“The primary aim of development [is] to satisfy man's spiritual and material needs in the context of respect for human rights”. The majority of the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, in making this pronouncement, held that “a development strategy based on political repression and the denial of human rights might contribute to the realization of some economic objectives but could never lead to full and genuine development”. They noted the importance of participation both in the process and benefits of development. These statements contrast with a presumption widely held among economists, philosophers, and politicians, that respecting fundamental human rights, especially individual political and civil rights, is somehow incompatible with rapid economic development. Until fairly recently, it was assumed by a preponderance of Western and other development strategists that the benefits of economic growth would sooner or later trickle down to the poor majority in Third World countries, provided that sufficient wealth was generated; it was implicitly assumed that in these circumstances, “human rights would look after itself”. “In many respects the achievement of specific development objectives and of respect for human rights has been foiled by the failure of the trickle-down theory”.

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) has found great difficulty in codifying the international customary rules governing the delimitation of the sea-bed boundaries. The latest draft of the future convention on the law of the sea is the revised Informal Composite Negotiating Text (ICNT Rev/1), which was debated at the ninth session of UNCLOS HI during March 3 – April 4, 1980. Article 83 of the ICNT Rev/1 provides that the delimitation of the continental shelf should be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles, employing where appropriate, the median or equidistant line, and taking account of all relevant circumstances. Furthermore, Article 83(2) of the ICNT Rev/1 states that if no final agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned should resort to the compulsory procedures provided for in the Part XV. However, Article 298(a) of the ICNT Rev/1 states that disputes concerning sea boundary delimitation between opposite and adjacent States constitute one of the exceptions whereby the party States may declare themselves free from compulsory procedure.

(a) The subject matter of this report is the recognition of foreign companies and bodies corporate as an issue of private international law. It deals with the two main aspects of the problem, i.e., that of the connecting factors for the recognition of companies and bodies corporate as such and that of the law that governs the personal law of the company or body.

The recognition of foreign companies is a much debated issue. The exact meaning of ‘recognition’, the conflict rules by which the law of the company is determined, the limits within which national company law can still be applied to foreign companies, all these questions have been and still are the subject of lively discussion in academic writing. The same holds true for the EEC Convention on Mutual Recognition (hereafter Recognition Convention) upon which there has already been extensive, and often critical, comment. What has been rather neglected in this debate is the relationship between the Recognition Convention and the law of the European Communities. The report is mainly devoted to this subject (Chapter I).