| NETHERLANDS Kingdom of the Netherlands Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Joined United Nations: 10 December 1945 Human Rights as assured by their constitution Click here Updated 11/10/10 |
| CAPITAL |
| POPULATION |
| CHIEF OF STATE |
| SELECTION PROCESS |
Amsterdam
The Hague (seat of government)
The Hague (seat of government)
16,783,092 (July 2010 est.)
Mark Rutte
Prime Minister since 14 October 2010
Prime Minister since 14 October 2010
The monarchy and heir apparent are hereditary
Next scheduled election: None
Next scheduled election: None
HEAD OF GOVERNMENT
SELECTION PROCESS
Following Second Chamber elections, the leader of the majority
party or leader of a majority coalition is usually appointed prime
minister by the monarch; deputy prime ministers appointed by
the monarch. Last election: 9 June 2010
Next scheduled election: June 2015
party or leader of a majority coalition is usually appointed prime
minister by the monarch; deputy prime ministers appointed by
the monarch. Last election: 9 June 2010
Next scheduled election: June 2015
| DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
| ETHNIC GROUPS |
Dutch 80.7%, EU 5%, Indonesian 2.4%, Turkish 2.2%, Surinamese 2%, Moroccan 2%, Netherlands Antilles & Aruba 0.8%,
other 4.8% (2008 est.)
other 4.8% (2008 est.)
| RELIGIONS |
Roman Catholic 30%, Dutch Reformed 11%, Calvinist 6%, other Protestant 3%, Muslim 5.8%, other 2.2%, none 42% (2006)
| GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE |
Constitutional monarchy with 12 provinces (provincies, singular - provincie); Legal system is based on civil law system incorporating
French penal theory; constitution does not permit judicial review of acts of the States General; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
with reservations
Executive: The monarchy is hereditary; following Second Chamber elections, the leader of the majority party or leader of a majority
coalition is usually appointed prime minister by the monarch; deputy prime ministers appointed by the monarch
note: there is also a Council of State composed of the monarch, heir apparent, and councilors that provides consultations to the cabinet on
legislative and administrative policy
Legislative: Bicameral States General or Staten Generaal consists of the First Chamber or Eerste Kamer (75 seats; members
indirectly elected by the country's 12 provincial councils to serve four-year terms) and the Second Chamber or Tweede Kamer
(150 seats; members directly elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: First Chamber - last held 25 May 2007 (next to be held in May 2011); Second Chamber - last held 9 June 2010 (next to
be held by June 2015)
Judicial: Supreme Court or Hoge Raad (justices are nominated for life by the monarch)
French penal theory; constitution does not permit judicial review of acts of the States General; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
with reservations
Executive: The monarchy is hereditary; following Second Chamber elections, the leader of the majority party or leader of a majority
coalition is usually appointed prime minister by the monarch; deputy prime ministers appointed by the monarch
note: there is also a Council of State composed of the monarch, heir apparent, and councilors that provides consultations to the cabinet on
legislative and administrative policy
Legislative: Bicameral States General or Staten Generaal consists of the First Chamber or Eerste Kamer (75 seats; members
indirectly elected by the country's 12 provincial councils to serve four-year terms) and the Second Chamber or Tweede Kamer
(150 seats; members directly elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms)
elections: First Chamber - last held 25 May 2007 (next to be held in May 2011); Second Chamber - last held 9 June 2010 (next to
be held by June 2015)
Judicial: Supreme Court or Hoge Raad (justices are nominated for life by the monarch)
| LANGUAGES |
Dutch (official), Frisian (official)
| BRIEF HISTORY |
The Netherlands have been inhabited since the last ice age; the oldest artefacts that have been found are from the Hoogeveen
interstadial of the Saalian glaciation. During the last ice age, the Netherlands had a tundra climate with scarce vegetation. The first
inhabitants survived as hunter-gatherers. After the end of the ice age, the area was inhabited by various palaeolithic groups.
Agriculture arrived in the Netherlands somewhere around 5000 BC. Autochtoneous hunter-gatherers of the Swifterbant culture are
attested from 5600 BC onwards.[2] They had strong ties to rivers and open water and are genetically related to the South
Scandinavian Ertebølle culture (5300-4000 BC). Around 2950 BC the Netherlands witnessed the transition of Funnelbeaker
farming culture to Corded Ware pastoralist culture. The wealth of the Netherlands in the Iron Age is seen at the "King's grave in
Oss" (about 500 BC), where a king was buried with some extraordinary objects, including an iron sword with an inlay of gold and
coral. He was buried in the largest grave mound of Western Europe, which was 52 m wide. At the time of the Roman arrival, the
Netherlands had been settled by Germanic tribes, such as the Tubanti, the Canninefates, and the Frisians, who had arrived around
600 BC. Celtic tribes settled the South, among them the Eburones and the Menapii. Several Germanians settled south of the Rhine
at the beginning of the Roman settlement, and formed the Germanic tribe of the Batavians and the Toxandri. The Batavians were
regarded as good soldiers and fought in many important wars, for instance the conquest of Dacia (Romania) by the emperor Trajan.
In later nationalistic views, the Batavians were regarded as the "true" forefathers of the Dutch, as reflected in the name of the later
Batavian Republic. These Batavians were replaced or absorbed by the Salian Franks that originally came from Overijssel and
beyond, as attested by the geographical area of Salland. After Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, he conquered Belgium and The
Netherlands around the year 58 BC, which made it the northern border of the European mainland. They built the first cities and
created the Roman province of Germania Inferior. For most of the area of Roman occupation in the Netherlands, the boundary of
the Roman Empire lay along the Rhine. Romans built the first military forts and cities in the Netherlands. The Roman civilisation in
the area was eventually overrun in the mass migration of Germanic peoples (later known as the Völkerwanderung). The newcomers
merged with the original inhabitants to create three peoples in the Low Countries: the Frisians along the coast, the Saxons in the east
and the Franks in the south. The Franks became Christians after their king Clovis I converted in 496. Christianity was introduced in
the north after the conquest of Friesland by the Franks. The southern part of the Netherlands belonged to the Frankish empire of
Charlemagne, with its heartland in what is today Belgium and northern France, and spanning France, Germany, northern Italy and
much of Western Europe. In the north the Netherlands were a part of Frisia until 734. In 843, the Frankish empire was divided into
three parts, giving rise to France in the west, Germany in the east and a middle empire that lay between the two. Most of the
Netherlands was part of the middle empire. From 800 AD to 1000 AD, the Low Countries suffered considerably from Viking
raids. Most of the Netherlands was occupied by the Viking Rorik from about 840 to 880, who ruled from Dorestad. The German
kings and emperors dominated the Netherlands in the 10th and 11th century. Germany was called the Holy Roman Empire after the
coronation of King Otto the Great as emperor. Much of the western Netherlands was barely inhabited between the end of the
Roman period and around 1100. The crusades were popular in the Low Countries and drew many to fight in the Holy Land. At
home, there was relative peace in Europe. Viking pillaging had stopped. Both the Crusades and the relative peace at home
contributed to trade and the growth in commerce. Friesland in the north continued to maintain its independence during this time.
