In recent years there has been growing support, manifested in various international fora, for the notion that a third generation of human rights, composed of solidarity rights, is emerging. The principal assumptions behind this concept are:

(1) that the principal categories or sets of human rights presently recognized by international law (civil and political rights on one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other) can be termed respectively first and second generation rights;

(2) that these rights are not sufficiently flexible or dynamic to be able to respond adequately to present circumstances;

(3) that there is a set of more or less homogeneous demands which are distinguished primarily by the fact that solidarity is a prerequisite to their realization; and

(4) that these new demands are presently in the process of acquiring international recognition as human rights.

During the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Netherlands was a confederation of states, consisting of seven sovereign provinces which had united in 1579 in the Union of Utrecht, mainly for the purposes of defence. This form of co-operation, which turned out to be increasingly unsatisfactory in practice, continued until 1795, when a unitary state, the Batavian Republic, was created under the influence of the French Revolution. Restless years followed. The influence of France steadily increased; in 1806 this resulted in the establishment of the Kingdom of Holland, ruled by one of Napoleon's brothers. In 1810 the Netherlands' independence came to an end in a formal sense when it was incorporated in the French Empire. This situation continued until 1813; in November of that year the power was taken over by a number of prominent figures in the expectation of the arrival from England of a descendant of the House of Orange. This House had assumed the most important position in the Union, the position of Stadhouder during the period of the federation of states. Within the limits of the constitution that was laid down, he was granted sovereignty over the unitary state to be created. Even today, the crown passes on to the successors of this first monarch.

The present author will argue that the cable TV decisions of the Dutch Supreme Court of 30 October 1981, while creating quite a stir, have in fact stated nothing new, since it had already been decided in 1938 that secondary communication to the public of a primary radio broadcast of works is subject to the prohibition right of copyright. Moreover the Dutch Supreme Court reiterated this decision in its Cable Radio Decision of 1958 which dealt with a case identical to that of the decisions of 30 October 1981. The whole commotion before and after these last decisions arose only as a result of two successive attempts by the government to undo this Cable Radio decision. The first attempt, via the introduction of the word “organism” in Article 12 last paragraph of the Copyright Law of 1912, was undermined in the years 1968–1969; the second attempt, namely the launching of the “individual reception theory”, was undertaken immediately thereafter and only came to an end with the decisions of 30 October. The time has come to breath life back into Dutch media and copyright policies which have been stagnating for the last 13 years.

It now looks as though the middle of the 1980's will mark an important turning point in the development of Dutch civil law. By that time, books 3–6 and some parts of book 7 of the New Civil Code will probably have entered into force in the Netherlands. Two books have already come into force and it is expected that after 1985 the remaining parts of book 7 and book 8 will soon follow suit.

The importance of the role that rivers have played in man's social and economic advancement cannot be overemphasised. The earliest civilizations originated and flourished around what are still some of the world's most important river systems. These rivers were not only essential for the growth and improvement of agriculture, but they also provided possible channels of communication, thereby enabling the most ancient forms of contact and trade among the early riparian communities.

Since 1973 developments have taken place in the field of international divorce law in the Netherlands. In the case of 23 February 1973, NJ 1973, 366, the Supreme Court ceased following the doctrine formulated in the Boon-Schmidt case (13 December 1907, W. 8636). Since then the Supreme Court has been repeatedly called upon to give its opinion on the question of which law should be applied in an international divorce granted in the Netherlands. The developments have (temporarily) stopped due to the entry into force (on 10 April 1981) of the Act of 25 March 1981 (Staatsblad1981 no. 166), containing the regulation of conflict of laws concerned with the dissolution of marriage and separation, and the recognition of these, in connection with the entry into force of the Conventions of Luxembourg and The Hague concerning the recognition of decisions on marriage and the recognition of divorce and separation.