Finals

Public International Law, 2009
Fr. Joaquin Bernas | MANIEGO, A2012

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS (2009ED) 2-A 2012 (FR. JOAQUIN BE
RNAS)
CHAPTER ONE: THE NATURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
I. What is international law?
Traditional definition: The body of rules and princ
iples of action binding upon civilized states in their relation to one another. E
ntities governed: States (primarily), international organizations, individuals (
Third) Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Restatement):
Considered by U.S. Courts as the most authoritative work on international law. D
efinition: The law which deals with the conduct of states and of international or
ganizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their rel
ations with persons, whether natural or juridical.
Scope of international law: In
the age of technological advancement and globalization, public international la
w (PIL) is rapidly expandingnew subject matters, changing political and social pr
inciples and new states and entities being added to the community of nations. Be
yond the primary concern for the maintenance of peace, it extends to cover all t
he interests of international and even domestic life. Is it a law? The following
reasons illustrate the arguments why PIL is not law, and why it is commonly dis
regarded: There can be no law binding sovereign states. No international legisla
tive body. o United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolutions are generally not
binding on anybody. No international executive to enforce legislation. o UN Secu
rity Council intended to be an international executive; always prevented by veto
power o No assured procedure of identifying violation most of UN powers have ref
erence to lawbreaking taking the form of an act of aggression or as a threat to
peace, but there are many violations of PIL which are not of this nature. As a r
esult, all the UN can do is censure. No central authority to make judgments bind
ing on states o International Court of Justice (ICJ) can only bind states when t
hey consent to be bound National policy or interest is often preferred over inte
rnational law. o National officials often find justification for the things they
do. Above arguments are based on an exaggerated notion of sovereignty as embody
ing an individualist regime, but this is not the reality. Reality is social inte
rdependence and the predominance of the general interest. Henkin: Almost all nati
ons observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their o
bligations almost all of the time. Brierly: Law is binding because a reasonable m
an, whether as an individual or as part of a state, believes that order is prefe
rred over chaos, and that order is the governing principle of the world. Final a
nalysis: There is a general fundamental respect for law because of the possible
consequences of defiance, either to oneself or to the larger society. Internatio
nal law is law because it is seen as such by states and other subjects of intern
ational law.
Theories about international law: command theory, consensual theory, natural law
theory
Command Theory From John Austin; law consists of commands originating fr
om a sovereign and backed up by threats of sanction is disobeyed. In this view,
international law is not law because there is no command sovereign. This theory
has been generally discredited.
Consensual Theory International law is binding b
ecause of the consent of the states, like treaties and customary law. However, t
here are many binding rules which do not derive from consent.
Natural Law Theory
Law is derived by reason from the nature of man. International law is the appli
cation of natural reason to the nature of the state-person. The theory finds lit
tle support but much of customary law and what are regarded as general principle
s of international law are expressions of natural law.
Dissenters: No objective
basis for international law because it is a mere combination of politics, morali
ty and self-interest hidden under the smokescreen of legal language. Public vs.
Private International Law: Scope and Differences
Page 1 of 42

Public International Law International law Governs the relationships between and a
mong states, and also their relations with international organizations and indiv
idual persons Private International Law Conflicts of law Really considered domesti
c law which deals with cases where foreign law intrudes in the domestic sphere w
here there are questions of the applicability of foreign law or the role of fore
ign courts
Historical development of International Law

Ancient Law to post-World War I Anci
ent international law governed exchange of diplomatic emissaries, peace treaties
. The progressive rules of jus gentium or law common to all men became the law of
the Roman Empire. Modern international law began with the birth of nationstates
in the Medieval Age. It was governed by Roman or Canon Law, which drew heavily f
rom natural law. Hugh Grotius is the father of modern international law; authore
d the De Jure Belli ac Pacis, which discussed the law of nations (later named inter
national law by British philosopher Jeremy Bentham.) He was preceded by largely n
atural law theorists. Positivist approach reinterpreted international law on the
basis of what actually happened in the conflict between states and not from con
cepts derived from reason. Notion of sovereignty gave rise to the Austins command
theory. Pacta sunt servanda arose in light of the Peace of Westphalia which end
ed the Thirty Years War (16181648) and established a treaty-based framework for
peace cooperation. Congress of Vienna (1815) ended the Napoleonic Wars and creat
ed a sophisticated system of multilateral political and economic cooperation. Le
ague of Nations (from the Treaty of Versailles): Arose after the culmination of
World War I, as an institution set up by the victors of the war to prevent the r
ecurrence of world conflagration. It was originally composed of 43 states. The U
nited States did not join. The League of Nations created the Permanent Court of
International Justice. From the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War U
nited Nations (UN): Because the League of Nations failed to prevent the occurren
ce of World War II, the victors then set up the UN in 1945 as a new avenue for p
eace. This marked a shift of power away from Europe and the beginning of a truly
universal institution. Decolonization: The universalization began by the establ
ishment of the UN was advanced by
decolonization, resulting in an expansion of membership in the UN composing of f

ormerly colonies, now newly recognized states. Grouping of States during the Col
d WarWestern, socialist, developing countries o Western States (United States, et
c) were not of one mind but insisted on two general pointsthat legal provisions m
ust be clear and precise, and that any substantive rule must be accompanied by a
n implementation mechanism that can spot and correct violations. Some remained s
atisfied with the status quo but some were more open to Third World demands and
were supportive of social and legal changes o Socialist states were led by the S
oviet Union, which sought to avert Western intrusion into domestic affairs even
as they sought relatively good relations with the West for the sake of economic
and commercial interchange. They also sought to convert developing nations to th
eir ideology. o Developing countries formed the overwhelming majority and were m
ostly former colonies suffering underdevelopment with newly industrializing coun
tries like the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore and South Korea who ea
rned their independence through armed or political struggle while remaining unde
r the influence of Western or socialist ideas. Post-Cold War Period Dissolution
of the Soviet Union led to the reemergence of international relations being base
d on multiple sources of power and not on ideology. The Baltic states (Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania) were restored to statehood and the newly born Russian Federat
ion did not inherit the Soviet Unions position as a superpower. United States: Th
e last remaining superpower, politically and ideologically leading the Western S
tates. It acts as both world politician (in a selective manner) and global media
tor. Socialist countries are no longer united; some depend on support from Weste
rn states. Developing countries have veered away from ideological orientation an
d towards market orientation as well as fighting poverty and backwardness. The U
N has declined as the international agency for the maintenance of peace.
Page 2 of 42

CHAPTER TWO: THE SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
I. What are the sources of international law?
As distinguished from domestic law
: It is relatively easier to find domestic law because they are generally found
in statute books and in collections of court decisions. In international law, th
ere is no centralized legislative, executive or judicial structure, making it di
fficult to locate the source of PIL. The problem is further heightened by the co
nstantly changing state of world affairs and competing sovereignties.
Classifica
tion of sourcesmaterial and formal Formal sources: May refer to various processes
by which rules come into existence, e.g. legislation, treaty-making, judicial d
ecision-making, state practice Material sources: Concerned with the identificati
on, substance and content of the obligation; also called evidence or international
law Conditions for Legal Principles: Laid down by the doctrine of sources, thes
e conditions are the observable manifestations of the wills of the States as revea
led in the processes by which norms are formedtreaties and customs.
Verification
process is inductive and positivisticfinding what laws the states have created an
d what laws they are willing to place themselves under. Proof that international l
aw is characterized by individualism. Article 38(1) of the Statute of the Intern
ational Court of Justice: Most widely accepted statement on the sources of interna
tional law. However, Art. 38 is primarily a directive; it does not speak of actu
al sources but directs the ICJ on how to resolve conflicts brought before it. Ar
ticle 38 enumerates the following as applicable to disputes before it, without p
rejudice to the power of the court to decide ex aequo et bono (for the right and
good) if the parties agree thereto: International conventions, whether general
or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by contesting states
Inte
rnational custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law General prin
ciples of law, recognized by civilized nations Judicial decisions and teachings
of highly qualified publicists of various nations (as subsidiary means and subje
ct to the provisions of Art. 59which states that the decision of the ICJ is only
res judicata as between the parties and with respect only to that particular cas
e) Sources according to the Restatement: A rule of international law is one that
has been accepted as such by the international community of states As customary
law By international agreement II.
By derivation from general principles common to the major legal systems of the w
orld Customary law that which results from a general and consistent practice of
states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation International agreement
s create law for the state parties thereto; may lead to the creation of customar
y international law when such agreements are intended for adherence to states ge
nerally and are in fact widely accepted General principles of law general princi
ples common to major legal systems, even if not incorporated or reflected in cus
tomary law or international agreements; applied as supplementary rules of PIL wh
ere appropriate.
Sources, in general: custom, treaties and other international agreements, genera

lly recognized principles of law, judicial decisions and teachings of highly qua
lified and recognized publicists.
Customary Law
Definition: A general and consistent practice of states followed b
y them from a sense of legal obligation. (Restatement) Contains the basic elemen
ts of custom: the material factor (how states behave) and the psychological or s
ubjective factor (why states behave the way they do) Material factor (usus): Con
tains several elementsduration, consistency, generality
Durationmay be long or sho
rt Customary law as a result of long, immemorial practice: Paquete Havana (US SC
)WON fishing smacks were subject to capture by armed vessels of the US. o Ruling:
By ancient usage centuries ago, gradually ripening into a rule of international
law, coast fishing vessels, pursuing their vocation has been recognized as exem
pt from capture as prize of war Customary law as a result of short duration is n
ot excluded: North Sea Continental Shelf (ICJ)Ruling: Passage of only a short tim
e is not a bar to the formation of custom on the basis of what was purely a conv
entional rule, so long as State practice should have been both extensive and vir
tually uniform and should show that there is general recognition that a rule of
law or legal obligation is involved. Duration is not the most important element;
the other two are more important. Consistencyinvolves continuity and repetition,
as laid down in the Asylum case Asylum (ICJ)WON Colombian Ambassador could claim
de la Torre, alleged mastermind of a military rebellion in Peru, as a political
refugee, granting him asylum and safe
Page 3 of 42

passage, over the objections of the Peruvian government, who disputed Colombias c
laim. o Ruling: Against Colombiabecause they didnt prove that there was constant a
nd uniform practice of unilateral qualification as a right of the State of refug
e and an obligation upon the territorial State. Colombia, as the State granting
asylum, is not competent to qualify the nature of the offense by unilateral and
definitive decision to bind Peru. Uniformity and generalityneed not be complete,
just substantial Nicaragua v. US (ICJ)To deduce the existence of customary law, i
t is sufficient that the conduct of states should be consistent with such rules
and that instances of state conduct inconsistent with it should be considered as
breaches of the rule, not proof of a new rule in place.
Subjective factor (opinio juris): The belief that a certain form of behavior is
obligatory makes practice an international rule; otherwise, practice is not law.
Even humanitarian consideration by itself does not constitute opinio juris: Nic
aragua v. US (ICJ)For new customs to be created, not only must the acts be settle
d practice, but they must be accompanied by opinio juris sive necessitatis. The
conduct of States must be evidence of a belief that the practice is rendered obl
igatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. The need of such belief
is implicit in the notion of opinio juris. Customary law can develop to bind onl
y two or a few states, but the state claiming it must prove that it is also bind
ing on the other party/parties, as was proved by Portugal in the Right of Passag
e over Indian Territory (ICJ). Dissenting states may be bound by custom, unless
they have consistently objected to it.
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (ICJ)WON No
rway, who has consistently objected to Englands coastline delimitation rule, is b
ound by the aforesaid custom. Ruling: Against EnglandIt is inapplicable as agains
t Norway inasmuch as she has always opposed any attempt to apply it on the Norwe
gian coast.
Dissent protects only the dissenter; the custom is applicable to oth
er states. A new state joining the international law system is bound by any kind
of practice which has already been recognized as customary law. Contrary practi
ce: Even after a practice is recognized as customary law, it is possible to adop
t a contrary practice. However, contrary practice can cast doubt on the alleged
law and can show great uncertainty as to the existing customary law, unless it c
an gain general acceptance to supervene the preceding custom.
Evidence of state practice: Although custom may be proved in many ways, like tre
aties, diplomatic correspondence, statements of political leaders, as well as st
ate conduct, the existence of opinio juris is a matter of proof and the burden o
f proving its existence rests on the state claiming it. Instant custom: Spontane
ous activity of a great number of states protesting/supporting a specific line o
f action. Best exampleAmerican line of action after the attack on the World Trade
Center in New York gave birth to instant customary law classifying the act as a
n armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter justifying collective self-def
ense. Martens Clause in Humanitarian Law: 1899 Hague Peace ConventionUntil a more
complete code of laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting parties deem
it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted b
y them, the inhabitants and belligerents remain under the protection and the rul
e of the principles of the laws of nations as they result from the usages establ
ished among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the
public conscience.
The clause places humanitarian laws and dictates of public co
nscience on the same level as usage or usus, suggesting that even without practi
ce, there can emerge a principle of law based on humanitarian law and the dictat
es of public conscience. Treaties and custom: It depends on the intention of the
partiesit may be that the treaty is declaratory proof of customary law, or serve
s to complement it. Adherence to treaties may be adherence to practice as opinio
juris. If treaties and custom contradict each other, the later one will prevail
because it is presumed to be a deliberate choice on the part of the state.
If a
treaty is later than custom, the principle of pacta sunt servanda (Lat. agreemen
ts must be kept) governs. EXCEPT if the customary law has the status of jus cogen
s (Lat. compelling law)a norm accepted and recognized by the international communit
y as a whole as one from which no derogation is permitted and can be modified on
ly by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.
Treaties which conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law are
void. If a custom comes later than a treaty, generally, the later custom is said
to prevail as an expression of a later will. However, attempts ought to be made
to reconcile the treaty with custom, as is shown in the Angle-French Continenta
l Case. Anglo-French Continental Case: WON the equidistance principle applies in
the delimitation of the continental shelves of the United Kingdom and France. A
rticle 6 (in the treaty) makes the application of the equidistance principle obl
igatory for the Parties to the convention, but the combined character of the equ
idistance-special circumstances rule means that the obligation to apply the equi
distance principle is always qualified by the condition unless another boundary l
ine is justified by special circumstances.
Page 4 of 42

III. IV.
Treaties (will be treated in Chapter 3) General principles of law recognized by
civilized nations
Also known as general principles of law recognized or common to
the worlds major legal systems. (Restatement) It references municipal law princip
les common to legal systems of the world and are evidence of the fundamental uni
ty of law, most of them incorporated into conventional international law.
They a
re supplementary rules of international law, found in judicial decisions and the
teachings of highly qualified publicists of various nations; they are a subsidi
ary means for the determination of rules of law. Examples are Chorzow Factory (PC
IJ): Every violation involves the obligation to make reparation. Private rights
gained under one regime do not cease upon a change of government. Principle of e
stoppel Article 38(1) (Statute) is an affirmation of general principles of law i
n domestic law systems and makes up for the fact that there is no international
legislative system. It plugs in some of the gaps of the current international la
w system. Barcelona Traction Case (ICJ)The Court cannot disregard the institution
of municipal law because it would, without justification, invite serious legal
difficulties.
Judicial decisions: Article 38 directs the court to apply these in
a subsidiary manner in the determination of the rules of law, subject to Articl
e 59 (on res judicata of ICJ cases as only being between parties). However, desp
ite this, cases decided by the ICJ are considered highly persuasive in internati
onal law circles and have contributed to the formation of international law, e.g
. arbitral decisions have been instrumental in the formation of PIL principles.
Teachings of highly qualified writers and publicists: In cases of first impression
, the court reluctantly makes reference to writers since they are the only avail
able sources. Common law courts are less willing to use them than civil law cour
ts. Publicists are institutions which write on PIL, but may bear potential nationa
l biasbeing primarily government-sponsored entitieslike The International Law Comm
ission (a UN organ), the Institut de Droit International, the International Law
Association (a multinational body), the Restatement, and the annual Hague Academ
y of International Laws annual publication. Equity considerations: As a source of
law, the Permanent Court of Justice had occasion to use equity in the case of D
iversion of Water from the Meuse (PCIJ), where the issue was WON Belgium had vio
lated an agreement with the Netherlands about any construction altering water le
vels and the rate of flow of the Meuse waters when the Netherlands built a lock
earlier than when they were supposed to. The Court rejected both on the basis of
equity, saying that where two parties who have assumed reciprocal obligations,
the continuing non-performance of one party does not permit it to take advantage
of a similar non-performance by the other party, because a court of equity refu
ses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject matter has I.
been improper. The Court here recognizes that, under Article 38 of the Statute,
the Court has some freedom to consider principles of equity as part of the inter
national law which it has to apply. When it is accepted, equity is an instrument
whereby customary or conventional law may be supplemented or modified in order
to achieve justice. It has both a procedural and substantive aspect.
Procedurall
y, equity is a mandate to the judge to exercise discretion to achieve a determin
ation that is more equitable and fair. Different kinds of equity are distinguish
edintra legem, praeter legem, contra legem Intra legem: Within the law; the law i
s adapted to the facts Praeter legem: Beyond the law; the law is used to fill th
e gaps within the law Contra legem: Against the law; there is refusal to apply t
he law because it is unjust Other supplementary sources: UN Resolutions (merely
recommendatory, but may sometimes be an expression of opinio juris or are reflec
tions of what has become customary law), soft law (non-treaty agreements and not c
overed by the Vienna Convention on Treaties, like administrative rules guiding p

ractice of states for international organizations; preferred by States because i
t is simpler and more flexible for future relations.
CHAPTER THREE: THE LAW OF TREATIES
Treaties
Many forms of treaties: conventions, pacts, covenants, charters, protoc
ols, concordat, modus vivendi, etc. It is the most deliberate form of commitment
through which governments cooperate with one another. The general term used is
international agreements. They are convenient tools through which states show co
mmon intent, in the absence of international legislative. 1969 Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties: Governs treaties between states; entered into force in
1980. A Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organ
izations or Between International Organizations was adopted in March th 1986, an
d should enter into force 30 days after the 35 ratification or accession of stat
es. Definition: A treaty is an international agreement concluded between States
in written form, and governed by international law whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular des
ignation. (Vienna Convention)
Elements of a treaty1. In writing; 2. Reflective of
the intention of the parties to be bound; 3. Governed by international law
Some
writers believe that even oral agreements can by binding. However, only written
agreements can be subject to the provisions of the Vienna Convention. No partic
ular form is prescribed, as is shown in the following cases: Qatar v. Bahrain (I
CJ)WON the two States should be bound by the signing and exchange of Minutes betw
een
Page 5 of 42

the two heads of state with the binding force of an international agreement. Rul
ing: To ascertain whether it can be considered as an international agreement, th
e Court must have regard for its actual terms and the particular circumstances i
n which it was drawn. The Minutes had included a reaffirmation of the obligation
s they entered into, and were not, thus, a simple record of the meeting but enum
erate the commitments to which the parties have consented, thus creating rights
and obligations in international law for the parties and validly constitute an i
nternational agreement. When it was contended that there was no intention to be
bound by the Minutes, the Court deemed it unnecessary to have to look into inten
tions because of the signatures of the two ministers. Norway v. Denmark (PCIJ):
In a case involving a dispute over sovereignty in Eastern Greenland where Norway
accepted Denmarks offer of concessions in exchange for non-obstruction of the la
tters plans, WON the Norwegian Minister is bound by his statement to the Danish m
inister that the Norwegian Government would not make any difficulty in the settle
ment of this question. CourtYES.
Bilateral treaties: In the nature of contractual agreements which create shared

