners get compensated. What a rational and reasonable solution! By deciding to go with the far more extreme and far more punitive HADOPI law, the French government treads dangerously near human rights violations.

Here's to hoping that future generations will enjoy as much internet freedom as we do ...

Let me know your thoughts on how to keep internet freedom alive!

P.S. I'm sorry if my spelling internet with a lower-case "i" offended anyone. However, I don't see the point of using a capital. I don't spell "phone" or "postal mail" with a capital "p" and don't see any reason for treating the "i" differently.

P.P.S. Neither this post nor the pictures above are in any way meant to pass any judgment on Anonymous. I used the picture above that contains Anonymous' logo simply because the quotes express the way I feel about internet freedom.

I lost by tuition appeal case against Maastricht University at the CBHO

2011-08-10T12:42:00.000+02:00

I lost my tuition appeal case.

I am very disheartened and angry. I recently listened to a fora video about a new book that says a big motivation in human psychology is the need to be taken seriously. Because that need is so strong, it provides a really good way to understand why discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics (race, nationality, sex, often religion, etc.) is so destructive. Everyone wants to be recognized for their individuality and contributions and not dismissed as 'oh, well he is Presbyterian so we don't have to listen to him', or 'oh, he is Kenyan so we don't have to consider his argument seriously'.

So, as to the decision...

It contained the worst reasoning I have ever seen. As for the Dutch anti-discrimination law, check this 'reasoning' out: 'the applicant submitted that making direct distinctions on the basis of nationality is forbidden by the Dutch Anti-Discrimination Law [which explicitly includes educational services]. Further, he submitted a decision by the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission, the body tasks with interpreting the Anti-Discrimination Law, which held that the section of the education law the defendant relies upon is not a 'generally binding administrative measure' capable of derogating from the anti-discrimination law. We have previously held that the education law makes a reasonable and objective difference [wrong standard]. We see no reason to review that decision." Oh, the fact that the body in charge of interpreting that law took expert testimony and REVERSED the earlier decisions that your earlier decisions relied upon and then directly said you are doing it wrong is not a good reason to re-examine your own case-law?!? Oh, and the Equal Treatment Commission's decisions could not have been more on point. They involved a US citizen suing over tuition rates (as well as three other cases that all went the same way involving other nationalities). So angry.

That is insane, right? A change in the law is not a reason to re-examine your own case-law that occurred before that change and relied on over-ruled precedent. Hello?!?!?

Another thing that pissed me off is that they simply did not address my arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights, European Union Law, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the case-law of the authoritative UN bodies interpreting it, and the Convention on Social and Economic Rights. Simply nothing said about the dozens of cases and provisions cited which were crystal clear.

Possibly the worst part of the reasoning was in addressing the Dutch American Friendship Treaty. I relied on this provision: "1. Nationals of either Party residing within the territories of the other Party, and nationals and companies of either Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit or in scientific, educational, religious or philanthropic activities within the territories of the other Party, shall not be subject to the payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, within the territories of such other Party, more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other Party."

The original decision by the defendant (Maastricht University) said that the treaty only applied to American who own businesses here. I wrote them and responded that I own a business here and that was exactly my argument. On a side note, the person that made that decision has since been fired, good riddance, he was extremely rude and racist toward me, and likely others). Then, he simply changed his interpretation so as to not apply to me, without making a new written decision or anything (which is completely illegal).

So the Educational Body (the CBHO) followed this reasoning and ruled that the treaty only covered companies engaged in the provision of educational or scientific services. Thus, it did not help me. At the end of this section, they noted that this determination is not changed by the fact that the tuition fees for a masters in EU law are expenses for the law firm I work for and co-own that is engaged in educational and scientific services (I am editing an academic book and co-authoring another, i.e. participating in the production of educational and scientific services.) Further, the Treaty provides equal treatment to all companies owned by US nationals, not just those engaged in educational services. If one company has to spend $12,000 to train their workers and another has to spend $1200 based explicitly on the nationality, how can one NOT see that this is the government creating an unequal treatment in the marketplace among comparable competitors, which is exactly what the Treat makes illegal?!

Is anyone following the court's reasoning? So, the fact that, even under the (restrictive and wrong) interpretation of the treaty, I fall under its protection does not change the court's determination that I do not fall under the provisions. HELLO?!?