They later lost their independence when they were defeated in 1498 by the German Landsknecht mercenaries of Duke Albrecht of
Saxony-Meissen. Most of what is now the Netherlands and Belgium was eventually united by the Duke of Burgundy in 1433. After
a few years of conflict, the countess of Holland was deposed in favour of the Burgundian dukes. Holland's trade developed rapidly,
especially in the area of shipping and transport. The new rulers defended Dutch trading interests. The fleets of Holland defeated the
fleets of the Hanseatic League several times. Amsterdam grew and in the 15th century became the primary trading port in Europe
for grain from the Baltic region. Through inheritance and conquest, all of the Low Countries became possessions of the Habsburg
dynasty under Charles V in the 16th century, who united them into one state. The east of the Netherlands was occupied only a few
decades before the Dutch struggle for independence. However, in 1548, eight years before his abdication from the throne, Emperor
Charles V granted the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands status as an entity separate from both the Empire and from France
with the Transaction of Augsburg. It was not full independence, but it allowed significant autonomy. The Dutch fought for
independence from Spain, leading to the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648). Seven rebellious provinces united in the Union of Utrecht
in 1579 and formed the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (also known as the "United Provinces"). The Oath of Abjuration
or Plakkaat van Verlatinghe was signed on July 26, 1581, and was the formal declaration of independence of the northern Low
Countries from the Spanish king. William of Orange (Slot Dillenburg, 24 April 1533 — Delft, 10 juli 1584), the founder of the
Dutch royal family, led the Dutch during the first part of the war. The very first years were a success for the Spanish troops.
However, subsequent sieges in Holland were countered by the Dutch. The Peace of Westphalia, signed on January 30, 1648,
confirmed the independence of the United Provinces from Spain and Germany. Part of the wealth of the Dutch came through
slavery. In 1619 Dutch started with the slave trade between Africa and America, by 1650 becoming the pre-eminent slave trading
country in Europe, a position overtaken by Britain around 1700. After having gained its independence in 1648, the Netherlands
tried in various coalitions to help to contain France, which had replaced Spain as the strongest nation of Europe. The end of the
Spanish War of Succession (1713) marked the end of the Dutch Republic as a major player. In the 18th century, it just tried to
maintain its independence and stuck to a policy of neutrality. French invasions in 1672, 1701 and 1748 led to an overthrow of
government. In 1848 unrest broke out all over Europe. Although there were no major events in the Netherlands, these foreign
developments persuaded king William II to agree to liberal and democratic reform. That same year the liberal Johan Rudolf
Thorbecke was asked by the king to rewrite the constitution, turning the Netherlands into a constitutional monarchy. Although its
army mobilised when World War I broke out in August 1914, the Netherlands remained a neutral country. The worldwide Great
Depression of 1929 and the early 1930s had crippling effects on the Dutch economy, which lasted longer than they did in most
European countries. At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the Netherlands declared their neutrality again. However, on May
10, 1940, Nazi Germany launched an attack on the Netherlands and Belgium and overran most of the country quickly, fighting
against a poorly-equipped Dutch army. On May 5, 1945, a beaten Nazi Germany finally capitulated, signing the surrender to the
Dutch at Wageningen. Two days after the surrender of Japan, most of the Dutch East Indies declared its independence as
Indonesia. Surinam was decolonised in November 1975. The 60s and 70s were a time of great social and cultural change, such as
rapid ontzuiling (literally: depillarisation), a term that describes the decay of the old divisions along class and religious lines. Youths,
and students in particular, rejected traditional mores, and pushed for change in matters like women's rights, sexuality, disarmament
and environmental issues. Today, the Netherlands is regarded as a liberal country, considering its drugs policy and its legalisation of
euthanasia. Same-sex marriage has been permitted since 1 April 2001. In recent years the Dutch have often been a driving force
behind the integration of European countries in the European Union.
Source: Wikipedia: History of The Netherlands
interstadial of the Saalian glaciation. During the last ice age, the Netherlands had a tundra climate with scarce vegetation. The first
inhabitants survived as hunter-gatherers. After the end of the ice age, the area was inhabited by various palaeolithic groups.
Agriculture arrived in the Netherlands somewhere around 5000 BC. Autochtoneous hunter-gatherers of the Swifterbant culture are
attested from 5600 BC onwards.[2] They had strong ties to rivers and open water and are genetically related to the South
Scandinavian Ertebølle culture (5300-4000 BC). Around 2950 BC the Netherlands witnessed the transition of Funnelbeaker
farming culture to Corded Ware pastoralist culture. The wealth of the Netherlands in the Iron Age is seen at the "King's grave in
Oss" (about 500 BC), where a king was buried with some extraordinary objects, including an iron sword with an inlay of gold and
coral. He was buried in the largest grave mound of Western Europe, which was 52 m wide. At the time of the Roman arrival, the
Netherlands had been settled by Germanic tribes, such as the Tubanti, the Canninefates, and the Frisians, who had arrived around
600 BC. Celtic tribes settled the South, among them the Eburones and the Menapii. Several Germanians settled south of the Rhine
at the beginning of the Roman settlement, and formed the Germanic tribe of the Batavians and the Toxandri. The Batavians were
regarded as good soldiers and fought in many important wars, for instance the conquest of Dacia (Romania) by the emperor Trajan.
In later nationalistic views, the Batavians were regarded as the "true" forefathers of the Dutch, as reflected in the name of the later
Batavian Republic. These Batavians were replaced or absorbed by the Salian Franks that originally came from Overijssel and
beyond, as attested by the geographical area of Salland. After Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, he conquered Belgium and The
Netherlands around the year 58 BC, which made it the northern border of the European mainland. They built the first cities and
created the Roman province of Germania Inferior. For most of the area of Roman occupation in the Netherlands, the boundary of
the Roman Empire lay along the Rhine. Romans built the first military forts and cities in the Netherlands. The Roman civilisation in
the area was eventually overrun in the mass migration of Germanic peoples (later known as the Völkerwanderung). The newcomers
merged with the original inhabitants to create three peoples in the Low Countries: the Frisians along the coast, the Saxons in the east
and the Franks in the south. The Franks became Christians after their king Clovis I converted in 496. Christianity was introduced in
the north after the conquest of Friesland by the Franks. The southern part of the Netherlands belonged to the Frankish empire of
Charlemagne, with its heartland in what is today Belgium and northern France, and spanning France, Germany, northern Italy and
much of Western Europe. In the north the Netherlands were a part of Frisia until 734. In 843, the Frankish empire was divided into
three parts, giving rise to France in the west, Germany in the east and a middle empire that lay between the two. Most of the
Netherlands was part of the middle empire. From 800 AD to 1000 AD, the Low Countries suffered considerably from Viking
raids. Most of the Netherlands was occupied by the Viking Rorik from about 840 to 880, who ruled from Dorestad. The German
kings and emperors dominated the Netherlands in the 10th and 11th century. Germany was called the Holy Roman Empire after the
coronation of King Otto the Great as emperor. Much of the western Netherlands was barely inhabited between the end of the
Roman period and around 1100. The crusades were popular in the Low Countries and drew many to fight in the Holy Land. At
home, there was relative peace in Europe. Viking pillaging had stopped. Both the Crusades and the relative peace at home
contributed to trade and the growth in commerce. Friesland in the north continued to maintain its independence during this time.