expectations (trade agreements) and are sometimes called contract treaties. While
treaties are generally binding only on the parties, the generality of the accept
ance of specific rules created by the treaty can have the effect of creating a u
niversal law in the same way that practice creates customary law.
Making of trea
ties: Generally, treaties originate from foreign ministries and negotiation is d
one through them. Larger multilateral treaties are negotiated in diplomatic conf
erences run like a legislative body. Negotiation: Negotiators must possess negot
iating powers because a treaty reached by one without proper authorization has n
o legal effect unless ratified. A person represents the state in negotiations wh
en he produces appropriate full powers or it appears that it is the practice of
the State to consider that person as representative of its interest for such pur
poses. Negotiations conclude with the signing of the document. Ex. Heads of Stat
e & Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs; heads of diplomatic missions;
representatives accredited by States to an international conference or an intern
ational organization.
Authentication of text: When documents are signed, they ar
e deemed authenticated, making the text authoritative and definitive. In cases o
f dispute, basis for resolution is the authenticated document. Consent to be bou
nd: The most important step through which a document becomes binding as internat
ional law. There are various ways by which consent to be bound is expressed. Ex.
Through signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, acceptance, a
pproval, accession, or any other means agreed upon.
Ratification: Manner of rati
fication differs from state to state. In the Philippines, it is done via concurr
ence of two-thirds of all the members of the Senate (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Con
stitution.) By this, a state is required not to engage in acts which can defeat
the purpose of the treaty. Notification, Exchange and Deposit of Ratification: U
nless the treaty provides otherwise, notification, exchange and deposit establis
h the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty.
Accession to a treaty: Only th
ose not originally parties of the treaty can express their consent to be bound b
y accession, where the treaty provides or it is otherwise established that such
consent may be expressed by that State by means of accession. Reservations: A un
ilateral statement made by a State when signing, ratifying or approving a treaty
purporting to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of a tre
aty in its application. They are different from statutes, which apply to all, an
d from interpretative declarations, which are not derogations but are expression
s of how a state understands its adoption of the treaty.
On UNILATERAL DECLARATIONS: Nuclear Test Cases: Australia v. France & New Zealan
d v. France (ICJ): These cases were filed as a response to France being a signat
ory to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and yet continued to conduct tests in the Sou
th Pacific until 1973. However, the cases were dismissed when France, through a
series of unilateral announcements, said that it would conduct no further tests.
Nonetheless, the court commented that unilateral declarations have the effect o
f creating legal obligations when the commitments are a.) very specific and ther
e is b.) a clear intent to be bound. European Union v. US: Attributing legal sig
nificance to unilateral statements made by a State should not be done lightly, a
nd are subject to strict conditions.
Functions of treaties: May be sources of international law; charters of internat

ional organizations; used to transfer territory, regulate commercial relations,
settle disputes, protect human rights, etc.
Multilateral treaties: Open to all s
tates of the world; operate to create norms which are the basis for a general ru
le of law. May be either codification treaties (covering principles) or law-makin
g treaties (treaties which ripen into law) or they may have the character of both
. Collaborative mechanism treaties: May be of universal or regional scope, and o
perate through the organs of different states.
Page 6 of 42

Reservation is not allowed when prohibited by the treaty, when the treaty provid
es for special reservations, or when the reservation is incompatible with the ob
ject and purpose of the treaty.
Reservations expressly authorized by treaty do n
ot need to be subsequently accepted unless provided by the treaty itself.
Reserv
ation requires acceptance by all the parties if the number of party States to th
e treaty are limited and the acceptance of the treaty as a whole is essential to
the purpose of the treaty. If the treaty is integral for an international organ
ization, a reservation requires the acceptance of the organization.
Reservation
is deemed to be accepted if others failed to raise any objections within one yea
r after notification of the reservation or after it expressed its consent to be
bound, whichever is later. Reservations may be withdrawn at any time and consent
of the other State is not required for its withdrawal. Likewise, objections to
reservations may be withdrawn at any time. Withdrawal becomes operative in relat
ion to another contracting State only when notice has been received by other con
tracting states. Form: Reservation must be in writing and communicated to contra
cting States and other states entitled to become parties. Express acceptance of
a reservation by other states does not require confirmation in itself. Withdrawa
l of a reservation or of an objection thereto must be in writing.
Reservation in
bilateral treaties is considered a rejection of the treaty. Reservations, then,
are only applicable to multilateral treaties. The Philippines and the 1982 Law
of the Sea: The Philippines made a reservation conditioning its acceptance of th
e 1982 Law of the Sea on the Philippine claim in the 1987 Constitution on interna
l waters between islands, irrespective of breadth. USSR filed a formal protest bu
t FJB says that the reservation is unnecessary because the new rule only applies
to waters not previously considered as internal waters.
Reservations in human r
ights treaties: No reservations can be made for Human Rights treaties. Entry int
o force of treaties: Enter into force on the date agreed upon by the parties. Wh
ere no date is indicated, once consent has been given. Multilateral treaties com
e into force once the required number of parties consent or accept the treaty. T
hey may also be applied provisionally. Application of treaties:
The first fundam
ental rule on treaties is pacta sunt servanda, ensuring that every treaty in for
ce is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith
. (Article 26 of the Convention) The second fundamental rule is that a party may
not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure
to perform a treaty. (Article 46 of the Convention)
Thirdregarding the territoria
l scope of its applicability: Unless a different intention appears from the trea
ty or is otherwise established, a treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty i
s binding
upon each party in respect of its entire territory. (Article 29 of the Conventio
n) Interpretation of treaties: Article 31 combines various approaches to treaty
interpretation
Objective approach: interpretation according to the ordinary mean
ing of the words Teleological approach: interpretation according to the telos or
the purpose of the treaty
Subjective approach: honors the special meaning given
by the parties
If there are ambiguities, supplementary sources may be used; in
case of conflicts, language that is agreed upon by the parties shall prevail. Ai
r France v. Saks (US): WON an air carrier is liable for a passengers injuries due
to the dropping of air pressure which occurred while the plane was in the proce
ss of landing, causing the passenger to become deaf in one ear. Despite the Wars
aw Convention making the airline liable for injuries sustained by passengers on
the account of any accident occurring onboard the aircraft or in the course of a
ny of its operations while embarking/disembarking, the court found that the inju
ries were a result of a usual and expected event (the dropping of air pressure),
which was not within the meaning of the word accident in Article 17. Invalidity o
f treaties: Error of fact, fraud, corruption, duress
Error: Mistake in a factual
antecedent essential to the State entering into the treaty in the first place;
does not apply if there was prior notice or the State head contributed to the mi
stake. Fraud: Fraudulent behavior is involved in inducing another to enter into
a treaty with the State.
Corruption: Consent is procured through either direct o
r indirect corruption of its representative.
Duress: There is duress by procurin
g consent through the coercion of another States representative or acquiring anot
her States consent through threat or use of force in violation of the principles
of international law.
Jus cogens: A peremptory norm of international law from wh
ich no derogation is permitted; any treaty which violates jus cogens is deemed v
oid. Loss of right to assert the invalidity of a treaty: A state loses the right
to protest a treatys validity when, after knowing all of the facts, expressly ag
reed to its validity or continues to keep it in force/in operation. Municipal la
w as a ground to invalidate a treaty: Generally, a state cannot use municipal la
w as a ground to invalidate a treaty unless there is a manifest violation. Manif
est violation: A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any
State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in
good faith.
Page 7 of 42

Ex. A state representative is subject to a restriction when concluding a treaty

(a manifest violation if he does not observe the restriction, unless the other s
tates were informed of his lack of capacity and contracted with him anyway)
Amendment of treaties: A formal revision done with the participation (at the ver
y least in its initial stage) by all the parties to the treaty.
A treaty may be
amended by agreement of the parties. The procedure to be followed is the same as
formationit is much more difficult as to multilateral treaties than bilateral tr
eaties because it is difficult to obtain the consent of all the parties in multi
lateral treaties. Article 40: Applies for amendments which will affect only some
of the states but only after all parties have been given the opportunity to con
sider the proposed amendments. Notice of the proposal to amend must be given to
all contracting parties, because they all have the right to: a.) the decision as
to the action to be taken; b.) the negotiation and conclusion of any agreement
for the amendment. Every original contracting party-State is also entitled to be
come a party to the amended treaty. Also, the amended treaty does not bind those
who do not give their consent to it. A State that becomes a party to the treaty
after the amendment shall (unless it is expressed differently) be considered as
a party to the treaty as amended and a party to the original treaty in relation
to those who did consent to the amended treaty. Modification: A formal revision
that involves only some of the parties. Article 41: Allows for modification by
two or more of the parties. Two or more parties in a multilateral treaty may mod
ify the treaty as between themselves if the treaty provides that it may be modif
ied or it does not prohibit modification. The lack of prohibition must also indi
cate that it must not affect the enjoyment of rights under the treaty by other p
arties, or it must not relate to a provision, derogation from which is incompati
ble with the effective execution of the objective of the treaty. The modifying p
arties must also inform the other parties of their intent to modify as well as t
he modification itself. Termination of treaties: Termination according toconclusi
on according to the terms, by consent, expiration of definite period, achievemen
t of purpose.
Change of government does not terminate a treaty.
Other modes of t
erminating a treaty: Material breach, impossible performance, rebus sic stantibu
s Material breach: The treatys terms are breached.
Bilateral: Innocent party may invoke the breach of the other party as a ground t
o terminate or suspend the operation, in whole or in part.
Multilateral: Breach
of the treaty entitles the other parties (by unanimous agreement) to suspend the
operation of the treaty, in whole or in part, either between themselves and the
defaulting State or as between all of the parties, or to ask for the terminatio
n of the treaty A party specially affected by the breach may invoke it as a grou
nd for suspending the operation of the treaty, or suspend the relations between
itself and the defaulting State. Any other party may invoke breach as a ground t
o suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself
if it is of such a character that a material breach by one radically changes th
e position of all the other parties with respect to further performance. Example
s of breach: Unsanctioned repudiation of a treaty, violation of a provision esse
ntial to the accomplishment of the purpose of the treaty. Note: The ground of ma
terial breach cannot apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human
person contained in humanitarian treaties.
Namibia Case (ICJ): The case is an a
dvisory opinion on the legal consequences of a breach of a resolution sought by
the Security Council after it had ruled that South Africas extended stay in Namib
ia was illegal. Ruling: The ICJ held that the two forms of material breach had o
ccurred in this case (unsanctioned repudiation and violation of a treaty provisi
on.) South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia, and other St
ates were under no obligation to recognize any acts by South African administrat
ion from Namibia. Supervening impossibility of performance: It has become imposs
ible to fulfill the treaty because of the disappearance or destruction of an obj
ect indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is tempo
rary, it may only be cause to suspend. It cannot be invoked if the impossibility
is a result of a breach by the party claiming the ground. Danube Dam Case (ICJ)
: WON Hungary could claim the right to terminate the 1977 Treaty between the Sta
te and Czechoslovakia to facilitate the construction of dams on the Danube river
on the basis of impossibility of performance and rebus sic stantibus. Due to en
vironmental concerns, Hungary had to suspend operations causing Czechoslovakia t
o respond with unilateral measures, causing Hungary to try to terminate the trea
ty. Ruling: The court held that Hungary could not claim impossibility of perform
ance if they had a hand in the breach that caused the impossibility (in this cas
e, failure to carry out the works for which Hungary was responsible.) Furthermor
e, the change in circumstance is not fundamental enough to radically transform t
he extent of the obligations under the Treaty.
Page 8 of 42

Rebus sic stantibus (Fundamental change in circumstance): There is a fundamental

change in the circumstances, unforeseen by the parties, from those at the concl
usion of the treaty.
This may not be invoked as a ground for terminating a treat
y unless those circumstances were an essential basis of the consent of the parti
es to be bound to the treaty, and the effect of the change transforms the extent
of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
Rebus sic stantibus may
also be invoked to suspend a treatys operations. However, the modern approach to
its invocation is restrictive (Fisheries Jurisdiction case)the changes must have
increased the burden of the obligations to be executed to the extent of renderin
g performance something essentially different from the original intention. Fishe
ries Jurisdiction (ICJ): WON the proposed extension of Icelands exclusive fisheri
es jurisdiction from 12 miles to 50 miles was a breach of an agreement between t
he State and UK, on Icelands argument that the agreement was no longer binding be
cause of rebus sic stantibus. Ruling: The court ruled that the fundamental chang
e being pushed by Iceland (increased exploitation of fishery resources because o
f the increased catching capacities of fishing fleets) cannot be said to have tr
ansformed the extent of the jurisdictional obligation imposed in the agreement w
ith the UK. Exceptions: Fundamental change in circumstances cannot be invoked as
a ground for termination or withdrawal when the treaty establishes a boundary,
or if it is a result of a breach by the party invoking it. Procedure for termina
tion: Party-State must notify other parties (in writing and signed by one with f
ull powers) of the ground or defect in the consent which would allow it to withd
raw or terminate the treaty. Notification must indicate the measure proposed and
the reasons.
If within a period of not less than three (3) months, no objection
s are raised, proposing State may carry out the measures proposed. In case of an
objection, the parties concerned shall seek a solution through the necessary me
ans. If no solution is reached within 12 months, the dispute must be submitted t
o: ICJ Arbitration, or Secretary General of the UN for procedure specified in th
e Annex of the Convention
The proposal may be revoked any time before it takes e
ffect. Authority to terminate: Vienna Convention does not enumerate those who ha
ve the capacity to terminate treaties; however, it is logical that those with th
e authority to enter into treaties also have the authority to terminate them.
Can the President unilaterally terminate a treaty? In US jurisdiction (Goldwater

v. Carter), the question was raised but not resolved because the case was not y
et ripe for adjudication. Succession to treaties: In the case of a brand new sta
te (one state ceases to exist and is succeeded by another occupying the same ter
ritory), the Vienna Convention on the Succession of States with Respect to Treat
ies concluded that the clean slate rule is applied, and a newly independent state
is not bound to maintain treaties entered into by the previous state. If they ch
oose, however, they may agree to be bound by the treaties of its predecessor.
Ex
ception: Treaties affecting boundary regimes. They are considered as attached to
the territory, not to the State.
CHAPTER FOUR: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUNICIPAL LAW
I. Conflict between International Law and Municipal LawDualism vs. Monism
Dualist
/pluralist theory: International law (PIL) and municipal law (ML) are essentiall
y different. As to source: ML is a product of local custom or legislation and PI
L is sourced from treaties and custom grown among states.
As to relations to reg
ulate: ML regulates relations between individual persons under the state, while
PIL regulates relations between states. As to substance: ML is the law of the so
vereign over individuals while PIL is a law between sovereign states.
Which prev
ails: ML must prevail (Dualists are positivistsstrong emphasis on state sovereign

ty)
Monistic Theory: PIL and ML belong to only one system of law.
Monism Theory
1: ML subsumes and is superior to PIL. Monism Theory 2: PIL is superior to ML (t
his theory is supported by Kelsen); this superiority stems from a deep suspicion
of local sovereigns and from the conviction that PIL imbues the domestic order
with a sense of moral purpose. ML in PIL: Prevailing practice accepts dualism to
the extent that it recognizes two legal systems.
Parties may not invoke provisi
ons of ML to avoid or to justify its failure to perform a treaty or any kind of
international agreement. Dualist theory blocks the entry of ML in the area of PI
L. A state that enters into an international agreement must modify its ML to mak
e it conform to the agreement. As in the case of Exchange of Greek and Turkish P
opulation, the Court ruled that a state is bound to make in its legislation such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations u
ndertaken.
However, even under a dualist perspective, the two systems are not com
pletely separate. Barcelona Traction Case (ICJ): A court who disregards the rele
vant institution of ML would be losing touch
Page 9 of 42

with reality. However, PIL refers only to generally accepted rules in municipal
systems and not to the particular ML of a particular State. If an international
court is called to decide a case based on municipal and not international law, t
hey must apply it as it would be applied in the country where it is from.
PIL in ML: Dualism still applies when it comes to entry of PIL into the domestic
sphere. Unless it becomes a part of municipal law, PIL has no place in the sett
lement of conflicts in domestic law.
Two theories on how PIL becomes a part of M
L: Doctrines of transformation and incorporation
Transformationfor PIL to become
part of ML, it must be expressly and specifically transformed into domestic law
through legislation or any other appropriate machinery. Treaties do not become p
art of the law of the land unless the State consents to it.
Incorporation: When
any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction, the law of
nations is adopted by common law, and becomes part of the law of the land. Phil
ippine law: Treaties and international agreements become part of the law of the
land when concurred in by the Senate (1987 Constitution). The acceptance of the
Philippines of the generally accepted principles of PIL manifests its adherence
to the dualist theory and adopts the incorporation theory, making PIL a part of
ML. Philippine courts, then, can use PIL to settle domestic disputes.
Incorporat
ion only applies to customary law and treaties which have formed part of customa
ry law, because the 1987 Constitution also provides that treaties have to be rat
ified. When Philippine Courts use PIL to settle domestic disputes: Mejoff v. Dir
ector of Prisons (Declaration of Human Rights, in deciding WON to release an ali
en of Russian descent from detention pending deportation), Kuroda v. Jalandoni (
the Hague and Geneva Convention, in WON a military commission had jurisdiction o
ver war crimes committed in violation of the two conventions prior to 1947), Agu
stin v. Edu (Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, in determining WON the
Letter of Instruction prescribing the use of early warning devices possesses re
levance,) J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing (International duty to protect foreign embas
sies.) International/Municipal Rule: Where there is a conflict between PIL and M
L, what prevails depends on whether the case goes to an international or a domes
tic court. Before an international court, a party cannot argue or plead its own
law. Domestic courts have no choice but to follow local law. Conflict between St
ate Constitution and treaty: Treaty is not valid and operative as domestic law;
the SC has the power to declare the treaty invalid. However, this does not mean
that the theory is declared unconstitutional or that it loses its international
character. Tanada v. Angara: WON the Senates ratification of the GATT Treaty is c
ontrary to national interest and the Constitution. The Court ruled that the prin
ciples embodied in the Constitution are not
self-executing principles ready for enforcement but are used by the Judiciary to
aid or guide the exercise of its power of judicial review. Tanada case is suppo
sed to be a retreat from the next case. Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS: WON the Sta
te can award the contract to a Filipino bidder over an international one on the
basis of the principles in the 1987 Constitution such as preferring qualified Fi
lipinos. The Court said that the provisions need not be subject to legislation b
ut are self-executory on their own, a mandatory, positive command complete in it
self. It is per se judicially enforceable.
Conflict between treaty and law: Whichever one is later prevailsbased on the Amer
ican view that treaties and statutes are equal in rank. However, the preference
of a statute over a treaty (in case a statute comes later) only applies as to it
s domestic aspect, not to its international aspect.
Head Money Cases (US): Treat
ies do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other la
ws affecting "its enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate. So far a
s a treaty made by the United States can become the subject of judicial cognizan
ce in the courts, it is subject to such acts which Congress may pass.
Whitney v.
Robertson (US): WON the agreement between Hawaii and the US as to admit their s
ugars duty-free into the country would also apply to the merchant-petitioners pro
duce of similar centrifugal and molasses sugar from San Domingo, a State which a
lso has a similar treaty with the United States. The court ruled, gleaning doctr
ine also from the Head Money cases that when the stipulations are not self-execu
ting, they require legislation to put them into effect. Such legislation is subj
ect to modification and repeal by Congress. If the treaty contains self-executin
g stipulations, to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative e
nactment.
CHAPTER FIVE: SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW--STATES
I. Subjects vs. Objects of International Law They are entities endowed with righ
ts and obligations in the international order, possessing the capacity to take c
ertain kinds of action on the international plane.
Have international personalit
y and are capable of acting in international law.
Vs. Objects: Objects of PIL ar
e those who indirectly have rights under/are beneficiaries of international law
through the subjects of international law States enjoy the fullest personality i
n PIL. Statehood Commencement: A state as a person in PIL should possess the fol
lowing characteristicsa.) permanent population, b.) defined territory, c.) govern
ment, and d.) capacity to enter into relations with other states. (Montevideo Co
nvention of 1933 on Rights and Duties of States)
II.
Page 10 of 42