As as to their interpretation, the provisions clearly states "national and companies". Nationals do not own universities. The treaty talks about "closer economic and cultural cooperation between the peoples" (which the court, without any explanation says is completely different from education, [HUH?!]) The context of the treaty was after Americans and Dutch fought and died side-by-side fighting a discriminatory and racist regime. Sounds like a certain degree of solidarity and anti-discrimination by the government was implied by the context and text of the treaty, no?

Further, the court determined that the Treaty really only addresses tax matters. Well, this is wrong because there is another 330 page treaty between the two countries on tax matters. The DAFT, in contrast, goes further and addresses "most favored nation" status and treatment for "payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object". When the government sends a bill for 12,000 to one person (EU, EER, Swiss, and Surinamese nationals) and 1200 to everybody else based solely and exclusively on nationality, that is the definition of a violation of a violation of most favored national treatment with respect to government fees or charges. The treaty is specifically written in the broadest language (fees or charges imposed upon or applied... activities or any other object), so that a domestic government cannot make the argument 'oh, that is not really a tax, see, we classify for domestic purposes as a "charge" or a "usage fee", or a "service fee". No, all taxes, fees OR charges applied to activities or any other object. I, myself, could not have written any broader language, and the court just simply erases all meaning from the language and removes the most important words.

Further, it is not a stretch to interpret the treaty that way I interpret. This is because my interpretation is the exact same language and interpretation in the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights with subsequent decisions, the clear language of the Dutch Anti-Discrimination Law (AWGB) and its authoritative interpretive body the CGB, the European Union law within its sphere of power (which is why the Dutch fees on EU and EER nationals was previously struck down), the most favored nation clause in the Swiss-EU treaty, the most favored nation clause in the Dutch-Surinamese Friendship Treaty, and the interpretation of these documents by the Dutch government prior to 2009 when they decided to start blatantly screwing over immigrants, which subsequently led to them losing 11 cases before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

The court's reasoning does not even pass my laugh test. It is not a good faith treaty interpretation.

Tottenham Riots: Discrimination + Austerity + Violence => Violence

2011-08-09T21:26:00.001+02:00

To follow-up on Laura's last blog post, I myself have four points to make.

1. If we, as gatherers of information, do not trust the news releases from Gaddafi or other gov sources in the Middle East when riots erupt, then why do we give so much deference to the version of events as released by police and politicians in the UK (and the US). No, she did not advocate rioting. And yes, there is a very big difference between the characteristics of the regimes in terms of democratic legitimacy. However, various studies (Manufacturing Consent, among others) have shown that the amount of propaganda in democratic countries is at least as high if not higher and more sophisticated than in undemocratic ones. Yet, we still give so much deference to government version of facts even after the Iraq war lead-up catastrophy, even after this very police department said that the rioting was controlled and then it spread, and even after this particular police department stated that there was a non-police bullet at the original crime scene (a fact that they later could not prove).

Oh, and this was the very same police force whose, I believe, top two people just stepped down over corruption, lying, and improper collusion with the media. We also accept in the abstract that politicians lie to us, but then we refuse to apply that knowledge in individual cases.

2. Human life if one of the most important legal and moral values in society. Property is also am important value. Laura's point was that it is hypocritical to condemn violence to property when people riot when the same people showed no solidarity after a man was shot and killed. We should consider why it is that, despite the fact that neither instance of violence at all affected any of us, people were silent in the first instance and outraged in the second instance.

3. The media has not reported on it well. The media has portrayed the police and restoring order after it was broken by the rioters. Most of us accept that society is fragile and that there is always a tension between the governed and the governing. This tension is also always fragile. We call this the social contract/compact. When this is broken, society falls apart and becomes ungovernable. We also know that even under legitimate democratic societies, there are conflicts which must be responsibly managed. It is my perspective that the actions of the police force through early discrimination and then this shooting broke that social compact, the conditions of which were already stressed through austerity and other measures. Rather than taking this perspective, the media has always referred to the rioters breaking 'the peace' and the police 'restoring it'. This is literally reporting from the perspective of the governing, rather than reporting from a neutral perspective that sees the logical tension between the people and the governed.

4. My fourth point is an assumption about violence in society and how to view it. Violence should be defined by all damage to life and property which occurred despite being reasonably preventable. The part of violent that we typically get most outrages about (the type that makes good TV news) is overt violence. However, that is only a small part of the violence and conflict that exists in society. The difference between manifest violence and the other parts of violence that are harder to see is the time span in their causal connection between the wrongful act and the result and thus the increased visibility. However, that is not a moral distinction. Thus, all are responsible for the natural and logical consequences of their wrongful acts.