They later lost their independence when they were defeated in 1498 by the German Landsknecht mercenaries of Duke Albrecht of
Saxony-Meissen. Most of what is now the Netherlands and Belgium was eventually united by the Duke of Burgundy in 1433. After
a few years of conflict, the countess of Holland was deposed in favour of the Burgundian dukes. Holland's trade developed rapidly,
especially in the area of shipping and transport. The new rulers defended Dutch trading interests. The fleets of Holland defeated the
fleets of the Hanseatic League several times. Amsterdam grew and in the 15th century became the primary trading port in Europe
for grain from the Baltic region. Through inheritance and conquest, all of the Low Countries became possessions of the Habsburg
dynasty under Charles V in the 16th century, who united them into one state. The east of the Netherlands was occupied only a few
decades before the Dutch struggle for independence. However, in 1548, eight years before his abdication from the throne, Emperor
Charles V granted the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands status as an entity separate from both the Empire and from France
with the Transaction of Augsburg. It was not full independence, but it allowed significant autonomy. The Dutch fought for
independence from Spain, leading to the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648). Seven rebellious provinces united in the Union of Utrecht
in 1579 and formed the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (also known as the "United Provinces"). The Oath of Abjuration
or Plakkaat van Verlatinghe was signed on July 26, 1581, and was the formal declaration of independence of the northern Low
Countries from the Spanish king. William of Orange (Slot Dillenburg, 24 April 1533 — Delft, 10 juli 1584), the founder of the
Dutch royal family, led the Dutch during the first part of the war. The very first years were a success for the Spanish troops.
However, subsequent sieges in Holland were countered by the Dutch. The Peace of Westphalia, signed on January 30, 1648,
confirmed the independence of the United Provinces from Spain and Germany. Part of the wealth of the Dutch came through
slavery. In 1619 Dutch started with the slave trade between Africa and America, by 1650 becoming the pre-eminent slave trading
country in Europe, a position overtaken by Britain around 1700. After having gained its independence in 1648, the Netherlands
tried in various coalitions to help to contain France, which had replaced Spain as the strongest nation of Europe. The end of the
Spanish War of Succession (1713) marked the end of the Dutch Republic as a major player. In the 18th century, it just tried to
maintain its independence and stuck to a policy of neutrality. French invasions in 1672, 1701 and 1748 led to an overthrow of
government. In 1848 unrest broke out all over Europe. Although there were no major events in the Netherlands, these foreign
developments persuaded king William II to agree to liberal and democratic reform. That same year the liberal Johan Rudolf
Thorbecke was asked by the king to rewrite the constitution, turning the Netherlands into a constitutional monarchy. Although its
army mobilised when World War I broke out in August 1914, the Netherlands remained a neutral country. The worldwide Great
Depression of 1929 and the early 1930s had crippling effects on the Dutch economy, which lasted longer than they did in most
European countries. At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the Netherlands declared their neutrality again. However, on May
10, 1940, Nazi Germany launched an attack on the Netherlands and Belgium and overran most of the country quickly, fighting
against a poorly-equipped Dutch army. On May 5, 1945, a beaten Nazi Germany finally capitulated, signing the surrender to the
Dutch at Wageningen. Two days after the surrender of Japan, most of the Dutch East Indies declared its independence as
Indonesia. Surinam was decolonised in November 1975. The 60s and 70s were a time of great social and cultural change, such as
rapid ontzuiling (literally: depillarisation), a term that describes the decay of the old divisions along class and religious lines. Youths,
and students in particular, rejected traditional mores, and pushed for change in matters like women's rights, sexuality, disarmament
and environmental issues. Today, the Netherlands is regarded as a liberal country, considering its drugs policy and its legalisation of
euthanasia. Same-sex marriage has been permitted since 1 April 2001. In recent years the Dutch have often been a driving force
behind the integration of European countries in the European Union.
Source: Wikipedia: History of The Netherlands
| ECONOMIC OVERVIEW |
The Netherlands economy is noted for stable industrial relations, moderate unemployment and inflation, a sizable current account
surplus, and an important role as a European transportation hub. Industrial activity is predominantly in food processing, chemicals,
petroleum refining, and electrical machinery. A highly mechanized agricultural sector employs only 2% of the labor force but
provides large surpluses for the food-processing industry and for exports. The Netherlands, along with 11 of its EU partners, began
circulating the euro currency on 1 January 2002. The country has been one of the leading European nations for attracting foreign
direct investment and is one of the four largest investors in the US. After 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the
Netherlands' economy - which is highly open and dependent on foreign trade and financial services - was hard-hit by global
economic crisis. Dutch GDP contracted 3.9% in 2009, while exports declined nearly 25% due to a sharp contraction in world
demand. The Dutch financial sector has also suffered, due in part to the high exposure of some Dutch banks to U.S.
mortgage-backed securities. In response to turmoil in financial markets, the government nationalized two banks and injected billions
of dollars into a third, to prevent further systemic risk. The government also sought to boost the domestic economy by accelerating
infrastructure programs, offering corporate tax breaks for employers to retain workers, and expanding export credit facilities. The
stimulus programs and bank bailouts, however, have resulted in a government budget deficit of nearly 4.6% of GDP in 2009 that
contrasts sharply with a surplus of 0.7% of GDP in 2008. With unemployment rising, the government of is likely to come under
increased pressure to keep the budget deficit in check while promoting economic recovery.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Netherlands, The)
surplus, and an important role as a European transportation hub. Industrial activity is predominantly in food processing, chemicals,
petroleum refining, and electrical machinery. A highly mechanized agricultural sector employs only 2% of the labor force but
provides large surpluses for the food-processing industry and for exports. The Netherlands, along with 11 of its EU partners, began
circulating the euro currency on 1 January 2002. The country has been one of the leading European nations for attracting foreign
direct investment and is one of the four largest investors in the US. After 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the
Netherlands' economy - which is highly open and dependent on foreign trade and financial services - was hard-hit by global
economic crisis. Dutch GDP contracted 3.9% in 2009, while exports declined nearly 25% due to a sharp contraction in world
demand. The Dutch financial sector has also suffered, due in part to the high exposure of some Dutch banks to U.S.
mortgage-backed securities. In response to turmoil in financial markets, the government nationalized two banks and injected billions
of dollars into a third, to prevent further systemic risk. The government also sought to boost the domestic economy by accelerating
infrastructure programs, offering corporate tax breaks for employers to retain workers, and expanding export credit facilities. The
stimulus programs and bank bailouts, however, have resulted in a government budget deficit of nearly 4.6% of GDP in 2009 that
contrasts sharply with a surplus of 0.7% of GDP in 2008. With unemployment rising, the government of is likely to come under
increased pressure to keep the budget deficit in check while promoting economic recovery.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Netherlands, The)
| POLITICAL CLIMATE |
The Purple coalition parties together lost their majority in the 2002 elections due to the rise of List Pim Fortuyn, the new political
party led by the flamboyant populist Pim Fortuyn. He campaigned on an anti-immigration programme and spoke of the "Purple
Chaos" (Dutch: "Puinhopen van Paars"). Fortuyn was shot dead a week before the elections took place. In the elections the LPF
entered parliament with one sixth of the seats, while the PvdA (Labour) lost half its seats. A cabinet was formed by CDA, VVD
and LPF, led by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. It proved short-lived: after only 87 days in power, the coalition fell apart as
a result of consecutive conflicts within the LPF and between LPF ministers.
In the ensuing elections in January of 2003, the LPF dropped to only five percent of the seats in the Second Chamber. The left-wing
Socialist Party (Socialistische Partij; SP) led by Jan Marijnissen became the fourth party of the Netherlands. The centre-right
Balkenende II cabinet was formed by the Christian-democratic CDA, the conservative-liberal VVD and the progressive-liberal
D66. Against popular sentiment, the right-wing coalition initiated an ambitious programme of welfare state reforms, health care
privatisation and stricter immigration policies. On June 1, 2005, the Dutch electorate voted in a referendum against the proposed
European Constitution by a majority of 62%, three days after the French had also rejected the treaty.