Examples: When a portion of territory has seceded, foreign control over an entit
y claimed to be a state, or when states have formed a union or continue to retai
n some autonomy, when members of a federation claim to be a state. Elements of S
tatehoodPeople, Territory, Government and Sovereignty
People/Population: A commun
ity of persons sufficient in number, capable of maintaining permanent existence
of the community and held together by a common bond of law. There is no minimum
population required, nor are they required to have racial, cultural or economic
similarities.
Territory: An entity called a state must exercise sovereignty over
a definite territory; it may satisfy the territorial requirement for statehood
even if its boundaries have not yet been settled with finality because it does n
ot cease to be a state even if all its territory is occupied by another power or
if it has lost control of its territory temporarily. (Restatement)
Government:
Institution by which an independent society makes and carries out rules of actio
n necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon p
eople forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescr
ibing them (US v. Dorr, 2 Phil. 332.) In PIL, there is no required form of gover
nment. For purposes of PIL, it is the national government which has internationa
l personality and it is that which is responsible for the actions of the agencie
s and instrumentalities of the State. Temporary absence of government does not t
erminate the existence of a state. Sovereignty: Independence from outside contro
l. It is, according to the Montevideo Convention, the capacity of the State to e
nter into relations with other States. This, however, is dependent upon recognit
ion. Self-determination: Related to but is not identical to sovereignty. The lat
ter falls under the broader concept of the right of selfdetermination. It is the
impetus behind the birth of new states in the post-World War II era, and is ass
erted by both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Inter
national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. All peoples have the r
ight of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural developme
nt. May be broken down into two levels of claim to selfdetermination: first, the
establishment of new statesa claim of a group within an established state to bre
ak away and form their own identity; and second, claims to be free from external
coercion or to overthrow rulers and establish a new government. The latter is t
he assertion of the right of revolution, or that of autonomy. The UN has various
ways of giving effect to selfdetermination like resolutions of support, sanctio
ns for offenses against SD, rights of participation in
international forahowever, PIL has yet to recognize a right of secession from a l
egitimately existing state.
Recognition of states: When one state recognizes the
capacity of another state to exercise all the rights attributed to statehood; i
t is an act of acknowledgement.
Declaratory theory: Recognition merely declares th
e existence of the state; statehood depends upon its possession of the elements,
not upon fact of recognition, and the recognizing state merely accepts an alrea
dy existing situation. (The weight of authority supports this.)
Constitutive the
ory: Recognition constitutes the state; there is no state until it is recognized b
y another. The fact of recognition makes the state a state, and confers legal pe
rsonality on the entity. This theory emphasizes that states are under no obligat
ion to enter into bilateral relations, but also allows those entities who do not
have all the Montevideo Convention elements of a state to be recognized as such
. Political issue: Lately, it is of note that the recognition of states of one a
nother has become a matter of political discretiona state recognizes the existenc
e of another if it is beneficial to them. Treatment of recognition has been inco
nsistent and it is seen that political realities have primacy over consistency i
n application. Traditional criteria was largely amoralhow states came to be was n
ot a relevant factor; now, placing conditions leading to recognition implies an

attempt at greater moral dimension but have sacrificed the application of a cons
istent doctrine. Recognition of Government: Closely related to recognition of st
ates, it is the act of acknowledging the capacity of an entity to exercise power
s of government. If there is a change in government that came about through cons
titutionally mandated means, recognition comes as a matter of right. If it came
about through extra-constitutional means, the cases of Tinoco Arbitration and Up
right v. Mercury Business Machines Co. may be helpful.
Tinoco Arbitration (W.H.
Taft, arbitrator): WON Great Britain is estopped from pursuing claims against th
e temporary Tenneco government of Costa Rica because it never recognized the Tin
oco government either as de jure or de facto. Ruling: The status of the brief Te
nneco government was that of de facto, which was capable of creating rights in d
ifferent subjects, and these rights cannot be ignored to work any injury to the
succeeding government. Upright v. Mercury Business Machines Co. (US): WON plaint
iff, as an assignee of a trade acceptance debt of a foreign corporation which is
a creature of East German government, can enforce the unpaid claim against Merc
ury Business Machines despite East Germany not being recognized by the United St
ates. Ruling: An unrecognized foreign government may have a de facto existence j
uridically cognizable when it affects private rights and obligations. Consequenc
es of non-recognition: Recognition allows opportunities not afforded to non-stat
e entities, like extensions from funding agencies,
Page 11 of 42

facilitation of loans, access to foreign courts, etc. However, recognition of a

government is a highly political decision.
Entry into the UN does not require re
cognition by all members. Recognition is only to the extent of the activities of
the organization. Neither recognition nor diplomatic relations necessarily mean
approval of the government. Termination of recognition: When a new regime is re
cognized in lieu of the old government. A state cannot be de-recognized so long
as it continues to fulfill the requirements of statehood. Succession of States:
States do not last forever and state succession may arise in different circumsta
nces, such as a result of decolonization, dismemberment, secession, annexation a
nd merger. What occurs in each of these instances is that an existing sovereignt
y disappears in whole or in part and a new sovereignty arises giving rise to que
stions of succession to rights and obligations.
Tabula rasa theory: Clean-slate
theory, where a new state is not bound by any rights and obligations of its pred
ecessor. Opposing theory says that a new state inherits all of the rights and ob
ligations of the old state. Continuity: When a new state arises, what is its rel
ation to the predecessor state? Does it continue the existence of the old state
or is it completely distinct from it? It is less of a problem when there is a ne
w regime (constitutive of a state) like in the case of Pakistan and India succeedi
ng British India. It is more problematic in cases like the former Soviet Union a
nd Yugoslavia. Specific provisions: Taken from the Restatement
As to territory: W
hen a state succeeds another state with respect to particular territory, the cap
acities, rights and duties of the predecessor state with respect to that territo
ry terminate and are assumed by the successor state. As to state property: Subje
ct to agreement between predecessor and successor states, title passes as follow
s: 1.) Where part of the territory of a state becomes territory of another state
, property of the predecessor state located in that territory passes to the succ
essor state; 2.) Where a state is absorbed by another state, property of the abs
orbed state, wherever located, passes to the absorbing state; 3.) Where part of
a state becomes a separate state, property of the predecessor state located in t
he territory of the new state passes to the new state. As to public debts: Subje
ct to agreement between the states, responsibility for public debts, rights and
obliges under contracts, remain with the predecessor state, except: 1.) Where pa
rt of the territory of a state becomes territory of another state, local public
debt, and the rights and obligations under contracts relating to that territory,
are transferred to the successor state. 2.) Where it is absorbed by another sta
te, the public debt, etc. pass to the absorbing state.
3.) Where part of the state becomes a separate state, local public debt, and rig
hts and obligations relating to the territory of the new state, pass to the new
state. As to treaties: 1.) When part of the territory of a state becomes territo
ry of another state, the treaties of the predecessor state cease to have effect
in respect of the territory and the treaties of the successor state come into fo
rce there. 2.) When a state is absorbed by another state, the treaties of the ab
sorbed state are terminated and the treaties of the absorbing state become appli
cable to the territory of the absorbed state. 3.) When a part of a state becomes
a new state, the new state does not succeed to the treaty to which the predeces
sor state was a party, unless, expressly or by implication, it accepts such agre
ements and the other party agrees (Clean slate theory). 4.) Pre-existing boundar
y and other territorial agreements continue to be binding notwithstanding (uti p
ossidetis rule).
Fundamental Rights of StatesIndependence, equality, peaceful coexistence

Independ
ence: Capacity of a state to provide for its own well-being and development free
from the domination of other states, provided it does not impair or violate the
ir legitimate rights. From this flows the power of jurisdiction over territory a
nd permanent populations, the right to self-defense and the right of legation. E
quality: Equality of legal rights irrespective of size or power of the State. In
the UN, it is the doctrine behind the principle of one state, one vote. Peacefu
l co-existence: Elaborated in the Five Principles of CoExistence by India and Ch
ina (1954) and includes mutual respect for each others territorial integrity and
sovereignty, mutual nonaggression, non-interference, and the principle of equali
ty. Incomplete subjectsProtectorates, federal state, mandated and trust territori
es, Taiwan, Malta, Holy See
CHAPTER SIX: SUBJECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAWOTHER SUBJECTS
I. International Organizations An organization that is set up by treaty among tw
o or more states and is different from NGOs, which are set-up by private persons
. It is a treaty that is the constituent document of international organizations
. Only states are members of international organizations. To be able to delineat
e the activities of international organizations, one must look at the relevant r
ules of its body and to its constitution.
How do they come into existence? Do th
ey have international personality? Do they enjoy any kind of immunity?
Page 12 of 42

Formed via multilateral treaties, but also treaties of a particular typewhich cre
ate new subjects of international law, imbued with some autonomy, where parties
are geared towards a common goal.
Reparations Case (ICJ Advisory Opinion): WON a
n agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties suffered injuries
in a situation involving responsibility of a State has the capacity to bring an
international claim against the responsible government to obtain reparations fo
r both the victim and the United Nations. Ruling: Members of the UN created an e
ntity possessing objective international personality and not merely a personalit
y recognized by them alone. Despite the UN Charter being silent about the organi
zations international personality, its possession of legal personality may be imp
lied from the functions of the organization. However, the recognition of an inte
rnational organizations personality does not place it on the same level as states
. It does not give them the powers and privileges that a state enjoys, for their
powers are limited by the instrument which created them.
Advisory Opinion on th
e Use of Nuclear Weapons: International organizations are governed by the princi
ple of specialty and are invested by the States which create them with powers, l
imited by the function of common interests. The powers conferred on them are nor
mally the subject of an express statement of their charter instrument. However,
they may possess subsidiary powers necessary to achieve their objectives called i
mplied powers. Immunities: The basis for their immunities is not sovereignty (as
in States and Heads of State) but the need for the effective exercise of their f
unctions. The immunities for the United Nations and its designated agents and re
presentatives are found in Article 105 of the UN Charter and are described as tho
se which are necessary for the fulfillment of its/their purposes. The General Ass
embly may make recommendations to determine the details of the application of th
e particular immunities, which they did in the General Convention on the Privile
ges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Convention and Privileges of Sp
ecialized Agencies. The Philippine courts have recognized the immunity of other
international organizations in International Catholic Migration Commission v. Ca
lleja (190 SCRA 130), Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center v. Acosta (22
6 SCRA 49) and Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Expl
oration (241 SCRA 681).
However, in the case of Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa v. I
nternational Rice Research Institute (190 SCRA 130, decided jointly with the Int
ernational Catholic Migration Commission case), IRRI was treated as an internati
onal organization despite being created via memorandum of agreement, not by trea
ty, by the Philippine government and the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Altho
ugh initially considered a private corporation with the SEC, IRRI was granted th
e status of an international organization in 1979 through PD 1620. The Court rec
ognized it as a specialized agency on the same footing as the International Cath
olic Migration Commission, an international organization. The end result is that
employees who were seeking redress for violation of labor rights were rebuffed b
y the Supreme Court.
In the two cases involving the Asian Development Bank, of w
hich treaty the Philippines is a signatory, the results were different. In one c
ase, deciding whether or not the NLRC could take cognizance of a case involving
illegal dismissal against ADB, the immunity of ADB was upheld. However, in the o
ther case, the immunity of an ADB employee was not upheld in the face of a crimi
nal complaint for grave oral defamation because the immunity could only be limit
ed to acts performed in an official capacity, and it could not cover the commiss
ion of a crime. United Nations Structure and Powers: The UN is a universal organi
zation charged with peace-keeping, the development of friendly relations among n
ations, the achievement of international cooperation and the promotion of human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all human beings without discrimination (BAS
ICALLY: peace, cooperation, friendly relations and human rights)
However, the UN
is enjoined in intervening in matters which are within domestic jurisdiction of
any state. In the hierarchy of international organizations, the UN occupies a p
osition of preeminence. In the event of a conflict between international agreeme
nts between Member States and the UN Charter, the UN Charter must prevail. Princ
ipal organs of the UN: General Assembly, Security Council, ECOSOC, Trusteeship C
ouncil, Secretariat, ICJ and Other Agencies
General Assembly: Where all member S
tates are represented. It exercises plenary powers, and may discuss any question
or matter within the scope of its Charter. It distinguished between important qu
estions and other questions. Important questions are decided by an absolute majorit
y (2/3) of the members voting and present. Other questions require only a majori
ty. The Charter identifies which questions are deemed important questions; the G
A may include other important questions by majority vote.
Security Council: Prim
arily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. There
are 15 member states, five of them permanent (China, France, Russia [in the pla
ce of the former USSR, as agreed upon by the former Soviet Union], the United Ki
ngdom and the United Statesas the winners of World War II). The other seats are f
illed up by election to two-year terms in accordance with equitable geographic r
epresentation. It distinguishes between procedural matters and all other matters. Ma
tters which are not procedural only require nine affirmative votes, including th
e concurring vote of the permanent members. However, because the Charter does no
t specify what matters are procedural and which are not, it is the practice of t
he Council that a decision on whether or not matters are procedural also require
s the concurrence of the permanent members. This makes the double veto by the pe
rmanent members possible. An abstention is considered a veto.
Page 13 of 42

ECOSOC: Has 54 member states elected for three year terms. Subsidiary organs inc
lude the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on the Status of Women
Trusteeship Council: Supervises non-self governing territories. Limited jurisdi
ction and has suspended operations, following Palaus independence in 1994.
Secret
ariat: Comprises of a Secretary General and such staff as the Organization may r
equire. A Secretary General is elected to a five year term by the General Assemb
ly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, which is subject to veto pow
er. He is the Chief Administrator and has the power to bring to the attention of
the Security Council any matter which may threaten the maintenance of internati
onal peace and security. ICJ: Covered in another chapter.
Other Agencies: Other
specialized agencies aside from the main organs of the UNUN Educational, Scientif
ic and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Civil Aviation Organiza
tion (ICAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agricultural Orga
nization (FAO), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF.) Region
al Organizations: Regional organizations also play important roles, but they are
neither organs nor subsidiary agencies of the UN. They are autonomous internati
onal organizations having institutional affiliation with the UN by concluding ag
reements with the UN. They are created pursuant to international agreements for
the purpose of dealing with regional problems in general, or with specific matte
rs like economic, military or political concerns. ASEAN: In this region, the Phi
lippines is one of the original Member Countries of the Association of South Eas
t Asian Nations (ASEAN), formed in 1967. The other original members are Indonesi
a, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Brunei Darussalam joined in 1984. Vietnam j
oined in 1995. Laos and Myanmar joined in 1997. Cambodia became the last member
in 1999. It was created pursuant to the Bangkok Declaration, which sought to pus
h for a joint effort to promote economic cooperation and the welfare of the peop
le in the region. It aims to promote economic, social and cultural development o
f the region through cooperative programs, to safeguard political and economic s
tability of the region, and to serve as a forum for the resolution of intra-regi
onal differences. Its goals are accelerated economic growth, social progress, cu
ltural development, regional peace and stability through respect for justice and
adherence to the UN Charter.
Comprises three pillars: ASEAN Security Community,
ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community.
Fundamental princi
ples: Mutual respect for independence and sovereignty, recognition of the right
of every state to lead its national existence free from external influence, the
non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of differences, renunc
iation of the threat or use of force and effective cooperation. (Treaty of Amity
and Cooperation in Southeast Asia [TAC])
II.
All ten member States have already ratified the charter and it will take effect
upon the deposit of all ratifications.
Insurgents and Liberation Movements
Protocol II: Only international agreement re
gulating the conduct of parties in a non-international armed conflict1977 Protoco
l II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It develops and supplements the Common Arti
cle 3 without modifying its existing application. It covers non-international ar
med conflict and, if satisfied, grants them the status of a subject of internati
onal law as para-statal entities possessing definite, if limited, form of interna
tional personality. They may be recognized as having belligerent status against t
he de jure government and other states are required to maintain neutrality towar
ds them. They are also capable of entering into treaties.
Non-international arme
d conflict: Armed conflicts which take place in the territory of a High Contract
ing Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized
groups under (1) responsible command which (2) exercise control over a particul
ar territory so that they can carry out sustained and concerted military operati
ons (sustained capability to maintain themselves.)
Protocol II applies only when
the two elements are present. The Philippine Government has maintained that Pro
tocol II will not apply in the case of the National Democratic Front because the
y fail to cross the threshold of Protocol IIs application.
Inapplicable to situat
ions of internal disturbances like riots, or such other isolated and sporadic ac
ts of violence, even if armed forces are called to suppress the disorder.
Common
Article 3: States that in case of non-international armed conflict, contracting
parties are required to treat humanely persons who do not partake of the hostil
ities at all times, without any adverse distinction as to race, class, etc. Acts
of violence to life and person (mutilation, cruel treatment, torture), hostagetaking, outrages upon personal dignity, carrying out of sentences and executions
without those judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized peop
les, with respect to the persons previously mentioned, shall be prohibited at al
l times. The wounded and sick shall be cared for, and an impartial humanitarian
body like the Red Cross may offer its services. The application of Common Articl
e 3 does not make the conflict an international one. National Liberation Movemen
ts: Organized groups fighting in behalf of a people for freedom from colonial gr
oups; people fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and again
st racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination.
First arose in Africa, then in Asia. Currently, liberation movements are on the
wane. Characteristics: May be based within the territory they are seeking to lib
erate, or based in a friendly countrycontrol of territory is not
Page 14 of 42