For more information from better sources than the TV and tabloid media stations that have recently been criminally colluding with the police, I found these sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=solAQO62_gQ&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots?CMP=twt_gu
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189165143946889.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=%2Fjournals%2Fhuman_rights_quarterly%2Fv029%2F29.3thoms.html

So you call yourself a Liberal: Solidarity and the London Tottenheim Riots

2011-08-09T12:08:00.015+02:00

Over the past few days reports about the riots in England have been overwhelming the airwaves and my facebook feed. Liberals and conservatives alike are describing those participating in the riots as thuggish youths, opportunistic plunderers, gang members, and there are calls that it is time for the army to come in the deal with the "war zone" London has become. One Dutch parliamentarian called for BlackBerry to shut down their messaging service in London to stifle the riots. Some people, themselves young, are worried that the youths partaking are the future ofour generation.

Dutch MP, Diederik Samsom calls for BlackBerry to shut down its messaging service to London

A woman protesting the Egyptian regime's shutdown of the internet during the protests there in the Spring of 2011 asks, "who's afraid of twitter?!"

My thoughts: Where is your solidarity?! You call yourself a Liberal, you lament the apathy of the youth in the face of deep economic cuts and yet, you denounce those who are finally standing up. I don't get it. I don't get it for 3 reasons:

1. I cannot fathom the disdain expressed for these people involved in the riots in London. I am not a supporter of their methods (in fact, I think in the long run they're counterproductive) but I understand and feel compassion for their plight. No prospects, no way to support your family, and no hope of a better future - all while having to stand for police violence and discrimination - well, it would be enough to break anyone. These are not "thuggish youths," these are our unemployed and overwhelmed brothers and sisters, daughters and sons, who are sick of being downtrodden by the rich and elite. Why in the world are so many people defending these elite so blatantly and so obviously against their own interests? Moreover, ignoring the problems for the generation of today, caused by those very same rich and elite that we are defending, will not lead to peace or stability. These riots won't be the last unless we address head on the socioeconomic attacks being made on the poor and young (see Robert's predictions from back in 2009).

above, British police defend a JD sports store
from rioters

2. Are these rioters really causing any more damage than the damage done by the bankers who caused the financial crisis that led to all these austerity measures in the first place? I do not at all condone violence, but if we are going to be focusing on preventing or punishing violence maybe we should start by dealing with the biggest and most serious perpetrators. The bankers whose greed and willful recklessness lead to the foreclosure of thousands of houses worldwide, the homelessness of thousands of people, the unemployment of thousands of people should be the ones whose violence we are denouncing. This is not to mention the hundreds of thousands the United States and the United Kingdom have killed in the illegal Iraqi war and the war crimes these countries are committing in Afghanistan and have committed over the last two centuries. The handful of shops burned down by the rioters .... well, that's peanuts compared to the greater institutionalized violence. If only the police had protected our homes and life savings from the bankers as they protect corporate capital!

above: protesters during the Egyptian revolution

3. Unless you're a pacifist, you likely assume that proportionate violence is an acceptable way to react to oppression and to affect change. You accept it in Libya and Egypt - but not in England? Naturally, one could argue that the riots are not a proportionate expression of violence, but let's take a closer look: no one has been killed by the rioters (although someone has been killed by the police and past protesters have been killed by police violence in attempts to past previous peaceful protests). Just because the political agenda of those engaged in this revolt have not made the headlines, doesn't mean this is not a political act. Perhaps if the rioters were white, middle-class college professors we would take it more seriously ...

In sum, I would simply ask for a little more compassion in talking about the people involved in the uprising in the UK. A tad more understanding of the socioeconomic circumstances and increasing oppression of the poor and ethnic minorities couldn't hurt, either. People are furious and desperate, I can't believe people really think this is a surprising or unpredictable reaction. My final plea: question your media sources! Media that only report on what the police and government have to say about a situation are giving a very one-sided account of what really happened.

When Will We Wake Up?

2011-07-23T11:56:00.002+02:00

So this week in Norway Anders B. Breivik, a right-wing nationalist, injured 90 people and killed 17. He went on a shooting spree at a youth camp for a center-left party and then blew up a government building the same day. Here is a link to video of when police arrived at the mass murder scene at the camp [link - warning, graphic and liable to make you extreme angry]. He described himself as "conservative", "Christian" and "nationalist", and posted comments on anti-Islamic websites on multiple occasions.

