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

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

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

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

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

A decision of the Dutch Supreme Court delivered on 26th May 1978 continues to provoke a good deal of discussion in the Netherlands and, if reflected in the judicial decisions of other countries, could prove to be of very great significance. The question at issue was who should be liable to pay the often enormous costs of removing shipwrecks from the seabed outside territorial waters. The facts of the Dutch case were as follows.