a necessary factor. Legitimacy comes from their goal of selfdetermination. There

fore, they have a goal of eventual control of a definite territory, and an organ
ization capable of coming into contact with other international organizations.
O
nce the goals are attained, they may claim status of international subjects. Uni
lateral declaration: An authority representing the people engaged in armed confl
ict against a High Contracting Party in Article I of the 1977 Geneva Convention
(meaning non-international armed conflict) may seek to apply the Convention and
the Protocols by means of unilateral declaration, which bring the Convention and
Protocol into force immediately, and the represented party assumes the same rig
hts and obligations as those which have been assumed by a High Contracting Party
to the same Conventions and Protocol, making the latter agreements binding upon
both of them.
III.
Individuals
Individuals have increasingly become appropriate subjects of interna
tional law because of greater global awareness of human rights, which have grant
ed them limited rights and obligations in PIL. Best examples are those individua
ls who have acquired obligations arising from regulation of armed conflicts, mak
ing those behind certain actions fall under criminal responsibility. However, th
ose who claim violations of their individual rights still have to rely on the en
forcement power of states, but come treaties have provided for the right of indi
viduals to petition international bodies if a contracting state has violated som
e of their human rights. Development of the International Criminal Court has all
owed individuals to have international legal personality; however, the Philippin
es is not a signatory.
CHAPTER SEVEN: TERRITORYLAND, AIR AND OUTER SPACE
I. Territory in PIL
Territory: Element of a state; an area over which a State ha
s effective control. Control over territory is the essence of a State. Even if b
oundaries are uncertain, there is a definitive core over which sovereignty is ex
ercised. Sovereignty over a portion of the surface of the globe is the legal con
dition for the inclusion of such portion in the territory of any particular stat
e. Includes land, maritime areas, airspace and outerspace.
Modes of acquisition:
Discovery and occupation, prescription, cession, conquest and subjugation, and
accretion. Occupation: Acquisition of terra nullius (territory which belonged to
no one, or was effectively abandoned without intent of returning prior to occup
ation). Western Sahara Case (ICJ Advisory Opinion): WON Western Sahara was consi
dered terra nullius if they were inhabited by organized tribes. The Court advise
d that any territory inhabited by peoples having a social or political organizat
ion cannot be considered terra nullius.
Las Palmas Case (Perm. Crt.): WON the Island of Las Palmas belongs to the US (vi
a ceding of Spains rights over it through the Treaty of Paris) of to the Netherla
nds (via occupation and exercise of control). Ruling: Although the original titl
e by discovery could be traced to Spain, it never exercised control over the ter
ritory and therefore they only had inchoate title over the islands, because disc
overy alone could not suffice to prove sovereignty over the territoryit needs to
be coupled with control over it. Spain could not transfer more rights than she h
erself possessed. Its inchoate right cannot prevail over a definite title founde
d on continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty, upon which the Netherlands
founded their claim. The Arbitrator rules in favor of the Netherlands. Relative
effective control may depend upon the nature of the case. Where there are two or
more claimants to a territory, effective control is also relative to the streng
th of the claims. Eastern Greenlands Case (PCIJ): WON Denmark or Norways claim to
sovereignty will prevail. Ruling: Claims to sovereignty based upon continued di
splays of authority involves two elementsintention and will to act as sovereign,
and actual display of authority. In addition to that, the extent to which the so
vereignty is also claimed by some other Power must also be taken into account, a
s to which of the two is stronger. Because up to 1931 there was no other claim o
ther than Denmark, and up to 1921 no one disputed the claim, the Court ruled in
favor of Denmark. Prescription: A recognized mode of acquisition requiring effec
tive control, but the object of prescription is not terra nullius. This makes th
e required length of effective control longer than that of occupation. Prescript
ion may be negated by a lack of acquiescence by the prior occupant. Cession: The
acquisition of property through treaty. A treaty of cession imposed by a conque
ror is invalid, making what prevails merely a de facto regime. Conquest: Taking
possession of territory through armed force. For acquisition of conquered territ
ory, it is necessary that war had already ended either by treaty or by indicatio
n of surrender. The conqueror must have intended to acquire the territory indefi
nitely and not just occupy it temporarily. Conquest as a mode of acquisition is
proscribed by PIL today. The latest instance of a response to an attempted conqu
est is the action taken against Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Accretion or Avulsi
on: A kind of sovereignty by operation of nature. Accretion is the gradual incre
ase of territory by the action of nature while avulsion is a sudden change.
Page 15 of 42

II.
Contiguity (when certain lands are deemed part of territory on the basis of clos
eness) is not a basis for sovereignty, with Las Palmas as argument against it be
cause it is impossible to show a rule of positive international law affirming co
ntiguity as basis. Intertemporal law: The view that the rules in effect at the t
ime of the acquisition should be applied.
Airspace
Prior to World War I, airspace was thought to be completely free. Becau
se of the invention of airplanes and the outbreak of the war, there was a realiz
ation that the use of the air had security implications. It was then thought tha
t airspace is merely an extension of the territory below.
Each state has exclusi
ve jurisdiction over the air space above its territory, and consent for transit
must be obtained before passage is allowed. Chicago Convention on International
Civil Aviation created the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and
prescribed ruled for civil aviation. The Chicago Convention is applicable only t
o civil and not State aircraft, which are aircraft used in military, customs and
police services. No state aircraft of any contracting states shall fly over the
territory of another state or land there without authority by special agreement
or otherwise, and only according to the terms thereof. They will also have due
regard for the safety of navigation of civil aircraft. Flight over territory is
divided into non-scheduled and scheduled.
Non-scheduled flights: Contracting sta
tes making non-scheduled flights have the right, subject to the observance of th
e convention, to make flights into and in transit non-stop across the territory
and stops for non-traffic purposes without requiring prior permission, subject t
o the State flown overs right to require landing. The state making the NSF reserv
es the right to require aircraft wanting to proceed over inaccessible regions or
those without adequate air navigation facilities to obtain special permission f
or such flights or to follow prescribed routes.
Scheduled flights: No scheduled
flights may be operated without the special permission or authority of the State
flown over, and in accordance with such terms laid down in the permit.
Cabotage
(the transport of goods/passengers within the same country): Each contracting S
tate shall have the right to refuse permission to the aircraft of other contract
ing States to take on, within its territory, passengers, mail or cargo for pay/h
ire and destined for another point within its territory. Every contracting State
undertakes not to enter into arrangements which grant this privilege on an excl
usive basis to any other State nor shall they obtain any such privilege from any
other State. Rationale: Chicago Convention attempts to protect civil aviation;
however, since then, a number of incidents have taken place, like the 1955 shoot
ing of an Indian aircraft by Bulgaria, the 1973 shooting of a Libyan aircraft by
Israel, and the 1983 shooting of a Korean aircraft by Russia. As to the latter,
Russias justification was based on its sovereign right to protect its airspace.
Flexible rule with respect to State aircraft: In 1953, it was suggested by Lissi
tzyn in an AJIL article that a flexible rule be adopted as to State aircraft, in
that the territorial sovereignty must not expose the aircraft and its occupants
to unnecessary great danger in relation to the apprehended harmfulness of the i
ntrusion. An aircraft must not be attacked unless there is reason to suspect tha
t the aircraft is a real threat, and even then, a warning must be relayed to lan
d or change course before attacking. As to civilian aircraft, many have held tha
t they must never be attacked. Even the Soviet Union, as part of its justificati
on in the preceding paragraph, predicated its attack upon the mistaken notion th
at the South Korean aircraft was an American reconnaissance aircraft.

III.
Outer Space
The assertion under air space law used to be that air sovereignty ex
tended unlimitedly; this was changed by the development of outer space law. Thus
, sovereignty over air space extends only until where outer space begins. There
is no definite answer yet as to the delineation between air and outer space. Out
er space, it has been accepted, is not susceptible to appropriation by any State
. 1967 Treaty on the Exploration and Use of Outer Space: First achievement in ou
ter space law.
Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States w
ithout discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with
international law. There shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies,
freedom of scientific investigation, and States shall encourage and facilitate
international cooperation in such investigation.
States shall not place in orbit
or install on any celestial bodies any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any
other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.
The Moon and other celestial bodies
shall be used by all State parties exclusively for peaceful purposes, and it sha
ll be prohibited to establish military bases and to conduct military exercises o
n celestial bodies. Astronauts shall be considered envoys of mankind in outer sp
ace and all States shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of
accident, distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State or on
the high seas. When they land, they shall be returned to the State of registry
of their space vehicle.
Any important data or information discovered which could
constitute a danger shall be relayed immediately to the State Parties or the Se
cretary General of the United Nations.
CHAPTER EIGHT: TERRITORYTHE LAW OF THE SEA
I. Maritime Law Importance of the sea flows from two factors:
munication
Page 16 of 42
As a medium of com

As a carrier of vast natural resources Doctrine of the Open Seas: Despite the Po
rtuguese believing that some areas of the open sea belonged to it, Grotius elabo
rated on the doctrine of the open seas which considered the high seas as res com
munis or accessible to all. However, it has recognized as permissible the deline
ation of a maritime belt by littoral states as an indivisible part of its domain
called the territorial sea. 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea (LOS): The so
vereignty of a coastal State extends beyond its land territory and internal wate
rs and, if archipelagic, beyond its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of
sea called the territorial sea.
Sovereignty shall extend to the airspace above t
he territorial sea as well as its bed and subsoil. Sovereignty shall be subject
to this convention and PIL.
II.
Territorial Sea
A belt of sea twelve (12) nautical miles from the baseline of th
e coastal State. If the application of the 12-n.mile rule results in overlapping
, the rule used is the equidistance rule, where the dividing line is the median
line equidistant from the opposite baselines. However, this only applies if ther
e is historic title or other special circumstances requiring a different measure
ment.
Baselines: The low water line along the coast as marked on large scale cha
rts officially recognized by the coastal State. The use of the low water mark is
most favorable to the coastal States and shows the character of the territorial
waters as appurtenant to the land territory. (Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case) N
ormal baseline method: Follows the low water line along the coast along its curv
atures.
Straight baseline method: Traditionally used by archipelagic states, whe
re straight lines are drawn connecting selected points on the coast without appr
eciable departure from the general shape of the coast. This was first upheld in
the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case when used by Norway. In the Philippines, RA 3
046 and RA 5446 have drawn straight baselines around the Philippines. Article 7
and 47(1) of LOS upheld the use of the straight baseline method for archipelagic
states, subject to certain limitations. The main islands must be drawn within t
he straight baselines, which join the outermost points of the outermost islands.
The ratio of the land to the water included within the territory must be betwee
n 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. Lengths of baselines must not exceed 100nm, except 3% of th
e total number of baselines used to enclose the territory. The 3% may exceed the
length up to 125nm. The baselines must not depart from the general configuratio
n of the archipelago. Baselines cannot be drawn to and from low-tide elevations
unless there are lighthouses or any similar installations permanently
above sea level and the elevation is not within the territorial sea of another S
tate. The straight baselines must not cut off from the high seas or the exclusiv
e economic zone the territorial sea of another State. If part of the archipelagi
c waters of an archipelagic State lies in between two parts of an adjacent neigh
boring State, existing rights traditionally exercised by that neighboring State
shall be respected. The baselines drawn according to this method shall be placed
on charts or lists of geographical coordinates which shall be given due publici
ty. Copies of the chart/list must be deposited with the Secretary-General of the
UN. Sovereignty: Sovereignty over the territorial sea, the airspace above and t
he bed and subsoil shall be exercised in the same manner as it is exercised on l
and. Right of innocent passage: Territorial sea is subject to the right of innoc
ent passage by other States. The right applies to ships and aircraft; submarines
must surface.
The right of innocent passage is passage that is not prejudicial
to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Thus, the following a
cts are considered prejudicial and not subject to the right of innocent passage.
Threat/use of force Use of weapons Gathering intelligence reports/surveillance
Acts of propaganda affecting defense/security of the coastal State Taking onboar
d or launching of any aircraft or any military device Loading of any goods contr
ary to law Willful pollution contrary to LOS Fishing activities Carrying out of
research or survey activities Acts aimed at interfering with communication syste
ms or any other facilities of the coastal State Any other activity with no direc
t bearing on passage
Coastal states have the unilateral right to verify the char
acter of passage and to take necessary steps to prevent passage if it turns out
not to be innocent.
As determined by the Corfu Channel Case, the right of innoce
nt passage is applicable to straits. In times of war, warships may pass through
straits, provided it is innocent. In times of peace, no State has the right to p
rohibit passage unless otherwise provided in an international convention.
III.
Internal waters All waters (part of the sea, rivers, lakes, etc.) landwards from
the baseline of the territory.
Sovereignty: Same as in land.
Right of innocent
passage: NOT subject to RoIP.
Page 17 of 42

However, ports must be open to foreign vessels and can only be closed when vital
interests of the State so requires. (Saudi Arabia v. Aramco) States may regulat
e access to ports. (Nicaragua v. US)
IV.
Archipelagic Waters
Internal waters + waters in between islands as enclosed by t
he use of the straight baseline method. These are called archipelagic waters and
an archipelagic state may designate sea lanes and air routes suitable for conti
nuous and expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft through its archipel
agic waters and the adjacent territorial sea.
Right of Innocent Passage: YES, th
ere is RoIP. Philippine Reservation to LOS: Because of this concept of archipela
gic waters, there was a seeming conflict between the Philippine Constitution, wh
ich had considered those waters as internal waters (meaning, no RoIP.) Because o
f this, upon its ratification of the LOS, it made the reservation as to:
The con
ventions non-impairment of the Philippines sovereign rights arising from the Const
itution, of its rights as successor to the United States rights acquired through
the Treaty of Paris (Spain to US) and the Treaty of Washington (UK to US), of it
s rights and obligations through the Mutual Defense Treaty with the US, of its s
overeign rights over the sea lanes and the deprivation of the RoIP over its stra
its connecting the internal waters with the special economic zone or the high se
as. The reservation is not necessary because the new rule in the LOS applies onl
y to those waters which had not been previously considered as internal waters. T
he 1973 Constitution, which states that the archipelagic waters are internal wat
ers, predates the 1982 LOS. Bays
A well-marked indentation whose penetration is
in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters an
d constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. It is not a bay unless its
area is as large as, or is larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter
is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation (LOS.)
Waters of a bay are
considered internal waters. Measurement: Area of indentation is that lying betwe
en the low water mark of the indentation and a line joining the low water mark o
f its natural entrance points. The line measuring the internal waters shall not
exceed 24nm; if the mouth of the bay is more than 24nm, then only the maximum ar
ea which may be enclosed by the 24nm shall be considered the internal waters. Ex
ceptions: The above method of measuring bays shall not apply to so-called histor
ic bays, or where the system of straight baseline method applies. Historic bays
are those which are treated by the coastal state as internal waters on the basis
of historic rights acknowledged by other states.
Sovereignty: The coastal state exercises such authority to the extent necessary
to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitation autho
rity over its territorial waters or territory, and to punish such infringement.
The power of control of the littoral state does not change the nature of the wat
ers. It is still beyond the territorial sea, considered as part of the high seas
, and is not subject to the complete sovereignty of the coastal state.
VII.
Exclusive economic zone or patrimonial seas
The waters 200nm from the baseline. Th
e doctrine of patrimonial seas developed in light of conservation and management
of coastal fisheries. A coastal state has rights over the economic resources of
the sea, seabed and subsoilbut the right does not affect the right of navigation
and overflight of other states (meaning, RoIP cannot be deprived of foreign sta
tes.)
The provision imposes corresponding rights and obligations on coastal stat
es relative to the exploitation, management and preservation of the resources fo
und within the zone. Two primary obligations:
Coastal states must ensure through
proper measures that the living resources of the EEZ are not subject to over-ex
ploitation. There is a duty to maintain and restore populations of harvested fis
heries at levels which produce maximum sustainable yield.
Coastal states must pr
omote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources; if it cannot
utilize or harvest the resources, it must grant access to other states. Delimit
ation of the overlapping exclusive economic zone between adjacent states is dete
rmined by agreement/treaty. Continental/Archipelagic Shelf Continental/archipela
gic/insular shelf for archipelagos refer to: Seabed and subsoil of the submarine
areas adjacent to the coastal state BUT outside the territorial seas, up to a d
epth of 200m or, beyond that, to where the depth allows exploitation.
Seabed and
subsoil of areas adjacent to islands. Coastal state has the right to explore an
d exploit its natural resources, to erect installations as needed and to erect a
safety zone over its installations with a radius of 500m.
This application does
not affect the right of navigation of others. Moreover, the right does not exte
nd to non-resource material on the shelf area such as wrecked ship and their car
goes. The Deep Seabed: The Common Heritage of Mankind
Includes: Areas of the seabe
d, ocean floor and its subsoil, which lie beyond any national jurisdiction. Bein
g the common heritage of mankind, it may not be appropriated by any state or per
son. Islands Naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water. It is above wat
er at high tide.
VIII. V.
IX.
VI.
Contiguous Zone
Area of water not exceeding 24nm from the baseline; it exceeds 1
2nm from the edge of the territorial sea.
X.
Page 18 of 42

Its territorial sea, contiguous zones and continental shelf shall be determined
in accordance with the provisions of the Convention applicable to other land ter
ritory. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their ow
n shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.
There is no clear
definition in PIL of economic life Artificial islands or installations are not isl
ands, but may be subject to safety zones which coastal states may establish arou
nd them. Safety measures may also be prescribed.
Tribunal for the LOS, the ICJ or an arbitral tribunal, constituted under the Con
vention.
CHAPTER NINE: JURISDICTION OF STATES
I. Jurisdiction The authority to affect legal interests; jurisdiction may follow
the powers of governmentthere is executive jurisdiction to enforce the norms pre
scribed, legislative jurisdiction to prescribe norms of conduct, and judicial ju
risdiction, jurisdiction to adjudicate.
PIL limits itself to criminal not civil
jurisdiction, because civil jurisdiction is subject of conflicts of law or priva
te international law. Five principles of State jurisdiction: Territoriality
Nati
onality Protective Universality
Passive Personality
The first three are generall
y supported in customary law and the fourth has special circumstances; the fifth
does not enjoy wide acceptance. Jurisdiction may be acquired via treaty. The Te
rritoriality Principle The fundamental source of jurisdiction. A state has absol
ute but not necessarily exclusive power to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce rul
es for conduct that occurs within its territory. This is why it is necessary to
determine boundaries.
Rules on boundaries: Boundary separating two states is det
ermined by acts of the states expressing their consent to the location.
Thalweg
doctrine: If the boundary between two states is a navigable river, its location
is the middle of the channel, without prejudice to a different arrangement conse
nted to. If the boundary between two states is a non-navigable river or lake, it
s location is the middle of the river or lake, without prejudice to a different
arrangement consented to.
To have jurisdiction, control must be established, alo
ng with occupation. Effects Doctrine: A state has jurisdiction over acts occurri
ng outside its territory but having effects within it. Subjective territoriality
: A state has jurisdiction to prosecute and punish crime commenced within the st
ate but completed abroad.
Objective territoriality: A state has jurisdiction to
prosecute and punish crime commenced without the state but completed within its
territory. The Lotus Case (PCIJ): WON Turkey has jurisdiction over the offense c
ommitted against its vessel, the Boz-Kourt, which collided with a French steamer
, the Lotus, near Constantinople, Turkey, causing the death of 8 Turkish nationa
l sailors. By virtue of filing criminal proceedings against Lt.
XI.
High Seas
Article I, Geneva Convention: High Seasall parts of the sea that are no
t included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State.
Subject
to six freedoms: Freedom of navigation
Freedom of overflight (belonging to both
civil and State aircraft)
Freedom of fishing Freedom to lay submarine cables and
pipelines Freedom to construct artificial islands and structures
Freedom of sci
entific research First four are from the 1958 Convention of the High Seas and th
e last two were added by the 1982 LOS, but the latter two are subject to restric
tions. The flag state has exclusive jurisdiction over its ships on the high seas
to the extent not limited by agreement because by legal fiction, a ship is a flo
ating part of the flag state.
Freedom of fishing is qualified by the duty to coop
erate in taking measures to ensure the conservation and management of the living
resources of the high seas.