People keep saying that we need to pull back on the right-wing rhetoric or else someone will get hurt. Well, wake-up people. We are way past that point. People are in denial - we have been attacked by a serious of right-wing terrorists and nobody is connecting the dots. When these people commit mass murder, they think it is ok and justified. They are trying to set an example. They are trying to challenge the State's monopoly on the use of legitimate violence by stating that their racial and ideological supremacy gives them the right to execute the racially and/or ideologically incorrect persons around them.

There is now a long list of right-wing terrorist incidents. The threshold of this right-wing political rhetoric leading to violent has been crossed. It has been crossed over and over again, yet we somehow cannot connect the dots. Here is a list of recent events:

1. US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was attacked and shot in the head. The shooter shot 19 people, killing six, including a nine-year-old girl and a Federal judge who had been targetted by right-wingers shortly before the shooting.
2. In my hometown of Wichita, KS, a right-winger entered a church, and then gun-downed and killed a well-known abortion provider in front of his family and friends while he was serving as an usher. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News for years, in over two dozen incidents, called Tiller a "Baby Killer" and accusing him of doing "Nazi stuff," while warning of a "Judgement Day" for Tiller. (source). May 31, 2009.
3. Jim Addison, after reading popular right-wing books and watching Fox News, goes to what he perceives as a 'liberal church', and opens fire. July 27, 2008.
4. Neo-nazi right-winger James van Brunn entered a holocaust memorial museum and opens fires, killing a security guard (link). June 10, 2009.
5. Right-winger neo-Nazi Richard Poplawski shoots and kills three police officers. He has previous told his friends that he, "heard that Obama is coming for my guns". April 4, 2009.
6. Joshua Cartwright shoots and kills two sheriff's deputies in Okaloosa County, Florida. His wife reported that he said, 'the government is coming for my guns'. April 25, 2009.
7. Gilbert Ortez killed a police deputy in Chambers County, Texas with an assault rifle. He feared the 'big government' was "coming for his guns' and that he 'had to stop them". July 13, 2009.
8. Jerry Kane, Jr. and son Joseph Kane shot and killed two Arkansas police officer with AK-47 assault rifles. They were pulled over while they were on their way to "kill liberals". May 20, 2010.
9. Byron Williams is arrested after he shot over 60 rounds at police. Police intercepted Williams while he was on his way to the ACLU and Tides Foundation. They wanted to go there to commit mass murder because Glenn Beck of Fox News told him that that is where the liberals are. July 18, 2010. (link).
10. Charles Turner Haberman, who was already on probation for threatening to kill a Seattle Democratic politician, twice called US Representative Jim McDermitt and threatened to kill him if he votes to raise any taxes. (link).

The point where we sit around and debate whether the kind of vitriolic bullshit we hear from right-winger co-conspirators may someday lead to violence is over. We are under attack now. They are murdering politicians, supporters, and literally murdering our children. When will we wake up? Our societies are under attack by people whose values are fundamentally incongruous with a free society.

To show how incompatible their values are with our free societies one needs only to look at the fact that popular right-winger Geert Wilders from The Netherlands wants to change Article 1 of the Constitution (equality under the law). The current first principle of the foundation of the society is preventing him from doing what he wants. That really should tell you something about his agenda. In its place, he wants to install a statement supporting the superiority of "Christian, Jewish and humanists values" over other values. This is an idea that, in his own words, he borrowed from Adolf Hitler. He just argues that Hitler gave it a bad name.

This month in The Netherlands Geert Wilders was acquitted for inciting hatred after a serious of vicious statements against Muslims. When I say vicious I am not exaggerating. Here are some examples: "The Koran is a fascist book which incites violence. That is why this book, just like [Adolf Hitler's] Mein Kampf, must be banned"; "I've had enough of Islam in the Netherlands; let not one more Muslim immigrate."; "I hate Islam"; "there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'"; Muhammed is "the devil"; "Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"; "Islam is not a religion, but rather a totalitarian political ideology such as communism and fascism."; there is a tsunami of immigrants overrunning our country and threatening our culture." He also advocates, as part of his top ten proposals: Replacing the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, with a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions (as stated above); a five year 100% ban on the immigration of non-Western persons (including oppressed Christian and gay refugees from Muslim countries); revoking municipal voting rights of permanent resident non-citizens; a five year ban on building any mosques or Muslim schools (in a country where Christian schools are fully subsidized by the state as public schools); criminalizing preaching in any language other than Dutch; closing Mosques he considers 'radical' (remember, he also said that there is no such thing as a 'moderate' Muslim or 'moderate' Islam...); treating inner-city minority petty crime as "street terrorism" and punishing it with denaturalisation and deportation, as well as locking "street scum" (here, read minorities) in work camps away from the cities.