The 2010 Dutch general election was held on Wednesday, 9 June 2010. After the fall of the cabinet Balkenende IV on 20
February, Queen Beatrix accepted the resignation of the Labour Party ministers on 23 February.[1] Members of the Christian
Democratic Appeal and Christian Union replaced the ministers who had resigned, and have continued as a demissionary cabinet
with limited powers until the elections. The 150 seats of the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) were
contested, and were filled using party-list proportional representation for a nominal four-year term. The election allowed a coalition
cabinet of liberals VVD and Christian Democrats CDA with parliamentary support from the anti-islamic PVV to be formed with
Mark Rutte as new Prime Minister.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of The Netherlands
party led by the flamboyant populist Pim Fortuyn. He campaigned on an anti-immigration programme and spoke of the "Purple
Chaos" (Dutch: "Puinhopen van Paars"). Fortuyn was shot dead a week before the elections took place. In the elections the LPF
entered parliament with one sixth of the seats, while the PvdA (Labour) lost half its seats. A cabinet was formed by CDA, VVD
and LPF, led by Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende. It proved short-lived: after only 87 days in power, the coalition fell apart as
a result of consecutive conflicts within the LPF and between LPF ministers.
In the ensuing elections in January of 2003, the LPF dropped to only five percent of the seats in the Second Chamber. The left-wing
Socialist Party (Socialistische Partij; SP) led by Jan Marijnissen became the fourth party of the Netherlands. The centre-right
Balkenende II cabinet was formed by the Christian-democratic CDA, the conservative-liberal VVD and the progressive-liberal
D66. Against popular sentiment, the right-wing coalition initiated an ambitious programme of welfare state reforms, health care
privatisation and stricter immigration policies. On June 1, 2005, the Dutch electorate voted in a referendum against the proposed
European Constitution by a majority of 62%, three days after the French had also rejected the treaty.
The 2010 Dutch general election was held on Wednesday, 9 June 2010. After the fall of the cabinet Balkenende IV on 20
February, Queen Beatrix accepted the resignation of the Labour Party ministers on 23 February.[1] Members of the Christian
Democratic Appeal and Christian Union replaced the ministers who had resigned, and have continued as a demissionary cabinet
with limited powers until the elections. The 150 seats of the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) were
contested, and were filled using party-list proportional representation for a nominal four-year term. The election allowed a coalition
cabinet of liberals VVD and Christian Democrats CDA with parliamentary support from the anti-islamic PVV to be formed with
Mark Rutte as new Prime Minister.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of The Netherlands
| INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES |
None reported.
| REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPS) |
None reported.
| ILLICIT DRUGS |
Major European producer of synthetic drugs, including ecstasy, and cannabis cultivator; important gateway for cocaine, heroin,
and hashish entering Europe; major source of US-bound ecstasy; large financial sector vulnerable to money laundering; significant
consumer of ecstasy
and hashish entering Europe; major source of US-bound ecstasy; large financial sector vulnerable to money laundering; significant
consumer of ecstasy
| HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENTS, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUES |
2009 Human Rights Report: Netherlands
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes the Netherlands (population approximately 16.5 million), the Netherlands Antilles (230,000),
and Aruba (103,000). The Netherlands (the term used to designate the European part of the Kingdom) is a constitutional monarchy with
a bicameral parliamentary legislative system. The country's 12 provincial councils elect a First Chamber; citizens directly elect a Second
Chamber. The most recent general elections, held in 2006, were considered free and fair. A prime minister and a cabinet representing the
governing political parties (traditionally a coalition of at least two major parties) exercise executive authority. Civilian authorities generally
maintained effective control over the security forces.
The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are largely autonomous, except for foreign policy and defense, which are "Kingdom matters." They
have unicameral parliamentary systems. The Netherlands Antilles held free and fair parliamentary elections in 2006, and Aruba did so on
September 25, 2009. The Kingdom (the term commonly used to designate the governance of all of the territories) is required, according
to its charter, to safeguard fundamental human rights and freedoms, good governance, legal certainty, and the soundness of
administration in all of the territories.
In the Netherlands,
In Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
The Kingdom of the Netherlands includes the Netherlands (population approximately 16.5 million), the Netherlands Antilles (230,000),
and Aruba (103,000). The Netherlands (the term used to designate the European part of the Kingdom) is a constitutional monarchy with
a bicameral parliamentary legislative system. The country's 12 provincial councils elect a First Chamber; citizens directly elect a Second
Chamber. The most recent general elections, held in 2006, were considered free and fair. A prime minister and a cabinet representing the
governing political parties (traditionally a coalition of at least two major parties) exercise executive authority. Civilian authorities generally
maintained effective control over the security forces.
The Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are largely autonomous, except for foreign policy and defense, which are "Kingdom matters." They
have unicameral parliamentary systems. The Netherlands Antilles held free and fair parliamentary elections in 2006, and Aruba did so on
September 25, 2009. The Kingdom (the term commonly used to designate the governance of all of the territories) is required, according
to its charter, to safeguard fundamental human rights and freedoms, good governance, legal certainty, and the soundness of
administration in all of the territories.
In the Netherlands,
- conflict between the values of free speech and the protection of religious and ethnic minorities was a continuing subject of debate;
- there were reports of societal discrimination and violence against some religious and ethnic minorities,
- of violence against women and children,
- and of trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation.
In Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles,
- prison conditions remained substandard in some respects and lengthy pretrial detention was a problem, although authorities took a
number of measures to reduce it. - Trafficking was a problem in the Netherlands Antilles.
5 February 2010
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Forty-fifth session
18 January-5 February 2010
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
The Netherlands
Introduction
2. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the State party for its fifth periodic report. The Committee notes with appreciation the
submission of a separate report by Aruba and of two separate reports by the Netherlands Antilles, which include the additional report it
had requested in its previous concluding observations (CEDAW/C/NLD/CO/4, para. 46) of 2007. The Committee also expresses its
appreciation for the written replies to the list of issues and questions adopted by the pre-session working group. The Committee further
expresses its appreciation for the oral presentation and the clarifications given in response to the questions posed orally by the Committee
but regrets that no answers were provided to some of the questions and that questions raised were not always answered in a clear and
precise manner.
Positive aspects
4. The Committee congratulates the Netherlands for the inclusion of financing women’s rights organizations in its international assistance
programme and for mainstreaming gender equality and empowerment of women in all its development activities. The Committee
expresses hope that the Netherlands will continue this leading role in the promotion of women’s human rights and gender equality.
5. The Committee also welcomes the significant number of initiatives and measures aimed at combating domestic violence in all the
territories of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, including the adoption of the Temporary Domestic Exclusion Order Act in 2009 and the
creation in 2002 of an inter-ministerial working group on domestic violence in the Netherlands Antilles
C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
8. While recalling the obligation of the State party to implement all the provisions of the Convention systematically and continuously, the
Committee views the concerns and recommendations identified in the present concluding observations as requiring the priority attention
of the State party. Consequently, the Committee calls upon the State party to focus on those areas in its implementation activities and to
report on action taken and results achieved in its next periodic report. It also calls upon the governments of the State party to submit the
present concluding observations to all relevant ministries and other government structures at all levels, including the parliament and the
judiciary, so as to ensure their effective implementation.