Article 86: The six freedoms apply to all parts of t
he sea not included in the EEZ, in the territorial sea or the internal or archip
elagic waters of a state. However, this is not an indication of what constitutes
high seas, because the EEZ is not a part of the territorial sea.
Doctrine of Hot
Pursuit: Where there is good reason to believe that a foreign vessel has violat
ed laws or regulations of a coastal state, hot pursuit is allowed. However, the
pursuit must commence when the foreign vessel is within internal waters, archipe
lagic waters or territorial waters, or the contiguous zone, and may be continued
without interruption if it enters into the high seas. If the foreign vessel is
in the contiguous zone, it may be pursued only for violations of the coastal sta
te in the contiguous zone. Hot pursuit must stop when the ship pursued enters th
e territorial waters of its own state or that of a third party.
Hot pursuit may
be carried out by warships or military aircraft. The Im Alone case (AJIL): WON th
e US is liable for the sinking of a vessel on the basis of hot pursuit. Ruling:
Although the hot pursuit was justified, the sinking of the vessel was not, and t
he US must pay damages and apologize to the Canadian government.
Settlement of D
isputes: Peaceful settlement is compulsory and required by law. If a bilateral s
tatement fails, Article 285 requires submission of the dispute in one of the tri
bunals clothed with jurisdiction like the International
II.
Page 19 of 42

Demons, the officer in charge of the Lotus at the time of the collision, it is c
ontended by France that Turkey has violated international law; in reply, Turkey
alleged that no principle of IL conflicts with the act. Ruling: The Court held t
hat there is no rule in PIL prohibiting the State to which the ship on which the
effects of the offense have taken place belongs from regarding the offense as h
aving been committed within its territory and capable of prosecution. While this
can be overturned by showing a rule of customary law which conflicts with it, F
rance has not proven such. Therefore, there is no rule. The Court therefore rule
s that it is a case of concurrent jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over foreign vessel
s in the Philippines: French rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant ve
ssel should not be prosecuted in the courts of the country within whose territor
ial jurisdiction they were committed unless the commission affects the peace and
security of the territory.
English rule: Followed in the US; crimes perpetrated
under such circumstances where the territoriality principle is applicable are i
n general triable in the courts of the country within whose territory they were
committed. The Philippines adheres to this rule. Trail Smelter Arbitration: WON
Canada is liable to the US for damages caused by its smelter which produced emis
sions of sulphur dioxide allegedly damaging Washington state. Ruling: Yes, Canad
a is liable for damages since there was injury caused to the US, because a State
owes at all times a duty to protect other States against injurious acts by indi
viduals from within its jurisdiction. The smelter is enjoined from causing furth
er damage to the State of Washington. IV.
Nottebohm as its national, despite valid fulfillment of its naturalization laws
because of failure to satisfy the effective nationality link sufficient for Liec
htenstein to extend and exercise protection for him. Evidence against him: he wa
s a habitual resident of Guatemala, it being the center of his interests and of
his business activities. Nationality is a legal bond, concerning the citizen per
sonally, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments together wi
th the existence of reciprocal rights and obligations. Corporations: A state has
jurisdiction over corporations organized under its rules. Other bases: Principa
l residence/place of business test, control test. Stateless persons: Those who d
o not have a nationality. They may be either de jure or de facto stateless. The
former are those who lost their nationality, if they had one, and have not acqui
red a new one, while the latter are those who have a nationality but to whom pro
tection is denied by their state when out of the state.
Mejoff v. Director of Pr
isons (90 Phil. 70): WON Boris Mejoff, a former Russian national who was brought
to the Philippines as a spy for Japanese forces and subsequently detained for t
wo years because no ship would take him, and he lacked travel documents, should
be released. Ruling: Even if they are stateless, aliens have no right of asylum,
If there is no charge against them, However, they cannot remain in detention in
definitely. Because he was brought in by a de facto corporation, his entrance wa
s not illegal. Mejoff should be released but placed under the surveillance of qu
alified immigration authorities.
III.
The Nationality Principle
Every state has jurisdiction over its nationals, even
when those nationals are outside the state.
Blackmer v. US (US): WON Blackmer wa
s correctly adjudged in contempt for failure to respond to subpoenas served upon
him in France requiring him to appear as witness in behalf of the US and WON th
e statute authorizing the issuance of subpoenas is repugnant to the Constitution
for violation of the due process clause. Ruling: Even if Blackmer became a resi
dent of France, he continued to owe allegiance to the United States and the US r
etained its authority over him. He was bound by its laws made applicable to him
in a foreign country.
State nationals and the effective nationality link: A state
has the right to decide who its nationals are using either the principle of jus
sanguinis or jus soli or naturalization laws. However, before a person can be cl
aimed by a state as a national, there must be established an effective nationali
ty link. Consent of the individual alone is not enough.
Nottebohm Case (ICJ): WO
N Nottebohm, a German national by birth, constant fixture in Guatemala and newly
claimed Liechtenstein national by naturalization, can be claimed by Liechtenste
in as its national in a case for reparations over the protests of Guatemala, Rul
ing: Liechtenstein cannot claim
The Protective Principle A state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside
its territory what threatens its security so long as that conduct is generally r
ecognized as criminal by states in the international community.
Lord Haw Haw: A de
cision upholding the conviction of an American citizen guilty of high treason be
cause of messages he broadcast trying to get the Allies to surrender. No princip
le of comity demands that a state should ignore the crime of treason committed a
gainst it outside its territory. Limitations: Only offenses posing a direct, spe
cific threat to national security. When applied to terrorist activities, a more
liberal approach to the limitation may be applied. The Universality Principle
Ce
rtain activities, universally dangerous to states and their subjects, require au
thority in all community members to punish such acts wherever they may occur, ev
en absent a link between the state and the parties or the acts in question. This
principle was started with instances of piracy. Piracy means any illegal act of
violence or depredation committed for private ends on the high seas or outside
the territorial control of any State.
V.
Page 20 of 42

Currently covers genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, aircraft piracy
and terrorism. Growing support for universal jurisdiction over crimes against hu
man rights. Genocide: Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part
, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of t
he group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliber
ately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its p
hysical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent b
irths within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another g
roup. Crimes against humanity: Any of the following acts when committed as part
of a wide-spread or systematic attack (where attack directed against any civilian
population means the multiple commission of the following acts against any civil
ian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational polic
y to commit such an attack) against any civilian population with knowledge of th
e attack: Murder;
Extermination includes intentional infliction of conditions of
life, the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about
the destruction of part of a population;
Enslavement the exercise of any or all
of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes th
e exercise of such power in the course of trafficking persons, in particular wom
en and children; Deportation or forcible transfer of population forced displacem
ent of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area i
n which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under intl law;
Impr
isonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundame
ntal rules of international law; Torture intentional infliction of severe pain o
r suffering, physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the contr
ol of the accuser; does not include pain or suffering arising from, inherent, or
incidental to lawful sanctions; Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, fo
rced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of
comparable gravity forced pregnancy is the unlawful confinement of a woman forci
bly made pregnant with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any pop
ulation; Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political
, racial, national, ethnic, or other grounds intentional and severe deprivation
of fundamental rights contrary to intl law by reason of the identity of the group
or collectivity;
Enforced disappearance of persons arrest, detention or abducti
on of persons by, or with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of a State
or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivat
ion of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those person
s, with the intention of
removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time;
Apa
rtheid inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of
systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial g
roup with the intention of maintaining that regime.
Other inhumane acts of a sim
ilar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body
or to mental or physical health. War crimes: Grave breaches of the Geneva Conven
tions of 1949. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (F.2D US): WON the US Court has jurisdict
ion over a case concerning the wrongful death of a 17-year old tortured to death
in Paraguay, brought by two nationals of Paraguay, on the basis of the Alien To
rt Act. Ruling: Yes, it has jurisdiction, claiming the universality principle. T
he requisites of torture require it to be committed by one in an official capaci
ty, and its prohibition has become part of customary international law. Several
declarations and documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

have created an expectation of adherence among its member states.
Eichmann Cases (Courts of Israel): WON Israel has jurisdiction to try the case o
f a high-ranking SS officer on the basis of the Nazi Collaborators Law, a law int
ending retroactive application, despite the acts being committed outside its bor
ders by a person who is not a national. Ruling: The power of Israel to enact the
law is based on a dual foundationthe universal character of the crimes in questi
on and their specific character as intended to exterminate the Jewish people. Th
e offense of genocide is a grave offense against the law of nations itself (deli
cta juris gentium) and is the gravest type of act against humanity. In this case
, it is a just retroactive law. As to the universality principle, power is veste
d in every State regardless of the fact that the offence was committed outside i
ts territory by a person who did not belong to it, provided he is in its custody
at the time he is brought to trial.
VI.
The Passive Personality Principle
Asserts that a state may apply lawparticularly
criminal lawto an act committed outside its territory by a person not a national
where the victim of the act was its national.
The principle is not accepted for
ordinary torts or crimes, but it is increasingly accepted as applied to terroris
t attacks and other organized attacks on a states nationals on the basis of their
nationality. US v. Fawiz-Yunis (Federal US): WON the US Court has jurisdiction
over a criminal proceeding against the several Arab men who hijacked a Jordanian
airline on the basis that some of the nationals taken hostage were Americans. R
uling: Yes, the Court has jurisdiction under the universality principle and unde
r the passive personality principle. As to the latter, it recognizes that states
have a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of its citizens when they j
ourney outside national borders. Even though it is the most controversial of the
five sources of jurisdiction, it is agreed that the
Page 21 of 42

international community recognizes the legitimacy of the Passive Personality Pri

nciple. Rationale: The reason why this is so frowned upon is because any asserti
on of this kind of jurisdiction may subject a country to indefinite criminal lia
bility; a country may be subject to laws not their own and may be arrested for c
ommitting acts which they do not know to be illegal.
VII.
Conflicts of Jurisdiction
Because of the various ways of a state to assume juris
diction, there may be instances of conflicting yet valid claims of jurisdiction.
The Balancing TestTimberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America: Tripartite analysis
to determine WON a US Court can assume jurisdiction over an antitrust claim. If
the answer is yes to all of the questions below, the court assumes jurisdiction.
Was there an actual or intended effect on American foreign commerce? (There mus
t be an effect before federal courts can exercise subject matter jurisdiction un
der the Sherman Act statutes)
Is the effect sufficiently large to present cogniz
able injury to the plaintiffs and represent a civil violation of the anti-trust
laws? (To show that there is a greater burden) Are the interests of and link to
the US including effects on American foreign commerce sufficiently strong, versu
s those of other nations, to justify an assertion of extraordinary authority?
Ba
lancing test: Degree of conflict with foreign law or policy
The nationality or a
llegiance of the parties the locations or principal places of business of corpor
ation The extent to which enforcement by either state can be expected to achieve
compliance
The relative significance of effects on the U.S. as compared with th
ose elsewhere The extent to which there is explicit purpose to harm or affect Am
erican commerce, the foreseeability of such effect The relative importance to th
e violations charged of conduct with the US as compared with conduct abroad.
Int
ernational comityHartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California: Even when a state has
basis to exercise jurisdiction, it will refrain from doing so if its exercise w
ill be unreasonable. Unreasonableness is determined by evaluating various factor
s link of the activity to the territory of the regulating state, the connection (
such as nationality, residence, economic activity) between the regulating state
and the person principally responsible for the activity to be regulated, the cha
racter of the activity to be regulated, the existence of justified expectations
that might be regulated, the existence of justified expectations that might be p
rotected or hurt by the regulation, the likelihood of conflict with regulation b
y another state. Forum non conveniensPiper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno: Discretionary a
pplication of the court. Applies when, in the circumstances of the case, it be d
iscovered that there is a real unfairness to one of the suitors in permitting
the choice of a forum which is not the natural or proper forum, either on the gr
ound of convenience of trial or the residence or domicile of parties or of its b
eing the locus contractus or locus solutionis, then the doctrine of forum non co
nveniens is properly applied.
The court needs to weigh the private interest and
the public interest factors. The private interest factors are: Access to sources
of proof Availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses Other perso
nal problems which make trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.
The public int
erest factors are: Congestion Desire to settle local controversies at home Havin
g the case tried in a forum at home with the applicable law. VIII. Extradition T
he surrender of an individual by the state within whose territory he is found to
the state under whose laws he is alleged to have committed a crime. It is a pro
cess governed by treaty, and the legal right to demand extradition and the corre
lative duty to surrender a fugitive exist only when governed by treaty. Extradit
ion is normally done through diplomatic channels.
No state is obliged to extradi
te unless there is a treaty.

Differences in legal system can be obstacles to int
erpretation of what the crime is
Religious and political offenses are not extrad
itable.
US v. Alvarez-Machain (US): WON the US Court has jurisdiction over Alvar
ez who is indicted for participation in the kidnap and the murder of a DEA agent
and Mexican pilot. Ruling: Yes, they do. The forcible abduction of Alvarez did
not violate the extradition treaty between US and Mexico because nothing in the
treaty proscribes forcible abduction because it does not specify the ways by whi
ch a State may gain custody of a national of the other country for the purposes
of prosecution.
Due Process in Extradition: Secretary of Jusice v. Lantion: WON
notice and hearing are essential during the evaluation stage of the proceedings.
Ruling: There is no provision in the RP-US Extradition Treaty that gives the ri
ght to demand copies of the extradition requests. The likening of an extradition
to a criminal procedure is not persuasive because an extradition is sui generis
and does not involve the determination of guilt.
Bail in Extradition Cases: A c
ourt may grant bail after the determination by the court that (1) he/she is not
a flight risk, and (2) There exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumst
ances. (Rodriguez v. Judge) Lately, the Court overturns stare decisis in favor o
f the growing importance of the individual person in PIL, who has attained globa
l recognition, the higher value being given to human rights in the international
sphere. If bail can be granted in deportation proceedings, there is no justific
ation not to allow it for extradition because both are
Page 22 of 42

administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the parties is not in
issue.
CHAPTER TEN: IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
I. Immunity
General rule: The jurisdiction of a state within its territory is co
mplete and absolute
Exceptions: Sovereign immunity and diplomatic immunity Head
of State Immunity Immunity is enjoyed by the head of state and by the self itsel
f. While the head of State is sitting, the immunity is absolute. Mighell v. Sult
an of Johore: WON the Sultan of Johore can be sued for breach of promise to marr
y. Ruling: The Court ruled that the subject matter of the case was a private mat
ter, and upon verification of the Sultans foreign sovereignty, the case was dismi
ssed because the immunity of heads of state was recognized.
Pinochet Case (UK):
WON a former Head of State can enjoy immunity rationae materiae in relation to a
cts done by him as Head of State. Ruling: The immunity for former heads of state
shields only acts which were done in an official or governmental capacity. It c
annot be said that international crime against humanity and jus cogens can ever
be done in a governmental capacity; therefore, upon relinquishment of his seat,
a head of state may be liable to be called to account if there is evidence that
he authorized or perpetrated serious international crimes. It is also argued tha
t absolving Pinochet on the basis of immunity RM would circumvent the system of
making people liable for the international crime of torture. State Immunity: The
state may not be sued without its consent Found in both municipal and internation
al law.
Based on the principle of equality of statespar in parem non habet imperi
um. The Schooner Exchange case: The nation within its own territory is necessaril
y exclusive and absolute; however, absolute sovereignty does not include the pre
sence of foreign sovereigns nor their sovereign rights as its objects.
The immuni
ty of the sovereign head is also communicated to the foreign sovereign state. Ev
ery sovereign is understood to waive the exercise of a part of that complete exh
austive territorial jurisdiction, which is the attribute of every nation. Acts j
ure imperii v. Acts jure gestionis: The distinction drawn between acts jure impe
rii (governmental acts) and acts jure gestionis (trading and commercial acts) ar
e elaborated on in Dralle v. Czechoslovakia. Dralle case (Austria): It can no lo
nger be said that acts jure gestionis are exempt from municipal jurisdiction. Th
e immunity as regards acts jure gestiontis, when the States actions as regards tr
ading and commercial activity were usually limited to commercial acts, developed
out of political activities such as the purchase of
commodities for diplomacy or war. Today, however, it has become commonplace for
the State to enter into the free market and even enter into direct competition w
ith their own nationals. It must follow that the immunity that initially develop
ed has ceased to become applicable. Traditional rule on State Immunity exempts a
state from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or wai
ver. A States commercial activity is a descent to the level of individuals and th
ere is a form of tacit consent to be sued when it enters into business contracts
with others.
Holy See v. Eriberto Rosario, Jr. However, not every contract ente
red into is a form of tacit consent to be sued. It depends upon whether the fore
ign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. If not,
or it is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, it falls within the exemption of ac
ts jure imperii especially when not intended for gain or profit. A state claimin
g sovereign immunity must request the Foreign Office of the state where it is su
ed to convey to the Court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.
A party w
ho feels transgressed by anyone claiming immunity may ask his own government to
espouse his cause through diplomatic channels. Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon:
WON the Republic of Indonesia, represented by Chief of Administration, Minister
Counsellor Kasim, enjoys immunity in a case concerning a maintenance agreement.
Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of Indonesia, and stated that international law
is founded on principles of reciprocity, comity, independence and equality of S

tates. The existence alone of a paragraph in the maintenance agreement allowing
for certain actions to be tried in a venue does not constitute a waiver of sover
eign immunity from suit.
II.
III.
Diplomatic and consular immunities

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations gov
erns diplomats, or those concerned with the political relations of states. Immun
ities and privileges enjoyed stem not from sovereignty but to be able to perform
his or her functions properly.
Diplomatic immunity is enjoyed by: Head of the m
ission the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that c
apacity; Members of the mission the head of the mission and the members of the s
taff of the mission;
Members of the staff of the mission the members of the dipl
omatic, administrative, technical and service staff of the mission;
Members of t
he diplomatic staff members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;
Diplomatic agent head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the
mission
Page 23 of 42

Members of the administrative and technical staff members of the staff of the mi
ssion employed in the administrative and technical service of the mission;
Membe
rs of the service staff members of the staff of the mission in the domestic serv
ice of the mission;
Private servant a person who is in the domestic service of a
member of the mission and who is not an employee of the sending State;
Premises
of the mission buildings or parts of the buildings and the land ancillary there
to, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission, including t
he residence of the head of the mission. Functions of the diplomatic mission:
Re
presenting the sending State in the receiving State; Protecting in the receiving
State the interest of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits
permitted by international law; Negotiating with the government of the receivin
g State; Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the rec
eiving state, and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State;
Prom
oting friendly relations between the sending State and the receiving State, and
developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations. Establishment of d
iplomatic relations: Relations are established by mutual consent. Agreements mus
t first be obtained before the head of a mission is sent to the receiving State.
The receiving state is not obliged to give reasons for refusing an agreement an
d, at any time and without need to give explanations, upon notice to the sending
state, may declare the head of mission or any member of the diplomatic mission
as persona non grata. A person declared persona non grata is declared as not acc
eptable, and the sending State shall recall the person or terminate his function
s. It is the duty of all persons enjoying the privileges and immunities of diplo
mats to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.
4. Issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, rep
orting thereon to the Government of the sending State, and visas or appropriate
documents to persons wishing to travel to the sending State; 5. Helping and assi
sting nationals of the sending State; 6. Acting as notary and civil registrar; 7
. Safeguarding the interests of national of the sending State in case of success
ion mortis causa in the territory of the receiving State; 8. Safeguarding the in
terests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of t
he sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required
; 9. Representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals of the s
ending state before the tribunals and other authorities of the receiving state t
o preserve their rights and interests; 10. Transmitting judicial and extra-judic
ial documents or executing letters rogatory or commissions to take evidence for
the courts of the sending state; 11. Exercising rights or supervision and inspec
tion in respect of vessels having the nationality of the sending state and or ai
rcraft registered in that state and in respect of their crews; 12. Extending ass
istance to vessels and aircraft mentioned above and to their crews, taking state
ments regarding the voyage of a vessel, examining and stamping the ships papers,
and conducting investigations into any incidents which occurred during the voyag
e and settling disputes between master, officers, and seamen; 13. Other function
s entrusted by the sending state not prohibited by the laws and regulations of t
he receiving state or to which no objection is taken by the receiving state or w
hich are referred to in the international agreements in force.
IV.
Consuls and Consular immunities
Consuls are not concerned with political matters
but with administrative and economic issues, such as the issuance of visas. Fun
ctions of Consuls: 1. Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sen
ding State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by intl law;
2. Furt
hering the development of commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific relatio
ns between the sending state and the receiving state and promoting friendly rela
tions between them;
3. Ascertaining all lawful means, conditions, and developmen
ts in the commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific life of the receiving S
tate, reporting thereon to the Government of the sending state and giving inform
ation to interested persons;
Act of State Doctrine Local courts cannot pass upon the validity of the acts of
a foreign state; Judicial restraint in domestic law in deference to the executiv
e who is the principal architect of foreign relations. All acts concerning the a
ct of State doctrine concern political and legislative acts, but never judicial.
Underhill v. Hernandez: WON Underhill is entitled to damages from Hernandez bas
ed on the latters refusal to grant him a passport to leave the country and on the
assertions that he had been kept in detention by Hernandez. Ruling: Underhill i
s not entitled to damages because of the act of state doctrine Courts of one state
will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within
its own territory. Dunhill v. Cuba: WON Cubas failure to return the overpayment m
ade by Dunhill on cigars can be considered as an act of state. Ruling: No, it is
not an act of state. An act of state cannot extend to include the repudiation o
f a purely commercial obligation.
Page 24 of 42

Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corporation: WON Kirkpatrick & Co. ca

n get the case (where he is accused of bribing Nigerian officials to win a biddi
ng war contrary to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) against it dismissed by in
voking the act of State doctrine. Ruling: No, it cannot be invoked. It is not th
e validity of a foreign act at issue; the act of state doctrine does not establi
sh exceptions for controversies, but merely requires that acts of foreign sovere
igns within their jurisdictions shall be deemed valid. Provincial Government v.
Placer Dome: WON the district court had jurisdiction over the case based upon th
e act of state doctrine such that removal from state to federal court was proper
(on the grounds that, by raising the act of state doctrine, the case would be m
oved to the federal court from the district court because it tendered questions
of international law and foreign relations.) Ruling: The Court reverses the deci
sion of the district court, which was done pursuant to a claim by Placer Dome. I
t must be shown on the plaintiffs complaint that it is attacking the validity of
any act of a foreign state, or else a rejection of the act of state doctrine is
proper. None of the supposed acts of state identified by the district court as j
ustification to raise it to the federal court is essential to the claim of Provi
nce. Nothing in the complaint would require a court to pass judgment on any offi
cial act of the Philippine government. Just as raising the specter of political i
ssues cannot sustain dismissal under the political question doctrine, neither do
es a general invocation of international law or foreign relations mean that an a
ct of state is an essential element of a claim. It cannot be thought that every c
ase touching foreign relations lies beyond judicial cognizance.
APPENDICESCHAPTER TEN: IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

Rights and privileges of diplom
ats: Article 22 Inviolability of Premises of the Mission: The premises of the mi
ssion shall be inviolable. Agents of the receiving State may not enter them, exc
ept with the consent of the head of the mission. The receiving State is under a
special duty to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or dam
age and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of
its dignity. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property t
hereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, re
quisition, attachment, or execution.
Article 23 Exemption from Property Taxes: T
he sending State and head of the mission shall be exempt from all national, regi
onal or municipal dues and taxes in respect of the premises of the mission, whet
her owned or leased, other than such as represent payment for specific services
rendered.
Exemption from taxation is NOT applicable to dues and taxes payable under the la
w of the receiving State by persons contracting with the sending State or the he
ad of the mission. Article 24 Inviolability of Archives and Documents Archives a
nd documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they ma
y be. Article 27 Inviolability of Official Correspondence The receiving State sh
all permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all off
icial purposes. The mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomat
ic couriers and messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and
use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving state. Offici
al correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence me
ans all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions. The diplomatic
bag shall not be opened or detained. Packages constituting the diplomatic bag m
ust bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomat
ic documents or articles intended for official use. The diplomatic courier shall
be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He sha
ll enjoy personal inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or
detention. The sending State of the mission may designate diplomatic couriers a
d hoc who shall enjoy the immunities of a diplomatic courier until he has delive
red to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge. Article 29 Inviolability
of Person of the Diplomatic Agent The person of a diplomatic agent shall be invi
olable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving
state shall treat him with due respect and shall take appropriate steps to prev
ent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity. Article 30 Inviolability of th
e Private Residence, Papers, Correspondence, and Property of the Diplomatic Agen
t Same protection granted to the residence, papers, property, and correspondence
of the diplomatic agent as that granted to the premises of the mission. Article
31 Immunity from Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Jurisdiction A diplomatic
agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State
. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction EX
CEPT: o a. in real actions relating to private immovable property situated in th
e territory of the receiving
Page 25 of 42

State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the
mission; o b. in actions relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent i
s involved as executor, administrator, heir, or legatee as a private person; o c
. in actions relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by th
e diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside of his official functions. A d
iplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness. A diplomatic agent
is exempt from execution except if the case falls under the three exceptions un
der #2, and provided that the measures of execution can be taken without infring
ing the inviolability of his person or his residence. The diplomatic agent is no
t exempt from the jurisdiction of the sending state. Article 32 Waiver of Immuni
ty Immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immun
ity under Art. 37 may be waived by the sending State. Waiver must be express. Th
e initiation of proceedings by a diplomatic agent or by a person enjoying immuni
ty from jurisdiction under Art. 37 shall preclude him from invoking immunity in
respect of any counter-claim directly connected with the principal claim. Waiver
of immunity in respect of civil or administrative proceedings shall not be held
to imply waiver of immunity from execution of the judgment, for which a separat
e waiver is necessary. Article 33 Exemption from Social Security Provisions A di
plomatic agent shall be exempt from social security provisions with respect to s
ervices rendered for the sending state. The exemption also applies to private se
rvants who are in the sole employ of a diplomatic agent, provided: o a. that the
y are not nationals or permanent residents of the receiving state; and o b. they
are covered by the social security provisions in force in the sending state or
a third state. A diplomatic agent who employs persons to whom the exemption in #
2 does not apply, shall not be exempt from social security provisions of the rec
eiving state imposed upon employers.
But the diplomatic agent can voluntarily participate in the social security syst
em of the receiving state, provided that it is permitted by the receiving state.
Article 34 Exemption from Taxation A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all
dues and taxes, personal or real, national, regional or municipal, EXCEPT: o Ind
irect taxes normally incorporated in the price of goods or services; o Dues and
taxes on private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving s
tate, unless held on behalf of the State for the purposes of the mission; o Esta
te, succession, or inheritance tax; o Dues and taxes on private income derived w
ithin the State and capital taxes on investments made in commercial undertakings
in the receiving State; o Charges levied for specific services rendered; o Regi
stration, court or record fees, mortgage dues, and stamp duty with respect to im
movable property. Article 36 Exemption from Customs Duties The following are exe
mpt from customs duties, taxes and other related charges for storage, cartage, a
nd other similar services: o a. articles for official use of the mission; o b. a
rticles for the personal use of a diplomatic agent or members of his family form
ing part of his household, including articles intended for his establishment. Pe
rsonal baggage of a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from inspection unless ther
e are serious grounds to presume that it contains articles not covered by the ex
empted items above, or that are prohibited or controlled by quarantine regulatio
ns of the receiving State. The inspection shall be conducted only in the presenc
e of the diplomatic agent or his authorized rep. Article 37 Immunity of members
of the family and other staff Members of the family of a diplomatic agent formin
g part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State,
enjoy the privileges and immunities in Articles 29-36. Members of the admin and
technical staff of the mission, together with their family members, who are not
nationals or permanent residents of the receiving state shall enjoy the immunit
ies under Articles 29-35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative
jurisdiction shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their dut
ies. They shall also enjoy the privileges under Art. 36,
Page 26 of 42

in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation. Members of th

e service staff of the mission who are not nationals or permanent residents of t
he receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the cour
se of their duties, exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments received by
reason of their employment, and the exemption granted in Art. 33. Private servan
ts or members of the mission who are not nationals or permanent residents in the
receiving State shall be exempt from dues and taxes on emoluments received by r
eason of their employment. In other respects, they may enjoy privileges and immu
nities to the extent admitted by the receiving State. Article 38 Immunity of Dip
lomatic Agents who are Nationals of Permanent Residents of the Receiving State I
f the receiving State grants additional privileges and immunities, a diplomatic
agent who is a national of or permanent resident in the State shall enjoy only i
mmunity from jurisdiction and inviolability in respect of official acts performe
d in the exercise of his functions. Immunity or other members of the staff of th
e mission and private servants who are nationals or permanent residents: Only to
the extent admitted by the receiving state. But state must exercise its jurisdi
ction without unduly interfering with the performance of the functions of the mi
ssion. Article 39 Commencement and Termination of the Immunities The immunities
commence from the moment the person enjoying the immunities enters the territory
of the receiving State on proceeding to take up his port or, if already in its
territory, from the moment when his appointment is notified to the Ministry of F
oreign Affairs. They end when the functions of a person enjoying immunity have c
ome to an end, the immunities cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or
on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so, but shall subsist until tha
t time, even in case of armed conflict. With respect to acts performed by the pe
rson in the exercise of his functions as a member of the mission, immunity shall
continue to subsist. Article 41 Duty of Persons Enjoying Immunity Duty is to re
spect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. Article 42 Prohibitions T
hey may not practice for personal profit any professional or commercial activity
in the receiving State.
Rights and privileges of Consuls:
Article 34 Freedom of Movement
Subject to its laws and regulations concerning zones entry into which is prohibi
ted or regulated for reasons of national security, the receiving state shall ens
ure freedom of movement and travel in its territory to all members of the consul
ar post. Article 35 Freedom of Communication The receiving State shall permit an
d protect free communication on the part of the consular post for all official p
urposes. The mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic or c
onsular couriers, diplomatic or consular bags, and messages in code or cipher. H
owever, the consular post may install and use a wireless transmitter only with t
he consent of the receiving state. Official correspondence of the consular post
shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating t
o the consular post and its functions. The consular bag shall not be opened or d
etained. But if the competent authorities of the receiving state have serious re
ason to believe that the bag contains something other than the correspondence, d
ocuments or articles, they may request that the bag be opened by an authorized r
ep of the sending state. If the request is refused, the bag shall be returned to
its place of origin. Packages constituting the consular bag must bear visible e
xternal marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or ar
ticles intended for official use. Article 36 Communication and Contact with Nati
onals of the Sending State Consular officers shall be free to communicate with n
ationals of the sending state and to have access to them. Nationals of the sendi
ng state shall have the same freedom to communicate and to access consular offic
ers of the sending state. If he so requests, the competent authorities of the re
ceiving state shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending stat
e if a national of that state is arrested or committed to prison or to custody p
ending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to
the consular post by the person arrested shall be forwarded by the authorities w
ithout delay; Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the
sending state who is in prison, custody, or detention, to converse and correspon
d with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the
right to visit any national of the sending state who is in prison, custody or d
etention in their district in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular of
ficers shall refrain
Page 27 of 42

from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detentio

n if he expressly opposes such action. Article 41 Personal Inviolability of Cons
ular Officers Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest of detention pendi
ng trial EXCEPT in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the c
ompetent judicial authority. Article 42 Notification of Arrest, Detention, or Pr
osecution If a members of the consular staff is arrested or detained, the receiv
ing state shall notify the head of the consular post. Article 43 IMMUNITY FROM J
URISDICTION Consular officers and employees shall be immune from jurisdiction of
the judicial and administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect o
f acts performed in the exercise of consular functions. NO IMMUNITY in civil cas
es, which: o a. arise out of a contract concluded by the consular officer or emp
loyee in which he did not contract expressly or impliedly as an agent of the sen
ding state; o b. are instituted by a third party for damage arising from acciden
ts in the receiving state caused by a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. Article 44 L
iability to Give Evidence Members of a consular post may be called upon to atten
d as witnessed in judicial or administrative proceedings. A consular employee or
a member of the service staff shall not decline to give evidence. If a consular
officer should decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be applied
to him. Article 45 Waiver of Privileges and Immunities The sending state may wai
ve the privileges and immunities.
Page 28 of 42

CHAPTER ELEVEN: STATE RESPONSIBILITY
I. In General
Individuals are generally considered as objects and not subjects of in
ternational law. Any wrongs committed against them can only be redressed by stat
es with international personality. They possess no international legal rights to
assert on their own. However, individuals may be the subject of state v. state
litigation. Protection of Aliens General: As an aspect of sovereignty, no state
is obliged to admit aliens into its territory unless a treaty requires it. Howev
er, practically speaking, it is difficult to deny admission to all. Therefore, w
hat a state does is to impose legal standards for admission. Once an alien is ad
mitted into a state, he/she cannot be expelled without due process.
Proper treat
ment of aliens: They are considered nationals abroad and remain under its own stat
es protection. Practice of proper treatment of aliens is based on the commonality
of interests between states, in the expectation that a States own nationals will
be protected when residing or sojourning abroad. Mistreatment of nationals is a
common cause of international responsibility Various forms of ill-treatment: Mi
streatment by judicial or police authorities, unlawful expropriation of property
, failure to prosecute those who attack foreign nationals, or a denial of justic
e (denial of due process of the law). Diplomatic Protection: Well-developed cust
omary law which is based on the traditional notion that the individual is an ina
ppropriate subject of international law and must have recourse to his state for
protection. Another applicable theory is that injury to the state national is in
jury to the state itself. This keeps individuals at the mercy of their state, be
cause the latter enjoys discretion as to whether or not to prosecute the claims
of its national. This doctrine requires the satisfaction of the effective nationa
l link between the national and the state. Corporations and shareholders: It is t
he state of nationality of the corporation who has the right to protect the corp
oration and not the state nationality of its shareholders. Barcelona Traction Ca
se (Belgium v. Spain): WON Belgian nationals/shareholders of a company incorpora
ted in Canada could claim reparation for damages against Spain when the latter s
tate declared it to be bankrupt. The Court held that the Belgians lacked legal s
tanding to exercise diplomatic protection
of their shareholdings in Barcelona Traction, which was incorporated in Canada,
because the breach (if any) was committed against the corporation and not agains
t the shareholders, and only the company could protect its own interest. To be d
ifferent, the act must be directed against the rights of the shareholder as such
. Standard for the Protection of Aliens: International law has progressed from n
ot affording aliens protection to Roman law, which came up with the concept of j
us gentium (a law for both citizens and aliens) as distinct from jus civile (onl
y for citizens). The rights of aliens expanded with the growth of international
commerce. National treatment or equality of treatment: Aliens are treated in the sam
e manner as nationals of the state where they reside. The disadvantage to this i
s that a state may treat its own nationals oppressively, which would make aliens
subject to harsh laws as well. Minimum international standard: However harsh mu
nicipal law may be, aliens should be protected by certain minimum standards of h
umane protection. This is the widely accepted standard.
Neer Claim (US v. Mexico
, Joint Claims Commission): WON Mexico was negligent in the investigation of the
murder of a US national who was stopped by armed men and shot to death while wo
rking in Mexico. The Commission held that the treatment of an alien, to constitu
te international delinquency, should amount to an outrage, bad faith or wilful n
eglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action short of internati
onal standards. Enforcement Regimes: ICJ may resolve issues of violations of the
rights of aliens, but claims may also be settled by ad hoc tribunals establishe
d for the purpose, like the US-Iran Claims Tribunal and the UN Compensation Comm
ission. States may also enter into lump sum settlements.
II.
III.
Doctrine of State Responsibility

In General: When an injury has been inflicted,
there is need to determine whether the state can be held responsible for it.
Int
ernationally Wrongful Act: If a state violated a customary rule of international
law or a treaty obligation, and the act is attributable to the State under inte
rnational law, it has committed an internationally wrongful act. Every internation
ally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that St
ate Requisites: The elements of an internationally wrongful act, the attributabi
lity of the wrongful act to the state, and the enforcement of the obligation tha
t arises from the wrongful act. The characterization of an act of a State as int
ernationally wrongful is governed by international law.
Page 29 of 42

Legal obligations: When a state consents to be part of an international legal sy
stem, it also accepts corresponding legal obligations. It must accept responsibi
lity for actions which have effect on other international legal persons. No stat
e can avoid responsibility when once it has committed an act which satisfies the
requirements of an internationally wrongful act. An internationally wrongful act
consists of a subjective and an objective element.
Subjective: The act must be a
ttributable not to persons or agencies who performed it but to the state itself.
Objective: A violation of an international obligation. It may be either an act
or an omission.
State attribution: Acts of state organs, acts of other persons,
or the acts of revolutionaries. Acts of State Organs: Any State organ (who is ac
corded that status according to internal law) which conducts itself in that capa
city, entities empowered by law to exercise elements of governmental authority e
ven if not considered an organ of the state, persons or a group of persons actin
g under the instructions of the State or carrying out acts of a State in the abs
ence of official authorities, and attribution to the state of the conduct of org
ans placed at its disposal by another state, even if they exceeded authority. Ca
ses Caire Claim (France v. Mexico, French-Mexican Claims Commission): WON Mexico
was responsible for the death of a French national at the hands of Mexican sold
iers. The Commission (ruling on the objective responsibility) ruled that Mexico
had the responsibility to make reparations because the soldiers acted to all app
earances as competent officials or organs and used powers or methods appropriate
to their official capacity, even if done without specific authorization. Corfu
Channel Case (UK v. Albania, ICJ): WON Albania is responsible for the loss of li
fe suffered by the British when two of its destroyers struck mines in Albanian w
aters. The Court ruled that Albania is responsible, even though it was two Yugos
lav ships who had undertaken to lay the mines, because, firstly, of the attitude
displayed by Albania before and after the incident, and secondly, the possibili
ty of observing the mine laying from the Albanian coast. The aforementioned fact
ual circumstances draw the conclusion that the mines could not have been laid wi
thout Albanias knowledge and her lack of notifying the UK ships led to her intern
ational responsibility. Nicaragua v. US (ICJ): WON the US was involved in the re
volution in Nicaragua to the extent of providing direct support for the contra f
orces as well as laying mines in Nicaraguan ports, among other allegations. The
Court, in determining the closeness of the relationship between the US governmen
t to
the contras would be enough to equate their actions with one another, ruled that
there was a partial dependency may be inferred but not enough that the US actua
lly exercised a degree of control to justify the contras as acting on its behalf
. For the US to be responsible, it would have to be proved that the State had ef
fective control of the operations during the course of the alleged acts. Acts of
Other Persons: Conduct of a person/group are acts of the State under internatio
nal law if the person/group exercised elements of governmental authority in the
absence or default of the official authorities and in circumstances such as to c
all for the exercise of those elements of authority. Conduct of an organ placed
at the disposal of a State by another State is considered an act of the former S
tate under international law if the organ was acting in the exercise of elements
of the governmental authority of the State at whose disposal it had been placed
. US v. Iran (ICJ): WON Iran could be made responsible of the acts of the Muslim
Student Followers of the Imams Policy against the United States Embassy. The Cou
rt ruled that Iran was responsible because, being aware of their obligations to
the US protect the embassy and having the means at their disposal to do so, they
failed to protect it. Acts of Revolutionaries: Conduct of an insurrectional mov
ement shall be considered an act of that State under international law if it bec
omes the new State government. If it succeeds in establishing a new State in par
t of the territory of a pre-existing state or in a territory under its administr
ation, it shall be considered an act of the new State under international law, w
ithout prejudice to the attribution to a State of any conduct, however related t
o that of the movement concerned. Home Missionary Society Claim (US v. Great Bri
tain, American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal): WON Great Britain is re
sponsible for the loss of life suffered by the US, because their act of imposing
a hut tax on the natives of Sierra Leone caused a serious and widespread revolt
. The Court ruled that Britain was entitled to impose the tax as an exercise of
its sovereignty, and stated that no government can be held responsible for the a
ct of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its authority where it
is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing
insurrection. Short v. Iran (US. v. Iran, Iran-US Claims Tribunal): WON Short, a
n American national, could claim compensation for salary and other losses sustai
ned from his expulsion from his office due to the rise of the Islamic Revolution
ary Government. The Tribunal ruled that Short could not because he failed to pro
ve that his departure from Iran was due to the wrongful conduct of the latter, b
ecause a successor government is responsible only for acts imputable to it, and
the company orders expelling Short were done by the supporters of the revolution
aries.
Page 30 of 42