When governments try to protect us from these terrorists, the government's efforts are stalled by terrorist sympathizers. For example, in 2009 after the US Federal Bureau of Investigation accurately warned about right-wing terrorism, mainstream conservatives criticized the government as authoritarian for wanting to protect us from these criminal fascists (link). There were reports that the FBI subsequently backed off, but it is impossible to know in reality if the FBI kept their full guard up despite media criticism by terrorist sympathizers. I hope that they did not back off, and I hope that we do not back off.

Finally, I hope that those who previously sympathized with and provided cover for these fascists and terrorists take back their comments, denounce support for these people and their mass murder, and finally, help to assure others that they are now committed to stopping these dangerous terrorists.

Follow-Up:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqmZs0VoPw&feature=related
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjmGyjeRrOs&feature=relmfu
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-7FHA51d8c&feature=related

Right to lawyer during police interrogations clarified - Dutch Hoge Raad's interpretation destroyed.

2011-07-20T15:54:00.009+02:00

The problem

When the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided Salduz v. Turkey (Appl. no. 36391/02, 27 November 2008) in 2008, the Dutch political and legal worlds buzzed with the question of how to properly implement this landmark decision. The Court in Salduz gave States Parties to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) a simple directive: ensure that everyone charged with a criminal offense has access to a lawyer during police interrogations. The Court based this mandate on Article 6 of the ECHR, which holds:

“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

...

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;"

In Salduz, the Court explained that Article 6

"requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee, cited above, § 44). The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction" (paragraph 55).

The solution?

Despite the Court's ruling in Salduz, the Dutch Hoge Raad (the Dutch supreme court) decided to interpret the Court's intent slightly differently. In 2009, the Hoge Raad held that Salduz did not meant that national legal systems had to give the accused the right to have a lawyer present at interrogations. According to the Hoge Raad, all Article 6, as interpreted in Salduz, required was that those charged with criminal offenses were able to consult a lawyer before the accused is interrogated (HR 30 June, NJ 2009, 350. Raadsman bj politieverhoor. LJN BH 3081. Paragraph 2.5).

The Hoge Raad's solution ensured that the Dutch police did not have to change their interrogation procedures too drastically and coincided with the Dutch Minister of Justice's interpretation of Salduz.

The ECtHR destroys the Hoge Raad's interpretation

Last month, three years after the European Court of Human Rights' case and two years after the Dutch Hoge Raad's decision on this matter, the ECtHR delivered Sebalj v. Croatia (Appl.no. 4429/09, 28 June 2011). And this case proved the Hoge Raad's interpretation wrong.

In Sebalj the ECtHR clarified its earlier position, holding simply that because Sebalj did not have a lawyer present during interrogation, and because he had not waived his right to have a lawyer present,

"the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention on account of the applicant’s questioning by the police on 9 November 2005 without the presence of a defence lawyer" (para. 257).

The decision was unanimous. Could the Court have been any clearer? I think not.

Conclusion

If a member state does not give some one charged with a criminal offense a lawyer to be present with the charged during the police interrogation - Article 6 § 1 and 3(c) of the ECHR has been violated. Period.

What does this mean? This means that the Dutch government is going to have to deal with hundreds if not thousands of complaints alleging violation of Article 6. Based on the ECtHR's decision in Sebalj it seems that the proper compensation for interrogating someone without having given them the right to have a lawyer present during the interrogation is a ground for exclusion of evidence gotten during that interrogation (see Sebalj para. 258-265). How could the Netherlands have avoided this situation? A good faith interpretation of the law in the first place would have gone a long way toward mitigating the effects of this recent decision. But the Hoge Raad decided at the time that a "static" interpretation of the law (see A.A. Franken, Zunigheid Troef p. 1-2) was a good way to avoid unnecessary damage. How wrong the Hoge Raad was.