Click here to read more »
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Forty-fifth session
18 January-5 February 2010
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
The Netherlands
Introduction
2. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the State party for its fifth periodic report. The Committee notes with appreciation the
submission of a separate report by Aruba and of two separate reports by the Netherlands Antilles, which include the additional report it
had requested in its previous concluding observations (CEDAW/C/NLD/CO/4, para. 46) of 2007. The Committee also expresses its
appreciation for the written replies to the list of issues and questions adopted by the pre-session working group. The Committee further
expresses its appreciation for the oral presentation and the clarifications given in response to the questions posed orally by the Committee
but regrets that no answers were provided to some of the questions and that questions raised were not always answered in a clear and
precise manner.
Positive aspects
4. The Committee congratulates the Netherlands for the inclusion of financing women’s rights organizations in its international assistance
programme and for mainstreaming gender equality and empowerment of women in all its development activities. The Committee
expresses hope that the Netherlands will continue this leading role in the promotion of women’s human rights and gender equality.
5. The Committee also welcomes the significant number of initiatives and measures aimed at combating domestic violence in all the
territories of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, including the adoption of the Temporary Domestic Exclusion Order Act in 2009 and the
creation in 2002 of an inter-ministerial working group on domestic violence in the Netherlands Antilles
C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations
8. While recalling the obligation of the State party to implement all the provisions of the Convention systematically and continuously, the
Committee views the concerns and recommendations identified in the present concluding observations as requiring the priority attention
of the State party. Consequently, the Committee calls upon the State party to focus on those areas in its implementation activities and to
report on action taken and results achieved in its next periodic report. It also calls upon the governments of the State party to submit the
present concluding observations to all relevant ministries and other government structures at all levels, including the parliament and the
judiciary, so as to ensure their effective implementation.
Click here to read more »
Freedom In The World 2010 Report
Political Rights Score: 1
Civil Liberties Score: 1
Status: Free
Overview
Minority integration and freedom of speech remained top political concerns in the Netherlands throughout 2009. Geert Wilders, the
leader of the anti-immigrant Party for Freedom (PVV), was charged with inciting hatred and discrimination in January for his comments
about Muslims in recent years. The PVV won 17 percent of the Dutch vote in the June European Parliament elections, and polled well
throughout the year. However, Rotterdam elected the Netherlands’ first immigrant mayor that same month.
The right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, has continued to make immigration a dominant political issue. In the
2006 elections, the PVV gained nearly 15 percent of the vote, and 17 percent in the June 2009 European Parliament elections. The PVV
states that its platform is not racist, but the party advocates ending immigration to the Netherlands from non-Western countries and
takes an aggressive assimilationist attitude toward existing immigrants. Former integration minister Verdonk’s party, Proud of the
Netherlands (TON), also takes a hard line on immigration but has not garnered the same level of support as the PVV. Wilders was
refused entry to the United Kingdom in February 2009,though the ban was subsequently overturned by the United Kingdom’s Asylum
and Immigration Tribunal in October.
In January 2009,Aboutaleb was inaugurated as mayor of Rotterdam, becoming the first mayor of a major Dutch city from a Muslim or
immigrant background. However, controversy erupted in August over Aboutaleb’s firing of Tariq Ramadan, his integration advisor, after
it was discovered that Ramadan had been hosting a chat show on state-financed Iranian television. The Rotterdam government argued
that Ramadan’s action implied Dutch approval of Iran’s regime. Meanwhile, Ramadan had been previously cleared in April of making
homophobic remarks.
The Netherlands is an electoral democracy. The 150-member lower house of parliament, or Second Chamber, is elected every four years
by proportional representation. The 75-member upper house, or First Chamber, is elected for four-year terms by the country’s
provincial councils. Foreigners resident in the country for five years or more are eligible to vote in local elections. The Netherlands
extended voting rights to Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles for the first time in the June 2009 European Parliament elections.
The leader of the majority party or coalition is usually appointed prime minister by the monarch, currently Queen Beatrix. Mayors are
appointed from a list of candidates submitted by the municipal councils. The monarch appoints the Council of Ministers (cabinet) and the
governor of each province on the recommendation of the majority in parliament.
Click here to read more »
Political Rights Score: 1
Civil Liberties Score: 1
Status: Free
Overview
Minority integration and freedom of speech remained top political concerns in the Netherlands throughout 2009. Geert Wilders, the
leader of the anti-immigrant Party for Freedom (PVV), was charged with inciting hatred and discrimination in January for his comments
about Muslims in recent years. The PVV won 17 percent of the Dutch vote in the June European Parliament elections, and polled well
throughout the year. However, Rotterdam elected the Netherlands’ first immigrant mayor that same month.
The right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, has continued to make immigration a dominant political issue. In the
2006 elections, the PVV gained nearly 15 percent of the vote, and 17 percent in the June 2009 European Parliament elections. The PVV
states that its platform is not racist, but the party advocates ending immigration to the Netherlands from non-Western countries and
takes an aggressive assimilationist attitude toward existing immigrants. Former integration minister Verdonk’s party, Proud of the
Netherlands (TON), also takes a hard line on immigration but has not garnered the same level of support as the PVV. Wilders was
refused entry to the United Kingdom in February 2009,though the ban was subsequently overturned by the United Kingdom’s Asylum
and Immigration Tribunal in October.
In January 2009,Aboutaleb was inaugurated as mayor of Rotterdam, becoming the first mayor of a major Dutch city from a Muslim or
immigrant background. However, controversy erupted in August over Aboutaleb’s firing of Tariq Ramadan, his integration advisor, after
it was discovered that Ramadan had been hosting a chat show on state-financed Iranian television. The Rotterdam government argued
that Ramadan’s action implied Dutch approval of Iran’s regime. Meanwhile, Ramadan had been previously cleared in April of making
homophobic remarks.
The Netherlands is an electoral democracy. The 150-member lower house of parliament, or Second Chamber, is elected every four years
by proportional representation. The 75-member upper house, or First Chamber, is elected for four-year terms by the country’s
provincial councils. Foreigners resident in the country for five years or more are eligible to vote in local elections. The Netherlands
extended voting rights to Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles for the first time in the June 2009 European Parliament elections.
The leader of the majority party or coalition is usually appointed prime minister by the monarch, currently Queen Beatrix. Mayors are
appointed from a list of candidates submitted by the municipal councils. The monarch appoints the Council of Ministers (cabinet) and the
governor of each province on the recommendation of the majority in parliament.
Click here to read more »
4 November 2010
URGENT ACTION
FORCED RETURNS to IRAQ DEFERRED
Authorities in the Netherlands have deferred the forcible return of a number of Iraqis on a flight scheduled to leave for Baghdad, Iraq, on
3 November, following a strongly worded letter sent to the Dutch authorities by the European Court of Human Rights.
The temporary deferral follows an interim decision by the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) on 22 October 2010 preventing
the Dutch authorities from returning to Baghdad any Iraqi who challenges his or her return. The Court wrote to the Dutch government
on 22 October stating that its decision had been taken “in view of the increasing number of Rule 39 requests [i.e. for interim measures]
made by applicants seeking to prevent their return to Baghdad on single or joint charter flights from European countries and the reported
recent deterioration in the security situation in Baghdad and other governorates” and that the court had taken note of the UN Refugee
Agency (UNHCR’s) continuing concern about the safety of returning Iraqis to Baghdad and other provinces of Iraq. The Court
requested that the Dutch authorities stop forcibly removing any Iraqis until it has handed down judgment, which is expected later this
year. The Court stated that it would consider it appropriate to apply such measures to “any Iraqi challenging his or her return from the
Netherlands to Baghdad”.