Preliminary Objections: These are things which need to be satisfied before a sta
te can validly claim standing. Examples are lack of nationality link and failure
to exhaust national remedies. II. Reparation: A responsible state is obliged to
make full reparation for injury caused by its internationally wrongful act. Thi
s injury shall consist of any damage, material or moral, arising in consequence
of the internationally wrongful act of a State. The responsible State cannot rel
y on municipal law to justify its failure to comply. Chorzow Factory Case (Germa
ny v. Poland, PCIJ): WON the expropriation by Poland of a factory in Chorzow was
contrary to the 1922 Geneva Convention between Germany and Poland, and if so, i
f Germany is entitled to reparation for the damage caused. The Court ruled that
the damages to be awarded are not limited to actual damages sustained by Germany
but that the restitution must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act
and re-establish the situation which would have existed had the act not been com
mitted. Calvo Clause: A provision in a contract to the effect that under no condi
tion shall the intervention of foreign diplomatic agents in any matter related t
o the contract be resorted to. This was already rejected in a case because the ri
ght to seek redress is a sovereign prerogative. Expropriation: Expropriation (th
e taking of property by the state) can be an international wrong if done contrar
y to the principles of international law. Expropriation must be based on grounds
or reasons of public utility, security, or the national interest recognized as
overriding purely individual or private interests, both foreign and domestic. Ju
st compensation must be accorded the owner.
Third generation: right to peace, clean environment, selfdetermination, common h
eritage of mankind, development, minority rights. International Bill of Human Ri
ghts
Emergence of an International Bill of Human Rights: Started to rise after W
orld War II, because of the recognition that the way nations treat persons under
their jurisdiction has become an international concern, not just domestic. It i
s said to chip away at the old concept of sovereignty and recognizes that indivi
duals can be made the subject of international law, and that they can find prote
ction and remedies within the international community against their own state.
U
N Charter: Breaking ground for the development of the new international human ri
ghts law. The Charter set down a fundamental premise of faith in fundamental huma
n rights in the dignity and worth of the human person in the equal rights of men
and women. Article 1(3): To achieve international cooperation in solving internat
ional problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in
promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
Obligations
assumed by UN Members: Creation of stability and well being necessary for peacef
ul and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of e
qual rights and self-determination. Promotion of higher standards of living, ful
l employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development Adva
nce solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems and
international cultural and educational cooperation Universal respect for and ob
servance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language or religion. All Members pledge to take joint and separa
te action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purpos
es aforementioned. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: First significant mile
stone in the internationalization of human rights. It was adopted by the UN Gene
ral Assembly on December 10, 1948, not as law but as a common standard for nations
to attempt to reach. Its authority is mostly political and moral.
Declaration a
s distinct from Covenant International covenant: Meeting of the minds of the con
tracting parties on specific duties and obligations they intend to assume, and t
he agreement that the undertakings must be effectively performed. Leaves no doub
t about the legal nature of the provisions it contains. Declaration: Admits the
presumption that something less than full effectiveness in terms of law is inten
ded. Dictates moral rules only. There is no vinculum juris in the agreement.
CHAPTER TWELVE: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

I. In GeneralFrom Alien Rights to Human Rights
Definition of human rights: Rights
which are inalienable and fundamental and essential for life as human beings. E
ast v. West: Asian culture believes that human rights is a mostly Western concep
t, but the common denominator is the belief that the individual must be protecte
d and the international community must contribute to that protection, even if be
tween the two views there is differing emphases. Western/American: emphasis on t
he individual Eastern/Confucian: emphasis on the community Western tradition dev
eloped from the Natural Law view that some rights are higher than positive/man-m
ade law and flows from the nature of man himself, which demands immunities or li
berties. Three generations of human rights: First generation: traditional civil
and fundamental rights Second generation: social and economic rights
Page 31 of 42

III.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Life, Liberty and Property: The Covenants
provisions on the right to life do not go beyond what the Philippine Bill of Rig
hts guarantees. However, it does not say when protected life begins while the Ph
ilippines protects the life of the unborn child from conception. There is no rig
ht to property in the Covenant, even if there is one in the Universal Declaratio
n. A respected author states that it would be difficult to draft a right to prop
erty which could gain universal and general acceptance. The Covenant expresses a
n inclination towards the abolition of the death penalty but allows its impositi
on only after conviction of the most serious crimes. A Second Optional Protocol
(which has not come into force yet) expressly forbids the execution of any perso
n within a State partys jurisdiction. The Philippines is not a party to the Secon
d Optional Protocol, but it has since disallowed its imposition in RA 9346 (afte
r it initially allowed it again for the most heinous crimes). The Bill of Rights
adequately covers what is mentioned in the Covenant regarding physical liberty
and arrests and detention, such as the rights of the accused. However, the Coven
ant is more restrictive as to the publicity of criminal proceedings where the in
terests of juvenile persons, matrimonial disputes or guardianship are at issue,
which would not pass Philippine tests. As to compensation in the Covenant, it gu
arantees that anyone who are victims of unlawful arrest and miscarriage of justi
ce shall be compensated according to the law. In the Philippine Constitution, on
e is only accorded the right to compensation pursuant to violations of ones right
s under investigation. Torture, Ill-treatment and Prison Conditions: The Covenan
t prohibits torture and other forms of ill-treatment that offend bodily integrit
y and personal dignity. Humane prison conditions must also be implemented (the P
hilippines requires adequate prison conditions.) The UN Human Rights Commission
says that imprisonment in conditions detrimental to a prisoners health constitute
s violation of the Covenant.
Freedom of Movement: The Covenant guarantees the ri
ghts to travel within the country, to leave the country, and to change ones resid
ence. These are limited by law, public health, national security or the rights a
nd freedoms of others, and those inconsistent with the other rights in the prese
nt Covenant. Unlike in the Philippine Bill of Rights, the Covenant does not requ
ire a court order for the impairment of liberty of abode. There is a difference
between the right to return to ones country from the right to leave ones country.
Exile is now prohibited by customary law and the prohibition of exile may even b
e jus cogens.
Legal Personality, Privacy and Right to Family: Difference between
legal personality and capacity to act. Legal personality belongs to all, whether ci
tizens or aliens. Capacity to act may not be available to some
by reason of infancy, minority, or insanity. State parties must treat every huma
n being everywhere as a person before the law, enjoying the protection of the la
w and of the forces of the law, with power to have rights and assume obligations
. The Covenant does not say when one becomes a person but the Philippine Constit
ution protects the life of the unborn. However, it does not say if the unborn is
a person. The Civil Code says that the unborn is a person for purposes favorabl
e to him. Thought, Conscience, Religion, Expression, Political Freedom: The limi
ts on exercise of the aforementioned rights found in the Covenant are to protect
public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights of others. The
Covenant has express protection of the right of parents in the matter of religio
n for their children. An established religion is not incompatible with the coven
ant. The Covenant also guarantees freedom of expression, the right of assembly a
nd petition, and political freedom. Associations and Unions: The Covenant has a
detailed set of provisions protecting the right to form associations and unions.
It is silent about the right of government employees to form unions. Minorities
: Minorities are accorded the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and p
ractice their own religion or to use their own language. There is no right to se
cede. The concern for minorities has a two-fold aspect: 1. The fear of a secessi
onist movement by minorities, threatening territorial integrity of the state, or
about the danger of interference by other states with which the minorities are
connected by ties of race, national origin, language, or religion; and 2. A genu
ine concern for the human rights of minorities and the desire that minorities wi
ll flourish so as to preserve that diversity of the human race. Self-determinati
on of peoples: Self-determination covers two important rights: 1. The right free
ly to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social,
and cultural development; and 2. The right for their own ends, to freely dispos
e of the natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arisi
ng out of international cooperation based upon the principle of mutual benefit a
nd international law. They also have an internal aspect (as to the two rights af
orementioned) and an external aspect (belong to non-self-governing and Trust Ter
ritories). Optional Protocol on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Supp
lement to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Philippines has ratifi
ed the Protocol and it entered into force in March 1976.
IV.
Reasons for division: Ideologic
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
al and practical reasons. Ideological: The contest between Western on the one ha
nd and socialist and Third World countries on the other. Western countries found
it difficult to apply a treaty containing economic and cultural rights beyond t
hose guaranteed in the Constitution, while socialist and developing countries fe
lt that the lack of economic, social and cultural rights would render civil and
political guarantees meaningless.
Page 32 of 42

Practical: It is difficult to implement civil and political guarantees without t

he corresponding economic social and cultural rights and could only be done cons
idering developmental conditions. Rights guaranteed: 1. To work 2. To favorable
conditions of work 3. To form free trade unions 4. To social security and insura
nce 5. To special assistance for families 6. To adequate standard of living 7. T
o the highest standard of physical and mental health 8. To education including c
ompulsory primary education; and 9. To the enjoyment of cultural and scientific
benefits and international contacts.
V.
Duty to Implement
Philippines international obligations: The nation is bound, bot
h internally and to its foreign relations, to bring its laws and practices into
accord with accepted international obligations and not to introduce new laws or
practices which would be at variance with such obligations. Treaty commitments b
ecome part of domestic law. Self-executing provisions of the Covenants must be i
mplemented in domestic law. Those not selfexecuting must be attended to by neces
sary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisi
ons of the Covenant. Principle of progressive realization: A state is obligated
to undertake a program of activities and to realize those rights which are recog
nized by the Economic Covenant. While the obligation of progressive realization
is limited by resource constraints, the Economic Covenant indicates that priorit
y should be given to social welfare and that the level of effort should increase
over time. These obligations apply to any state that has ratified the Economic
Covenant, regardless of that states economic resources.
Beyond domestic obligatio
ns are international obligations. In the economic and social fields, the keyword
s are cooperation and assistance. In the civil and political field, this involves pa
rticipation in the implementation measures of the UN system. International Imple
mentation of Human Rights Law
Other conventions on human rights: 1948 Genocide C
onvention, 1966 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discriminat
ion, 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against W
omen, 1984 Convention against torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatm
ent or Punishment, 1989 Rights of the Child Convention and 1990 Convention on Mi
grant Workers. Customary international human rights law: Some human rights princ
iples have become customary law, like prohibition against torture, genocide, sla
very and the prohibition of discrimination.
International implementation: Human
Rights Commission: Subsidiary organ of ECOSOC Confidential Consideration Procedu
re (1503 Procedure): Resolution 1503 of the ECOSOC authorizes the SubVI.
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to appoi
nt a working group of not more than 5 members to meet once a year in private mee
tings to consider all communications with a view to bringing to the attention of
the Sub-Commission those communications which appear to reveal a pattern of gro
ss and reliably attested violations of human rights. The confidential findings o
f the Sub-Commission are brought to the attention of the Commission on Human Rig
hts, which submits its report and recommendation to the ECOSOC. The procedure is
kept confidential until the CHR decides to make recommendations to the ECOSOC.
Public Debate Procedure (1235 Procedure): Resolution 1235 of the ECOSOC authoriz
es the CHR and its subsidiary Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Pro
tection of Minorities to examine reports relevant to gross violations of human r
ight and to examine whether the violations reveal a consistent pattern and there
after make recommendations to the ECOSOC. The procedure carries out two types of
activities: 1. It holds annual public debates in which NGOs are given the oppor
tunity to identify publicly countryspecific situations which deserve attention.
2. It engages in studies and investigations of particular situations through the
use of various techniques the Commission might deem appropriate. Possible resul
ts of these procedures: 1. Embarrassment of countries referred to, that might ge
nerate change in policy; 2. Pressure on governments to take the issue on a bilat
eral or multilateral level; 3. Statements of exhortation from the Commission or
call from the Commission for all available information; 4. The Commission might
appoint a special rapporteur to examine and submit a report on the issue; 5. The
Commission might ask the Security Council to take up the issue with a view to p
romulgating sanctions. VII. International Criminal Court
Significance and Goal:
The International Criminal Court was created in 1998 by the Rome Statute. The tr
eaty came into force in April 2002 when the 60th country needed to establish the
ICC submitted its ratification. The US and the Philippines have not ratified it
. Prior to the establishment of the ICC, international crimes were prosecuted in
ad hoc criminal courts. These tribunals were undermined and weakened by the cha
rges of politically motivated investigations and selective justice. Unlike tempo
rary tribunals, the ICC will be established without any specific country in mind
. Besides being permanent, it will be neutral.
Page 33 of 42

Gradually too, it will be able to establish precedents. Its goal is individual a

nd not collective accountability. Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of the ICC will
be limited to the most serious international crimes: genocide, crimes against h
umanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Principle of Complementarity:
The court is a court of last resort. It must await referral of a crime by a stat
e party or by the Security Council. The court cannot act when the local judicial
system is able to prosecute. Once a state has taken the initiative to investiga
te a crime, the ICC cannot intervene. Because of the principle of complementarit
y, the effective functioning of the court will depend very much on the cooperati
on of state parties. The crimes over which the ICC has jurisdiction must first b
e punishable in domestic law.
II.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN: PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
I. International Dispute
Definition: Not every disagreement is a dispute. A disp
ute is an international dispute if there is a disagreement on a point of law or fac
t, a conflict of legal views or interests between two persons. Examples: Disagree
ments over the interpretation of a treaty, state boundaries or about state respo
nsibility. Article 2(3): All members shall settle their international disputes b
y peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and just
ice are not endangered. There is no obligation to settle disputes unless they fa
ll under the categorization of Article 33 (those which might endanger peace and
security. However, if there is a decision regarding settling disputes, the oblig
ation to settle them is by peaceful means.
Peaceful Methods of Settling Disputes
(Article 33): The parties to any dispute, continuance of which is likely to end
anger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall try to seek a s
olution by the following methods: Judicial: Recourse to the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) or other international tribunals Quasi-iudicial: Arbitration No
n-judicial: Negotiation, Mediation, Inquiry and Conciliation
Article 36: The Sec
urity Council may recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment in a
situation referred to in Article 33, or any similar circumstances.
Article 37:
If the parties failed to resolve their dispute in the methods aforementioned, th
ey shall refer it to the Security Council. The Security Council will then decide
whether they will enforce the procedure of Article 36 or to recommend terms of
settlement if it deems necessary. Article 38: If the parties to the dispute so r
equest, the Security Council can make recommendations to the parties with a view
to a peaceful and pacific settlement.
Non-Judicial/Diplomatic Settlement Negotiation: Preferred vehicle because states
are generally reluctant to submit their disputes to an adjudicatory body. It is
a very flexible method because there are no set rules. It may be at arms length
or face-to-face, or it may be formalized in a treaty or a mere exchange of notes
. May be carried out by diplomatic correspondence, face-to-face dialogue between
permanent envoys or designated negotiators. It is essentially a give and take p
rocess looking for a win-win situation. Good offices: Preliminary step in negoti
ation. A neutral third party brings the two parties together as an initial step
before judicial settlement is referred to.
Mediation: Involves assistance by thi
rd parties acting as a bridge between the disputants, who do not meet or who may
sit with the two parties at chair meetings, suggest solutions and cajole them t
o a resolution. The mediator is approved of by both parties.
Inquiry: A fact-fin
ding conducted by a group or by an institution. Frequently resolves disputes on
questions of fact when applied for with the consent of the parties.
Conciliation
: A more formal technique where disputants agree to refer the controversy to an
individual, a group of individuals or an institution to make findings of fact an

d recommendations. Parties generally do not agree to be bound by the findings ma
de but this clears the air. Quasi-Judicial: Arbitration
Arbitration: The binding s
ettlement of a dispute on the basis of law by a non-permanent body designated by
the parties. The composition, jurisdiction and procedure employed are agreed up
on by the parties in a compromis darbitrage. States are not required to submit to
arbitration unless there is an agreement making it compulsory. Distinguished fr
om judicial settlement: Arbitration is more flexible and parties have a greater
say in deciding the law to be applied. Three types of arbitral agreements: Arbit
ration clause that is incorporated as part of a treaty.
Arbitration treaties whe
re the sole function of the treaty is to establish methods for the arbitration o
f disputes. Ad-hoc arbitral agreements Arbitral decisions apply international la
w unless the parties specify otherwise.
Arbitral decisions are often challenged
pursuant to the following grounds: Arbitral body exceeded its powers There was c
orruption on the part of a member of the body There was failure to state the rea
sons for the awards or a serious departure from a rule of procedure The undertak
ing to arbitrate/compromis is a nullity Grounds of domestic courts to refuse to
recognize arbitral awards: The agreement to arbitrate was not valid under applic
able law No due process
III.
Page 34 of 42