Real Story of Vancouver Kissing Couple

2011-06-21T13:10:00.000+02:00

The mystery behind the Vancouver kissing couple has been revealed. They were not smooching for fun in the middle of a riot, but were pushed to the ground by riot police.

The story began after a photographer took this picture:

Rich Lam/Getty Images

The picture was so intriguing. It soon went viral around the internet. Everybody wondered whether he was comforting her or if they were having a moment of folly among the chaos.

It is undoubted a brilliant photograph. The photographer, Rick Lam, got it as he was also being pushed out of the area by riot police. First, the focus is completely on the couple who provide a strong example of hope and fearlessness. The second thing is the riot policeman in the front of the picture. The fact that they are behind an anonymous and ominous image of authority in the form of the riot officer who both looks threatening and was threatening the person in the position of the viewer (the photographer) is a great part of this photo. The third thing is the riot police and people in the background which quickly tells the viewer the setting (when, where, who, etc.).

-- --

Later, a video came out revealing that the couple was not smooching for fun in the middle of a riot, but were pushed to the ground by riot police. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30t3vhxSj9o

The video shows the riot police pushing the couple to the ground with their shields. As the couple goes down, at :06 you can see and hear the girlfriend Alex Thomas hit twice in the head with riot shield first from the right side and then by the riot police officer on the left/center part of the screen as she falls on her back all the way to the ground. The boyfriend Scott Jones then protects Alex by throwing his body on hers and putting up his hands and forearm to catch any further blows.

The couple was quickly identified via social media sites and and the couple did an interview about it here: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43461996.

The real story is at least as interesting as the speculative narrative put forth before the full story was known. I also think it is quite revealing about the media and societal views of young people at this. The media assumed that they were engaged in some act of folly and frivolity. That seems to always be the way to dismiss people of our generation, who are really struggling at this time. I also like that the real story represents the reality of many people of my generation. Like Laura and I, they are an international couple -- she is Canadian and he is Australian. Like other young people they are caught up in chaotic times. These times are tense politically, culturally, and most of all, economically. There is 17.7% youth unemployment in the US, 40% in Spain, mass transfers of wealth from the young to the old in every developed society with little debate or awareness of it (link, link, link, link, link). They are thrown into this as uninformed spectators. If they do not quickly figure out where they are and what is happening, then will be beaten to the ground and injured.

Young people are also facing harsh government reactions. Now, whether you believe that the harsh government measures shown in the actions of the riot police or the conditions on the Greek bailout are reasonable, proportionate, justified, etc. is irrelevant to the statement that they are harsh, which everyone should be able to agree upon. The proper defense to these actions is: 'Yes, they are harsh, but tough times call for tough measures'. However, so often someone makes the determination that tough measues are called for and then spends 90% of their time distorting the facts to try to justify their decision (for example, the Iraq War). So, at the very least, everyone should be able to agree that people, especially young people, are not only facing tough times, but are also facing a lot of government responses that are also very tough against people, especially young people.

Another example is the fact that many politicians in the US want to end, weaken or privatize Social Security. Social Security is a massive transfer of wealth from the young worker to old non-workers. It seems to me that it is only moral if, at the same time, it is also a safety net for present workers when they retire. So long as the second condition remains, that prevents Social Security from being a Ponzi scheme. However, Republicans and some Democrats in the US seem to want to turn it into a Ponzi scheme. Two developments are relevant in this regard. First, the fact that Democrats and Republicans for the last few decades started doing annual budget accounting even on programs like Social Security instead of long-term budgeting which makes more sense for a program like Social Security. Greek politicians actually did the same thing over the past few decades as well -- just treat all taxes coming in as general tax for that year, without regard as to which program it was collected for, so that it appears that the budget is balanced during your term.

The second thing that politicians did was to then spend taxes collected as Social Security payments as general tax money. This happened during the Bush administration with tens of billions of dollars in spending and tax cuts. It is the exact same thing as a dad buying an extravagant sports car with his daughter's college savings and saying that they could afford the new car because they had the money that year! They bought the car (in the analogy, huge tax cuts and the War in Iraq), knowing that they would have to make other payment in the near future that had previously been set aside for other things (college, or in the analogy, Social Security).

These two developments of the past ten years (yearly budgeting and spending Social Security taxes as general funds) are problematic because Social Security is designed as a long-term program. It had huge surpluses in the Clinton and Bush years because the Baby Boomers were at the peak of their careers and all paying into the system. It is easy to see, under such conditions, how horrible it is to budget for this program on a yearly basis and also to treat Social Security taxes as general government money.