On 3 November, the Court wrote a sternly worded letter to the Dutch authorities, reminding them of the Court’s earlier letter, and giving
an “exceptional indication” that the President of the Court considers that “no expulsions of rejected asylum-seekers should take place to
Baghdad until 24 November 2010”. The Court wrote this additional letter after it received reports that between 15 and 30 Iraqis facing
forced return were unable to access their lawyers or the Court in order to seek interim measures preventing their removal.
On 2 November, following an emergency debate, the Dutch Parliament voted, by a narrow margin, not to defer forced removals of
Iraqis until the European Court of Human Rights hands down judgment. However, the Dutch Minister for Immigration and Asylum
Policy has now confirmed that the Netherlands will comply with the Court’s request. The Dutch Parliament is holding another
emergency parliamentary debate on this issue of forced returns to Iraq on the evening of 4 November.
Amnesty International has called on European states to desist from any forcible returns to Iraq, particularly to the provinces of Ninewa
(Mosul), Kirkuk, Diyala, Salah al-Din and Baghdad, as well as to other particularly dangerous areas such as parts of al-Anbar province.
Iraqis from these areas should be granted asylum or alternative forms of protection. The ongoing indiscriminate threats to life, physical
integrity or freedom arising from violence or events seriously disturbing public order in the above-mentioned areas of Iraq are all valid
grounds for international protection. In the case of asylum-seekers whose removal is envisaged to other provinces of Iraq, an individual
assessment should be made to assess whether they qualify for refugee status or alternative forms of protection. Any such assessment
for protection should also consider the viability and safety of people’s onward route and method of travel from Baghdad to eventual
destination envisaged as the place of residence in Iraq, and protection should be granted when people would face a real risk of
persecution or serious harm en route.
Click here to read more »
URGENT ACTION
FORCED RETURNS to IRAQ DEFERRED
Authorities in the Netherlands have deferred the forcible return of a number of Iraqis on a flight scheduled to leave for Baghdad, Iraq, on
3 November, following a strongly worded letter sent to the Dutch authorities by the European Court of Human Rights.
The temporary deferral follows an interim decision by the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) on 22 October 2010 preventing
the Dutch authorities from returning to Baghdad any Iraqi who challenges his or her return. The Court wrote to the Dutch government
on 22 October stating that its decision had been taken “in view of the increasing number of Rule 39 requests [i.e. for interim measures]
made by applicants seeking to prevent their return to Baghdad on single or joint charter flights from European countries and the reported
recent deterioration in the security situation in Baghdad and other governorates” and that the court had taken note of the UN Refugee
Agency (UNHCR’s) continuing concern about the safety of returning Iraqis to Baghdad and other provinces of Iraq. The Court
requested that the Dutch authorities stop forcibly removing any Iraqis until it has handed down judgment, which is expected later this
year. The Court stated that it would consider it appropriate to apply such measures to “any Iraqi challenging his or her return from the
Netherlands to Baghdad”.
On 3 November, the Court wrote a sternly worded letter to the Dutch authorities, reminding them of the Court’s earlier letter, and giving
an “exceptional indication” that the President of the Court considers that “no expulsions of rejected asylum-seekers should take place to
Baghdad until 24 November 2010”. The Court wrote this additional letter after it received reports that between 15 and 30 Iraqis facing
forced return were unable to access their lawyers or the Court in order to seek interim measures preventing their removal.
On 2 November, following an emergency debate, the Dutch Parliament voted, by a narrow margin, not to defer forced removals of
Iraqis until the European Court of Human Rights hands down judgment. However, the Dutch Minister for Immigration and Asylum
Policy has now confirmed that the Netherlands will comply with the Court’s request. The Dutch Parliament is holding another
emergency parliamentary debate on this issue of forced returns to Iraq on the evening of 4 November.
Amnesty International has called on European states to desist from any forcible returns to Iraq, particularly to the provinces of Ninewa
(Mosul), Kirkuk, Diyala, Salah al-Din and Baghdad, as well as to other particularly dangerous areas such as parts of al-Anbar province.
Iraqis from these areas should be granted asylum or alternative forms of protection. The ongoing indiscriminate threats to life, physical
integrity or freedom arising from violence or events seriously disturbing public order in the above-mentioned areas of Iraq are all valid
grounds for international protection. In the case of asylum-seekers whose removal is envisaged to other provinces of Iraq, an individual
assessment should be made to assess whether they qualify for refugee status or alternative forms of protection. Any such assessment
for protection should also consider the viability and safety of people’s onward route and method of travel from Baghdad to eventual
destination envisaged as the place of residence in Iraq, and protection should be granted when people would face a real risk of
persecution or serious harm en route.
Click here to read more »
Netherlands: Human Rights Watch to Open Amsterdam Office
Next Government Should Make Human Rights a Domestic and Foreign Policy Priority
September 12, 2010
(Amsterdam) - Human Rights Watch will open a new office in Amsterdam on September 14, 2010, in a move to intensify its advocacy
on key human rights issues both in the Netherlands and around the world, Human Rights Watch said today.
"The Netherlands' voice and influence are needed in trouble spots around the world," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human
Rights Watch. "The Dutch government is an important international player in defending global human rights, but its reach still falls short
of its potential."
In a letter on September 10 to Herman Tjeenk Willink, who is organizing and overseeing the talks to form a new Dutch government,
Human Rights Watch called on the next government to give the highest possible priority to human rights in its international relations
while leading by example and addressing flaws in its own asylum system and integration policy.
In the letter, Human Rights Watch said that the European Union should create institutions to advance human rights worldwide. Human
Rights Watch cited the need to investigate crimes against humanity in Burma, to protect civilians in the Great Lakes region of Africa, and
to press the Indonesian government to release political prisoners.
Human Rights Watch called on the new government to halt deportations to countries such as Somalia, where returned migrants are at
risk of abuse. Human Rights Watch also said the Netherlands should eliminate the discriminatory "integration test abroad," which
requires family members seeking to join legal migrants from some non-Western countries to pass a test on Dutch language and society.
The Netherlands is the 15th country in which Human Rights Watch has a permanent office. It has staff in 21 more.
Human Rights Watch monitors and reports on international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law issues in some 90 countries
around the world. Recent investigations have documented ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, abuses against Asian and African
migrant domestic workers in Lebanon, repression in Tibet, violations of workers' rights in the United States by European multinational
corporations, and the use of degrading "finger" tests on rape survivors in India. Human Rights Watch regularly meets with government
officials to urge changes in policy and practice, at the United Nations, the European Union, and in capitals around the world.
Click here to read more »
Next Government Should Make Human Rights a Domestic and Foreign Policy Priority
September 12, 2010
(Amsterdam) - Human Rights Watch will open a new office in Amsterdam on September 14, 2010, in a move to intensify its advocacy
on key human rights issues both in the Netherlands and around the world, Human Rights Watch said today.
"The Netherlands' voice and influence are needed in trouble spots around the world," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human
Rights Watch. "The Dutch government is an important international player in defending global human rights, but its reach still falls short
of its potential."
In a letter on September 10 to Herman Tjeenk Willink, who is organizing and overseeing the talks to form a new Dutch government,
Human Rights Watch called on the next government to give the highest possible priority to human rights in its international relations
while leading by example and addressing flaws in its own asylum system and integration policy.
In the letter, Human Rights Watch said that the European Union should create institutions to advance human rights worldwide. Human
Rights Watch cited the need to investigate crimes against humanity in Burma, to protect civilians in the Great Lakes region of Africa, and
to press the Indonesian government to release political prisoners.
