According to present doctrine, that of "treaty monism", treaties are in the Dutch legal system in principle self-executing; no special transformation is needed by implementing special law, as in countries with a "dualistic" system (such as the United Kingdom). However, when the present articles covering this subject were last revisioned, in 1953, doctrine was divided and some defended a more dualistic position, that of "limited monism". They demanded the constitution to be neutral on this issue and this has led to some infelicitous results. Government originally intended that Article 93, stating that treaties of a generally binding nature would only have such binding force after they had been published, to be simply a safeguard, protecting the citizen against duties imposed on him by such treaty. However, the "limited monists" held that only such published treaties are self-executing and that thus Article 93 is the basis for all treaty monism; to appease them government stated that the article should in any case be read as covering also the treaties conferring rights on the citizen and imposing duties upon government. The unintended result was that government might thus in principle withhold rights to the citizen by not publishing the treaty. Article 94 determines that legal prescripts are inapplicable if they conflict with treaties of a generally binding nature. This means that laws can be tested against treaty norms and obligations. Dutch courts have however been very reluctant to do so, limiting this to cases where government has been left no freedom of policy at all by the treaty, or to severe formal and procedural defects. The case law is very complex and contradictory, complicated by the fact that the phrase "generally binding nature" is assumed to have exactly the same meaning in both articles. Article 95 states that law regulates the publication of treaties or (binding) decisions of international organisations; delegation is allowed.