Now, previous payments are not near enough to cover current pay-outs (which is why young people are propping up the entire system and giving money to the old in reality). However, once the reserves built up by current retirees throughout their life are plundered away, Social Security must be radically altered (raised input or decreased output). The Republicans made the choices they did knowing all of this. Indeed, they not only chose but desired to be in the crisis position we are in now. They have been saying it for years -- "starve the beast", meaning decrease revenues that are going to the Federal government in order to force cuts in social programs that the public otherwise would never accept in a non-'crisis' situation.

So, like the daughter whose father spend her college savings account, paid into by both herself and her father, the youth today will not only be paying off the older generation's impulsive buys of flashy sports cars (the war in Iraq and $1.5T in tax cuts, a health care system that transfers money from young healthy people to old sick people without sufficient cost containment or solidarity for young workers in the form of a public option (link)), young workers will also be paying for their own expenses for which that saving was supposed to go to (their own education, their own retirement after Social Security is sabotaged and collapses, their own medical insurance and deductibles, etc.). This will be done the exact way it is being done right now with young people taking on extra work and loans to pay for increasing costs.

The young will have to come up with the extra costs in an economic environment of abysmal job prospects (link, link), wage freezes, decreased access to start-up loans and higher interest rates, fraud by universities and creditors (link, link, link), competition from older more experienced unemployed workers who are first in line for the existing jobs, hiring freezes in the private sector, and massive cuts in the public sector.

-- --

Meanwhile, the reaction of older folks in the US (and elsewhere) is to give a big middle finger to the young. They vote in mass for tea party fanatics. They send the young to die in the Middle East. They refuse to raise taxes to a sane level, and at the same time, refuse to decrease any of the spending on entitlements to older folks. For example, in their recent proposal to changes in medicare, the Republican decided to make their proposal only effect those under 55. In other words, 'screw your grandkids, take the money and run' was the most politically feasible option in the present political environment.

Another example of the big middle finger young workers are getting right now is an e-mail floating around. Here it is:

"John G. Is 63 years old and owns a small business. He's a

life-long Republican and sees his dream of

retiring next year has all but evaporated. With

the stock market crashing and new taxes coming

his way, John assumes now that he will work to

his dying day.

John has a granddaughter.. Ashley is a recent college grad.

She drives a flashy hybrid car, wears all the

latest fashions, and loves to go out to

nightclubs and restaurants. Ashley campaigned

hard for Barack Obama. After the election she

made sure her grandfather (and all other

Republican family members) received a big I

told-you-so earful on how the world is going to

be a much better place now that her party is

taking over.

Having lost both roommates, Ashley recently ran short

of cash and cannot pay the rent (again) on her 3

bedroom townhouse.. Like she has done many times

in the past, she e-mailed her grandfather asking

for some financial help.

Here is his reply:

Sweetheart, I received your request for assistance.

Ashley, you know I love you dearly and I 'm sympathetic

to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times

have changed. With the election of President

Obama, your grandmother and I have had to set

forth a bold new economic plan of our own..."The

Ashley Economic Empowerment Plan." Let me

explain.

Your grandmother and I are life-long, wage-earning

tax payers. We have lived a comfortable life, as

you know, but we have never had the fancier

things like European vacations, luxury cars,

etc.. We have worked hard and were looking

forward to retiring soon. But the plan has

changed. Your president is raising our personal

and business taxes significantly. He says it is

so he can give our hard earned money to other

people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It

means less for us, and we must cut back on many

business and personal expenses.

You know the wonderful receptionist who worked in my

office for more than 23 years? The one who

always gave you candy when you came over to

visit? I had to let her go last week. I can't

afford to pay her salary and all of the

government mandated taxes that go with having

employees. Your grandmother will now work 4 days

a week to answer phones, take orders and handle

the books. We will be closed on Fridays and will

lose even more income to the

Wal-Mart.

I'm also very sorry to report that your cousin Frank will

no longer be working summers in the warehouse. I

called him at school this morning.. He already

knows about it and he's upset because he will

have to give up skydiving and his yearly trip to

Greenland to survey the polar

bears.

That's just the business side of things. Some personal

economic effects of Obama's new taxation

policies include none other than you You know

very well that over the years your grandmother

and I have given you thousands of dollars in

cash, tuition assistance, food, housing,

clothing, gifts, etc.., etc. But by your vote,

you have chosen to help others -- not at your

expense -- but at our expense..