Human Rights Watch called on the new government to halt deportations to countries such as Somalia, where returned migrants are at
risk of abuse. Human Rights Watch also said the Netherlands should eliminate the discriminatory "integration test abroad," which
requires family members seeking to join legal migrants from some non-Western countries to pass a test on Dutch language and society.
The Netherlands is the 15th country in which Human Rights Watch has a permanent office. It has staff in 21 more.
Human Rights Watch monitors and reports on international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law issues in some 90 countries
around the world. Recent investigations have documented ethnic violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, abuses against Asian and African
migrant domestic workers in Lebanon, repression in Tibet, violations of workers' rights in the United States by European multinational
corporations, and the use of degrading "finger" tests on rape survivors in India. Human Rights Watch regularly meets with government
officials to urge changes in policy and practice, at the United Nations, the European Union, and in capitals around the world.
Click here to read more »
STATEMENT BY
H.E. Dr. Jan Peter Balkenende- Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
NEW YORK, 25 September 2010
Ladies and gentlemen,
And so, Mr President, I come to the first of the three core tasks I mentioned at the start of my speech: human rights. This, without
question, is an area in which the UN has achieved great success in setting standards, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as
the unshakeable basis. Unfortunately, though, it still falls short in enforcing those standards. We still hear reports every day of torture,
unfair trials, curbs on freedom of expression, and other human rights violations. The Dutch government considers it unacceptable that
people, often women, are still being stoned to death in 2010. We must continue to resist this practice with every ounce of our being.
The Dutch government urges that the capacity of the human rights machinery, and particularly the Human Rights Council, be
strengthened. To start with, a clear division of tasks between the Human Rights Council and the Third Committee of this General
Assembly is needed. Overlap and lack of clarity make it too easy for some regimes to distract attention from human rights violations.
The Netherlands will press for clarity.
Of course, human rights are closely related to the international legal order, the second area I want to touch on. As you know, this is a
subject very close to the Netherlands’ heart. The city of The Hague is not only the centre of Dutch democracy, it is also the ‘legal capital
of the world’. And we are proud of that. But more important, of course, is the fact that the international institutions based in The Hague
are sending a clear message with the work they undertake. The international community will not allow human rights violations and
crimes against humanity to go unpunished. That applies to the various ad hoc tribunals, such as the Yugoslavia Tribunal. It also applies
to the International Court of Justice. And of course, the International Criminal Court.
Over the last 20 years international criminal law has developed at an impressive rate. Today, those who commit the most terrible crimes,
wherever in the world they may be, know that their chances of being called to account are growing by the day. Now we must act
boldly. We must strengthen these institutions’ visibility, credibility and authority. We can do that by improving international cooperation
on investigations and prosecutions. By increasing compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. And by pushing for as many
countries as possible to sign the Rome Statute and to conduct themselves according to both its letter and its spirit. With that in mind, I
say that it is unacceptable to the Dutch government that someone like President Bashir of Sudan, against whom an arrest warrant is
outstanding, should be allowed to move freely in a country that is an ICC partner.
Click here to read more »
H.E. Dr. Jan Peter Balkenende- Prime Minister of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
NEW YORK, 25 September 2010
Ladies and gentlemen,
And so, Mr President, I come to the first of the three core tasks I mentioned at the start of my speech: human rights. This, without
question, is an area in which the UN has achieved great success in setting standards, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as
the unshakeable basis. Unfortunately, though, it still falls short in enforcing those standards. We still hear reports every day of torture,
unfair trials, curbs on freedom of expression, and other human rights violations. The Dutch government considers it unacceptable that
people, often women, are still being stoned to death in 2010. We must continue to resist this practice with every ounce of our being.
The Dutch government urges that the capacity of the human rights machinery, and particularly the Human Rights Council, be
strengthened. To start with, a clear division of tasks between the Human Rights Council and the Third Committee of this General
Assembly is needed. Overlap and lack of clarity make it too easy for some regimes to distract attention from human rights violations.
The Netherlands will press for clarity.
Of course, human rights are closely related to the international legal order, the second area I want to touch on. As you know, this is a
subject very close to the Netherlands’ heart. The city of The Hague is not only the centre of Dutch democracy, it is also the ‘legal capital
of the world’. And we are proud of that. But more important, of course, is the fact that the international institutions based in The Hague
are sending a clear message with the work they undertake. The international community will not allow human rights violations and
crimes against humanity to go unpunished. That applies to the various ad hoc tribunals, such as the Yugoslavia Tribunal. It also applies
to the International Court of Justice. And of course, the International Criminal Court.
Over the last 20 years international criminal law has developed at an impressive rate. Today, those who commit the most terrible crimes,
wherever in the world they may be, know that their chances of being called to account are growing by the day. Now we must act
boldly. We must strengthen these institutions’ visibility, credibility and authority. We can do that by improving international cooperation
on investigations and prosecutions. By increasing compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. And by pushing for as many
countries as possible to sign the Rome Statute and to conduct themselves according to both its letter and its spirit. With that in mind, I
say that it is unacceptable to the Dutch government that someone like President Bashir of Sudan, against whom an arrest warrant is
outstanding, should be allowed to move freely in a country that is an ICC partner.
Click here to read more »
Beyond conflict
2009 Annual Report of the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands
17 March 2010
The National Ombudsman is concerned about unnecessary escalation in disputes between government and citizen. Research has shown
that polarisation and escalation cause more harm than good. The most important factor is the standard of proper conduct. Good
governance requires administrative authorities to do everything in their power to defuse conflicts with citizens, companies and
institutions.
On the face of it, the Netherlands is doing well. Crime rates (including those for juvenile crime) are falling, the economy is far from a
disaster zone, and progress with integration of immigrants has exceeded expectations. Nevertheless, the mood is less than upbeat,
particularly in relations between government and citizen. Many citizens are worried about how we behave towards each other, and this is
in fact the most important social issue for them.
In general, government wants to do its best for its citizens, and the vast majority of them are willing to accept government measures
even if the effect on them personally is negative. But there is a paradox here. There is a lot of political and public debate about negative
behaviour by members of the public - but also by politicians and administrators. The main culprits are those who use insulting and
abusive language. Politicians taunt each other in Parliament and citizens abuse the police.
Freedom of speech is inflated to become the right to offend and the police are angered by abuse from members of the public. Could
there be a connection between the two? Government (including politicians) should set a consistently good example, since the behaviour
of public figures has proved to be a powerful influence on the rest of society. This will be more effective than the impulsive imposition
of half-baked repressive measures directed against citizens. Heavier penalties often seem to be an easy solution, but the effectiveness of
blanket repression has not been proven. Rather, such unnecessary confrontation risks polarising relations even further, so that they
become increasingly characterised by mistrust rather than trust.
At the same time, it is clear that in many fields government is trying hard to establish good relations with citizens. Adopting a helpful
approach to the public - sometimes naively confused with being ‘customer friendly’ - is a matter of major concern to most
administrative authorities. Treating citizens properly brings rewards for government. It not only leads to better relations, but also
increases citizens’ willingness to accept government measures and to see the authority of government as legitimate. Friendly interaction
with members of the public can contribute to better decision-making.
A major source of escalation between citizen and government is the latter’s failure to observe the rules of proper conduct, provoking
complaints and objections from citizens. Experience shows that, besides observing the relevant procedures laid down under the General
Administrative Law Act, government needs to focus attention on good communication with the public. If problems arise (complaints,
objections and other procedures), effective communication - an initial phone call, provision of information, if necessary a personal
meeting or mediation efforts - can obviate the need for further action in 40 to 60% of cases. A proactive approach on the part of
government can avoid
Click here to read more »
2009 Annual Report of the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands
17 March 2010
The National Ombudsman is concerned about unnecessary escalation in disputes between government and citizen. Research has shown
that polarisation and escalation cause more harm than good. The most important factor is the standard of proper conduct. Good
governance requires administrative authorities to do everything in their power to defuse conflicts with citizens, companies and
institutions.
On the face of it, the Netherlands is doing well. Crime rates (including those for juvenile crime) are falling, the economy is far from a
disaster zone, and progress with integration of immigrants has exceeded expectations. Nevertheless, the mood is less than upbeat,
particularly in relations between government and citizen. Many citizens are worried about how we behave towards each other, and this is
in fact the most important social issue for them.
In general, government wants to do its best for its citizens, and the vast majority of them are willing to accept government measures
even if the effect on them personally is negative. But there is a paradox here. There is a lot of political and public debate about negative
behaviour by members of the public - but also by politicians and administrators. The main culprits are those who use insulting and
abusive language. Politicians taunt each other in Parliament and citizens abuse the police.
Freedom of speech is inflated to become the right to offend and the police are angered by abuse from members of the public. Could
there be a connection between the two? Government (including politicians) should set a consistently good example, since the behaviour
of public figures has proved to be a powerful influence on the rest of society. This will be more effective than the impulsive imposition
of half-baked repressive measures directed against citizens. Heavier penalties often seem to be an easy solution, but the effectiveness of
blanket repression has not been proven. Rather, such unnecessary confrontation risks polarising relations even further, so that they
become increasingly characterised by mistrust rather than trust.
At the same time, it is clear that in many fields government is trying hard to establish good relations with citizens. Adopting a helpful
approach to the public - sometimes naively confused with being ‘customer friendly’ - is a matter of major concern to most
administrative authorities. Treating citizens properly brings rewards for government. It not only leads to better relations, but also
increases citizens’ willingness to accept government measures and to see the authority of government as legitimate. Friendly interaction
with members of the public can contribute to better decision-making.
A major source of escalation between citizen and government is the latter’s failure to observe the rules of proper conduct, provoking
complaints and objections from citizens. Experience shows that, besides observing the relevant procedures laid down under the General
Administrative Law Act, government needs to focus attention on good communication with the public. If problems arise (complaints,
objections and other procedures), effective communication - an initial phone call, provision of information, if necessary a personal
meeting or mediation efforts - can obviate the need for further action in 40 to 60% of cases. A proactive approach on the part of
government can avoid
Click here to read more »
15.09.2010
Closure Aim for human rights
It is with deep regret that we announce that all Aim for human rights’ activities will cease on 31 December 2010. Lack of financial
resources have forced the Director and Board of Governors to take this far-reaching decision. After almost 30 years of existence the
organisation will close in the first of half 2011.
Financial problems
As a small non-profit organisation, Aim for human rights has been faced with major fundraising challenges. These are a result of a
decline in subsidies, the global financial crisis, and increasing competition and professionalisation in the field of International Cooperation.
A recent rejection of a major project proposal for 2011-2014 by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs unfortunately makes it impossible
for us to continue our activities in 2011.
Contribution to human rights
Originally founded as the Humanist Committee on Human Rights (HOM), Aim for human rights has been committed to promoting human
rights in the Netherlands and abroad since 1981. Through training and knowledge sharing with local organisations we contribute to the
struggle for equal rights for women, fair labour conditions, an end to enforced disappearances, and other areas of human rights
protection. At the start of this year, 22 employees coordinated projects in over 30 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe.
We are proud of Aim for human rights’ achievements in the past decades. A global campaign with relatives of disappeared persons
contributed to the creation of the UN Convention on Enforced Disappearances in 2006. This convention aims to combat illegal detention,
torture resulting from such detention, and political killings. Currently 19 states have ratified it and Aim for human rights is actively
supporting the lobby for signature and ratification by other states.
We coordinated shadow reports on women’s rights in the Netherlands, leading to critical recommendations from UN Committees to the
Dutch government. In cooperation with local partners we developed tools that organisations across the world use to lobby for improved
policies and legislation on health rights of women, domestic violence, and trafficking in human beings.
We also promote human rights compliance by businesses. In the Netherlands Aim for human rights supports companies to analyse and
improve their impact on human rights. We recently shared our knowledge on child labour and forced labour with project advisors from
the Ministry of Economic Affairs. We have furthermore strengthened the position of Tanzanian and South African civil society
organisations to discuss corporate social responsibility and human rights with companies.
Aim for human rights has become known as an expert in the field of human rights impact assessment. We have assisted hundreds of
organisations and companies to improve human rights compliance by using practical tools for effect measurement. Using these tools civil
society organisations can strengthen their lobby for better government policies on human rights. Companies can use self-assessment
tools to address their corporate responsibilities for human rights.
Click here to read more>>
Closure Aim for human rights
It is with deep regret that we announce that all Aim for human rights’ activities will cease on 31 December 2010. Lack of financial
resources have forced the Director and Board of Governors to take this far-reaching decision. After almost 30 years of existence the
organisation will close in the first of half 2011.
Financial problems
As a small non-profit organisation, Aim for human rights has been faced with major fundraising challenges. These are a result of a
decline in subsidies, the global financial crisis, and increasing competition and professionalisation in the field of International Cooperation.
A recent rejection of a major project proposal for 2011-2014 by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs unfortunately makes it impossible
for us to continue our activities in 2011.
Contribution to human rights
Originally founded as the Humanist Committee on Human Rights (HOM), Aim for human rights has been committed to promoting human
rights in the Netherlands and abroad since 1981. Through training and knowledge sharing with local organisations we contribute to the
struggle for equal rights for women, fair labour conditions, an end to enforced disappearances, and other areas of human rights
protection. At the start of this year, 22 employees coordinated projects in over 30 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe.
We are proud of Aim for human rights’ achievements in the past decades. A global campaign with relatives of disappeared persons
contributed to the creation of the UN Convention on Enforced Disappearances in 2006. This convention aims to combat illegal detention,
torture resulting from such detention, and political killings. Currently 19 states have ratified it and Aim for human rights is actively
supporting the lobby for signature and ratification by other states.
We coordinated shadow reports on women’s rights in the Netherlands, leading to critical recommendations from UN Committees to the
Dutch government. In cooperation with local partners we developed tools that organisations across the world use to lobby for improved
policies and legislation on health rights of women, domestic violence, and trafficking in human beings.
We also promote human rights compliance by businesses. In the Netherlands Aim for human rights supports companies to analyse and
improve their impact on human rights. We recently shared our knowledge on child labour and forced labour with project advisors from
the Ministry of Economic Affairs. We have furthermore strengthened the position of Tanzanian and South African civil society
organisations to discuss corporate social responsibility and human rights with companies.
Aim for human rights has become known as an expert in the field of human rights impact assessment. We have assisted hundreds of
organisations and companies to improve human rights compliance by using practical tools for effect measurement. Using these tools civil
society organisations can strengthen their lobby for better government policies on human rights. Companies can use self-assessment
tools to address their corporate responsibilities for human rights.
Click here to read more>>
| Click map for larger view |
| Click flag for Country Report |
Beatrix
Queen since 30 April 1980
Queen since 30 April 1980
Willem-Alexander
Prince and Heir Apparent
since 27 April 1967
Prince and Heir Apparent
since 27 April 1967
| TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS |
None reported.
Maxime Verhagen
Deputy Prime Minister since 14 October 2010
Deputy Prime Minister since 14 October 2010