If you need money now sweetheart, I recommend you call

202-456-1111. That is the direct phone number

for the White House.. You can also contact the

White House here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/ .

You yourself told me how foolish it is to vote

Republican. You said Mr Obama is going to be the

People's President, and is going to help every

American live a better life. Based on everything

you've told me, along with all the promises we

heard during the campaign, I'm sure Mr. Obama

will be happy to transfer some stimulus money

into your bank account. Have him call me for the

account number which I memorized years

ago..

Perhaps you can now understand what I've been saying all

my life: those who vote for a president should

consider the impact on the nation as a whole,

and not be just concerned with what they can get

for themselves. What Obama supporters don't seem

to realize is all of the money he is

redistributing to illegal aliens and

non-taxpaying Americans (the so-called "less

fortunate") comes from tax-paying

families.

Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich

will be aff ected"? Well guess what, honey?

Because we own a business, your grandmother and

I are now considered to be the richest of the

rich. On paper, it might look that way, but in

the real world, we are far from

it.

As you said while campaigning for Obama, some people

will have to carry more of the burden so all of

America can prosper.... You understand what that

means, right? It means that raising taxes on

productive people results in them having less

money; less money for everything, including

granddaughters.

I'm sorry, Ashley, but the well has run dry.. The free

lunches are over.. I have no money to give you

now. So, congratulations on your choice for

"change." For future reference, I encourage you

to try and add up the total value of the gifts

and cash you have received from us, just since

you went off to college, and compare it to what

you expect to get from Mr. Obama over the next 4

(or 8) years. I have not kept track of it,

Ashley. It has all truly been the gift of our

hearts.

Remember, we love you dearly....but from now on you'll

need to call the number mentioned above. Your

"Savior" has the money we would have given to

you. Just try and get it from

him.

Good luck, sweetheart.

Love, Grandpa"

I was actually personally sent this e-mail by my own grandfather. He is probably representative of many of his generation. He worked for the government and the non-profit sector his entire life, and now gets a large Social Security check, a military pension, and a nice pension from his life-long employer. His wife worked in the public sector. They benefitted their entire lives, and especially now, from the solidarity that their generation set up. Yet, they go on about how glorious the free market is so great and how we need to bleed the government dry. He watches Fox News regularly and also sends out e-mail forwards that are reliably untrue and conspiratorial; the ones that simple trips to snopes.com inevitably disprove.

Yet they have this self-righteous and demeaning attitude as if they have the world on their shoulders and are propping everyone else up. The reality in completely inverted. All their government payments over the years have long been used up; it is now my payments, the payments from us competent young people, who are propping the entire system up. Neither he nor others like him can even figure out how to fact-check an e-mail, but less do the tasks that we do on a daily basis (IT work, design websites, provide fast services everywhere, legal advise) to make our older bosses rich. In every developed country right now, a tiny highly-productive fraction of the population, typically working in young, high-tech, enormously productive businesses, prop up the entire economy and tax system. The pensions of these complaining grandpas are being paid by current young workers. Their Social Security payments of at least $1200 per month are being paid by younger workers. Their huge medical bills are being paid by younger workers paying into medicare and also young low-risk insurance-holders who are legally forced into the same risk group as older people and thus these young payers keep the entire health insurance system going.

-- --

Now, back to the picture and the final thing that I like about it. The scene shows everything good about my generation as well. Despite all the media degradation, the physical and economic attacks, and the chaos of these times, they display the traits that are going to be necessary for our generation: curiosity, solidarity, wits, justice, and love.

Hearing at the College van Beroep voor het Hoger Onderwijs || June 9th!

2011-06-08T20:11:00.003+02:00

Tomorrow, Robert and I will be presenting our appeal against Maastricht University's discriminatory tuition feel practice at the Dutch High Tribunal for Education. As this hearing is open to the public (unlike the previous hearing), those interested are free to attend.

The hearing will take place at 14:30 at the chambers of the Dutch High Tribunal for Education (College van Beroep voor het Hoger Onderwijs, CBHO). Location: Kneuterdijk 22, 2514 EN The Hague.

For more information about our appeal, you can read our previous posts:

Maastricht University's violation of international law, the right to education and the right to equal treatment.

When you win, you lose: Maastricht still violating international and Dutch law