Award deals with matters outside the arbitration agreement Arbitral tribunal is
contrary to the agreement of the parties Reward is not yet binding, has been sus
pended or set aside by a competent court
IV. Judicial: The International Court o
f Justice, et al The International Court of Justice: The UNs principal judicial o
rgan. It is the successor of the Permanent Court of Justice which was establishe
d by the League of Nations, and it came into being through the Statute of the Co
urt. All members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the Internat
ional Court of Justice. However, being parties to the Statute does not mean acce
ptance of its jurisdiction; it just allows the possibility because only State pa
rties may be parties in the court. Cardinal rule: States cannot be compelled to
submit disputes to international adjudication unless they have consented to it e
ither before a dispute has arisen or thereafter. They may also limit their accep
tance to certain types of disputes and to attach various conditions or reservati
ons to their acceptance.
Composition of the Court: A body of independent judges
(elected regardless of nationality) of high moral character possessing the quali
fications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest
judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international
law. Consists of 15 members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same state.
A member is a national of a state where he/she ordinarily exercises civil and p
olitical rights. Chambers: The Court may form one or more chambers composed of t
hree or more judges to deal with particular categories of cases like labor, tran
sit and communications, etc. In dealing with a particular case, the court may fo
rm a chamber for that purpose. If parties request it, the case may be heard in t
he chamber. Judgment rendered by a chamber is considered as rendered by the whol
e Court. Possible partiality: Judges of the same nationality as one of the parti
es shall retain their right to sit in a case before the court. Is the Court incl
udes upon the bench a judge of the nationality of one of the parties, any other
party may choose a person to sit as judge (preferably from the list of persons n
ominated as candidates.) Jurisdiction of the Court: Contentious: Such jurisdicti
on of the Court over all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters spe
cially provided for in the Charter of the UN or in treaties or conventions. Advi
sory: The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question. UN Charter e
mpowers the General Assembly and the Security Council to make requests for advis
ory opinions, while the General Assembly may authorize other UN agencies to seek
advisory opinions. Requests must be made in writing containing an exact stateme
nt of the question upon which an opinion is required, and accompanied by all nec
essary
documents. By definition, advisory opinions are non-binding. Acceptance or non-a
cceptance of the advisory opinion is determined by the internal law of the insti
tution. Contentious Jurisdiction Subject matters: (a) Interpretation of treaties
; (b) question of international law; (c) existence of any fact which, if establi
shed, would constitute breach of an international obligation; and (d) nature or
extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligatio
n Ways a State recognizes jurisdiction:
First: Ad Hoc Basis When a party unilate
rally applies to the Court and the other party expresses his consent thereafter
Second: Via Treaty When parties adhere to a treaty which accepts the jurisdictio
n of the court on matters of interpretation or application of the treaty. Third:
Optional System By unilateral declaration that recognition of jurisdiction in r
elation to any other state accepting the same jurisdiction in all legal disputes
. Declaration is the form by which state parties recognize as compulsory ipso fa
cto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state party acceptin
g the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the court. These may be made uncondit
ionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states
or for a certain period of time. This way, states can limit the extent to which
they subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. The declarations shall
be deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations, who shall transm
it copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Courts Registrar.
Inte
rhandel case: If two parties to a case are called to the Court, A via a Declarat
ion without conditions and B with conditions, A can invoke the conditions in Bs d
eclaration for himself. Optional system: Aerial Incidence Case (US v. Bulgaria,
ICJ): WON Bulgaria has submitted itself to the Courts jurisdiction when it is all
eged that Bulgarian military failed to take actions necessitated by internationa
l civil aviation agreements when an El Al Israel airliner entered into Bulgarian
airspace and was shot down by them. The case was dropped by the US. The objecti
ons of Bulgaria must be noted, particularly its objection which called
Page 35 of 42

upon the grounds of reciprocity and consensual basis of ICJ jurisdiction by invo
king the Connally amendment reservation, exempting from ICJ Jurisdiction matters
cognizable within its internal competence. Nicaragua v. US (ICJ): WON the US ac
cepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ. In 1946, US declared its adherence to ICJ ju
risdiction, noting that it would be terminated after six months notice given to
the UN regarding its expiration. After figuring out that Nicaragua would bring t
he situation to court, they deposited the 1984 notification with the UN. The Cou
rt ruled that Nicaragua was a state accepting the same obligation as the US as in
its acceptance of the Courts jurisdiction under the Statute of the Permanent Cour
t of International Justice, and that the US could not defy its own Declaration b
y not complying with its 6-months notice provision. Case of East Timor (Portugal v
. Australia, ICJ): WON Portugal can bring an action against Australia regarding
the Zone of Cooperation which is the subject of the treaty between Australia and I
ndonesia. The Court ruled that the actual dispute was between Portugal and Indon
esia, and could not continue because Indonesia had not accepted the jurisdiction
of the ICJ.
Provisional measures: The Court can indicate and impose any provisi
onal remedies to preserve the rights of either party, pending final decision of
the courts. Nicaragua v. US (Summary, ICJ): Same fact set as above Nicaragua cas
es. Given the circumstances, the Court deems it appropriate to grant provisional
measures, and emphasizes that the grant does not prejudice the eventual decisio
n of the main case. Case concerning the legality of use of force (Yugoslavia v.
US, ICJ): WON the Court can grant the provisional measures requested by Yugoslav
ia against the NATO states regarding bombings on the basis of the Genocide Conve
ntion. The Court denied the application because the US did not give its consent
to be bound by the Courts jurisdiction and, not consenting, the provisional measu
re cannot be imposed. Intervention: The intervention of a third party state in t
he dispute between other states on the basis of its interest in the outcome of t
he case. Its interest must be of a legal nature. Request for intervention is sub
mitted to ICJ. El Salvador v. Honduras (Nicaragua intervention, ICJ): WON Nicara
gua can intervene in the dispute between El Salvador and Honduras regarding the
protection of its legal rights in the Gulf of Fonseca. The Court ruled that Nica
ragua was able to show proof that they had interest of a legal nature which may
be affected by the Courts decision and granted the request to intervene.
Obligation to comply with obligations: The ICJs decision has no binding force exc
ept as between the parties and only in respect of that particular case. The judg
ment is final and without appeal. Revision of judgment can only be made upon dis
covery of a new fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor which was unkno
wn to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, provided that the ignor
ance was not due to negligence. Proceedings will be opened by a new judgment by
the ICJ recording the existence of the new fact and recognizing that it is of su
ch a character to lay the case open to revision. No application shall be made af
ter the lapse of 10 years after the judgment. Enforcement: Member states must co
mply with the judgment. If not, the aggrieved party can appeal to the UN Securit
y Council which can make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to
give effect to the judgment. Other active international courts: Court of Justice
of the European Communities, the European Court of Human Rights, the Benelux Co
urt of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The International C
riminal Court entered into force only in 2002.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN: USE OF FORCE SHORT OF WAR

I. The Use of Force
General principle: International law recognizes the autonomy
of individual states and their right to freedom from coercion and to the integr
ity of their territory. From the UN Charter: All Members shall refrain in their i
nternational relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial i
ntegrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsis
tent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The text does not use the word war be
cause it is a technical term that does not include all uses of force.. The prohi
bition in the UN Charter applies more broadly. Doctrine of self-help and ICJs int
erpretation: In the Corfu Channel case, the UK wanted to secure the mines to pre
vent further danger. This was presented as a new and special application of the
theory of intervention, where the intervening state was acting as a method of se
lf protection or self-help. The Court cannot accept this line of defense because
espousing it would be allowing a policy of force which cannot find a place in i
nternational law. The prohibition of the use of force is also customary internat
ional law, not just conventional. There exists in customary law an opinio juris
as to the binding character of abstention from the use of force. Consent to reso
lutions expressing such abstention from use of force is consent to such customar
y law. Judge Sette-Camara: The non-use of force and nonintervention are not only
cardinal principles of customary international law but could be recognized as p
eremptory rules
Page 36 of 42

of customary international law which impose obligations on all States. II. The T
hreat of Force
Examples of threat of force: The threat to use force may come in
various forms, the most typical of which is the ultimatum in which the State to
which it is addressed is given a time limit to accept demands upon it and, if re
jected or upon failure to comply, war will be declared on it or certain coercive
measures will be employed. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (IC
J Advisory Opinion): The Charter prohibits the use of force against the territor
ial integrity or political independence of another State in any other manner inc
onsistent with the purposes of the UN, and the prohibition extends not just to s
pecific weapons but to any use of force regardless of weapons employed, because
there is not express permission nor prohibition against nuclear weapons in the C
harter. Article 51: Entitlement to self-defense is subject to the conditions of
necessity and proportionality. Self-defense only warrants measures which are prop
ortional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it. Proportionality prin
ciple: A use of force that is proportionate under the law of self-defense must,
to be lawful, meet the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict whic
h comprise the principles and rules of humanitarian law. Threats to use force: W
hether or not there is a signalled intention (threat) to use force if upon the o
ccurrence of certain events depends on several factorsif the use of said force is
illegal, then the threat to use such a force is also deemed illegal. Individual
and Collective Self-Defense
Individual and collective self-defense (inherent ri
ghts) are not completely prohibited. Individual and collective self-defense is a
llowed subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality, without preju
dice to the right of the Security Council to take actions it deems needed to res
tore international peace and security.
Self-defense can only be exercised in res
ponse to an armed attack. In the view of the Court, this is understood to be not m
erely action by regular armed forces across an international border but also the
sending by a State of armed bands to the territory of another State. Does not i
nclude assistance to rebels in the form of weapons or logistical support within it
s purview. There is no rule permitting collective self-defense without a State r
equesting for its assistance and a State declaring itself to have been attacked.
Anticipatory self-defense: Opinion on its legality is divided. Some say that pro
tection of vital interests justifies the use of force while others refrain from u
sing it in the fear that it may be used against them as well. IV.
9/11: Article 51 on self-defense was used to justify a response to a nonstate ag

gressor.
Traditionally Allowable Coercive Measures
Severance of diplomatic relations: Res
orted to only when absolutely necessary because severance might endanger peace.
This is distinguished from suspension which only involves withdrawal of diplomat
ic representation, but not consular. Retorsion: Any of the forms of counter-meas
ure in response to an unfriendly act like shutting of ports to vessels, recovati
on of tariff concessions or the display of naval forces near the waters of an un
friendly state.
Reprisal: Forcible coercive measure which seeks to deter/obtain
redress from another because of the others illegal act, and because of the others
refusal to make amends. By itself, the act of reprise is illegal. It must be pre
ceded by an unsatisfied demand.
Embargo: May consist of seizure of vessels even
in the high seas. It may be pacific, as when a state keeps its own vessels for f
ear that it might find their way into foreign territory. There is also collectiv
e embargo on import. Boycott: Form of reprisal which consists of suspension of t
rade or business relations with the nationals of an offending state. A form of e
conomic aggression which ought to be prohibited by law.
Non-intercourse: Suspens
ion of all commercial intercourse with a state. Pacific Blockade: Naval operatio
n carried out in peacetime where a state prevents access to or exit from particu
lar ports or portions of the coast of another state for the purpose of compellin
g the latter to yield to demands made by the blockading state. It is essentially
a warlike act. Protection of Nationals Abroad
The right to protect nationals st
ems from the right to self-defense in Article 51 coupled with the notion of popu
lation as an element of statehood, where nationals abroad are considered members
of the populace in another state. The legitimacy of such intervention is not fi
rmly established in international law Humanitarian Intervention
Armed humanitari
an intervention by states: Intervention without the authorization of the Securit
y Council violates international law, because armed humanitarian intervention as
a response to massive violation of human rights in another state begins with a
general prohibition against the use of force. Legality v. Illegality: Only permi
ssible is sanctioned by the Security Council. They must consider the massive vio
lation of human rights as a threat to peace and calls for an enforcement action
such as humanitarian intervention to put an end to violations. Absent such a dec
laration, military coercion employed constitutes a breach of the Charter. Additi
onally, the human rights violations must transcend borders and lead to armed att
ack against other states to be able to qualify as an armed attack.
V.
III.
VI.
Page 37 of 42

Three reasons against the existence of a right of humanitarian intervention: UN

Charter and PIL do not incorporate such a right No real need because there are o
nly a handful of genuine cases of intervention Prudential grounds; because the s
cope of abuse argues strongly against its creation. Benefits outweigh the costs
in terms of respect for PIL. Laws should not be changed to follow humanitarian i
mpulses because of the potential for abuse and because it might just be an isola
ted incident only. Another author asks, as regards the NATO armed intervention:
Should the respect for the Rule of Law be sacrificed on the altar of compassion?
Because ethically, acts of humanitarian intervention are justified but legally,
are contrary to law. The same author submits that under certain strict conditio
ns, resort to armed force may gradually become justified, even absent any author
ization by the Security Council: Crimes against humanity are carried out on the
territory of a sovereign state and central authorities are unable to do anything
There is proof of anarchy Security Council cannot take any coercive action to s
top the acts Exhaustion of all peaceful avenues There must be both a group of st
ates willing to stop the conflicts and support/non-opposition of the other Membe
rStates of the UN Armed force is only limited to the stopping of the atrocities.
The more urgent the situation, the more intensive and immediate may be the mili
tary response thereto.
The Hague Law: Early customary law. At present the laws of war are mostly conven
tional. Principles adopted in the Law of the Hague refer to land and naval warfa
re. The Geneva Conventions of 1949: Persons not engaged in warfare should be tre
ated humanely. The Geneva Conventions are referred to as the Red Cross Conventions
governingI: Wounded and Sick in the Field; II: Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked at
Sea; III: Prisoners of War; and IV: Civilians. Customary and Conventional Law: M
uch of what is embodied in the aforementioned conventions are customary law. Non
-parties to the Convention are still covered by the customary law on armed confl
ict. Commencement of Hostilities: For an armed conflict to be considered a war,
hostilities must be preceded by a declaration of war or an ultimatum with a fixe
d limit. This is rarely followed. Usually, it is the victim of the first attack
which will be the ones declaring war. In the Philippines, the power to declare w
ar is in the legislature while the power to make war is in the executive. Effect
s of Commencement: Commencement of hostilities result in the severance of all no
rmal relations. Political and economic treaties are terminated. However, treatie
s of a humanitarian character should remain in force. Nationals of combatant sta
tes residing in enemy territories may be subjected to restrictions imposed by th
e enemy. Merchant vessels are given a grace period to depart. Termination of Hos
tilities: Laws of armed conflict remain in effect until the conflict is terminat
ed. It terminated usually upon a peace treaty. However, once combatant states ha
ve made a declaration that hostilities have come to an end, armed forces are bou
nd by that declaration even absent a treaty. Armistice/Cease fire: An agreement
to suspend hostilities. It does not end the conflict. Protocol I: Created a new
category of international armed conflict and defines it as armed conflicts in whi
ch people are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and agai
nst racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination. Those en
gaged in such a conflict receive combatant status and are entitled to combatant
rights and duties.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN: THE LAW OF WAR (INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW)

I. International Humanitarian Law in general
Proliferation of laws on war: Side
by side with the prohibition against the use of force is the proliferation of la
ws of war, because: Those who resort to the use of arms do not give up until the
y have achieved victory; Given the first fact, humanitarian considerations dicta
te the need for rules which curtail violence beyond what is necessary to achieve
a states goal; There still remains in the hearts of the soldiery an acceptance o
f chivalry as a value. Humanizing the conduct of war was the driving need to for
mulate laws, assuming that wars can always happen. This was pioneered by Henry D
unant who was appalled by the brutality of war.
II.
Methods of Warfare: Jus in Bello
The only legitimate object which states should
endeavour to accomplish during the war is to weaken enemy forces. For this reaso
n it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men.
Prohibited me
thods: The Hague Convention prohibits the employment of arms, projectiles or mat
erial calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. States can never make civilians
the objects of attack and must never use weapons that are incapable of distingu
ishing between civilian and military targets. States do not have unlimited freed
om of choice of means in the weapon they use.
Page 38 of 42

International Commission of the Red Cross Soldiers Rules (Summary) Be a discipline

d soldier because disobedience of the laws of war dishonours your army and yours
elf. Fight only enemy combatants. Destroy no more than your mission requires. Do
not fight enemies who are out of combat (hors de combat) or surrender. Collect an
d care for the sick and wounded, friend or foe. Treat all civilians and enemies
with humanity. Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Do not take hostages.
Abstain from acts of vengeance. Respect the Red Cross and all those bearing its
emblem. Respect other persons property. Prevent breaches of the above rules. Inte
rnational Commission of the Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanita
rian Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts (Summary): Persons out of combat are enti
tled to respect for their lives and moral and physical integrity. It is forbidde
n to kill or injure an enemy out of combat. The wounded and sick shall be collec
ted and cared for and the Red Cross respected. Captured combatants of another pa
rty are entitled to respect for their lives and dignity. Everyone shall be entit
led to judicial guarantees. Parties to a conflict do not have an unlimited choic
e of methods or means of warfare. Distinguish between civilians and combatants.
Non-international Armed Conflicts (Summary): There is a prohibition against indi
scriminate attacks. There is an obligation to distinguish between combatants and
civilians. The latter are not to be attacked. Unnecessary suffering is prohibit
ed. The prohibition to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy
(def. dishonesty) is prohibited. The obligation to respect and protect medical
and religious personnel is given. There is a prohibition against attacks against
property and destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of civilians
Do not use the following weapons: Chemical weapons, expanding or flattening bull
ets, poison, mines and booby traps which may be easily mistaken by civilians, in
cendiary weapons (against civilians).
Civil wars: They do not violate international law. They do not fall under the UN
Charters purview. Outside help is allowable only if the government requested for
it. Aiding rebels is contrary to international law. Common Article 3: Allows mi
nimum humanitarian protection to cover internal conflict. Common to all 1949 Gen
eva Conventions. See discussion in Chapter Six. Protocol II: The first and only
international agreement regulating the conduct of parties to a non-international
armed conflict. Supplements the Common Article 3. See discussion in Chapter Six
.
V.
III.
Neutrality
In a conflict there are some who wish to stay out of the way and adop
t an attitude of impartiality. Such an attitude must be recognized by the opposi
ng party-States and creates both rights and duties in the neutral states. The de
cision to employ a neutral stance is dictated by political/internal mechanisms a
nd not PIL.
Neutral states must not engage in activities which interfere with th
e activities of the belligerents while the latter respect the formers rights. Non
-International Conflicts
International Terrorism
Definitions: There is not crime named terrorism in the P
hilippine statutes, although some acts which are considered territoristic are pu
nishable by the Revised Penal Code. US: Anti-Terrorism Law; UK: Terrorism Act of
2000. British law defines it as: Violent moves against person or property or ag
ainst public health and safety which have for their purpose to influence the gov
ernment or to intimidate a section of the public or to advance a political, reli
gious or ideological purpose.
In international law, it is difficult to criminali
ze terrorism because of the difficulty in defining the prohibited act. The draft
definition (at the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financin
g of Terrorism is as follows: An act done by any person intended to cause (a) de
ath or serious bodily injury to any person, or (b) serious damage to a State or
Government facility with intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place,
facility or system, or where such destruction results or is likely to result in
major economic loss, when the purpose of such an act is to intimidate a populati
on or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain f
rom doing any act. Universality: Is terrorism a crime against humanity? Many con
sider it to be such because of the 9/11 attacks. They were led to this conclusio
n because of the acts magnitude, gravity, and the targeting of civilians as part
of a well-planned operation. The characterization of the 9/11 attack as a crime
against humanity is important in US justification for its use of international l
aw on self-defense.
There are still many aspects of international terrorism whic
h need to be clarified for the purpose of effecting legislation, such as magnitu
de of attack to be considered as an attack by a state, and what specifically is
a target of self-defense, its timing, duration and the admissible means, among m
any others.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN: INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
I.
IV.
Environmental concerns Expressions of environmental concern in the Philippine Co
nstitution: Article II, Section 16, which states that the State shall protect and
Page 39 of 42

advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord wi
th the rhythm and harmony of nature. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr: WON the parties had l
egal standing on the basis of intergenerational protection. The Court ruled that t
hey did, recognizing the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecolog
y and the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Laguna Lak
e Development Authority v. CA: WON the LLDA had the authority to protect the inh
abitants of the Laguna Lake Area from the deleterious effects of pollutants comi
ng from garbage dumping and discharge of wastes in the area. The Court ruled tha
t it did, basing its decision on Setion 16 and the Universal Declaration of Huma
n Rights, and ruled in favour of LLDA and against the municipalities around the
lake, to address the environmental and ecological stress on Laguna Lake. Social
Justice Society v. Atienza: WON the Manila ordinance requiring the oil companies
to close and transfer the Pandacan Terminal to another location was valid. The
Court ruled that it was valid. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Resi
dents of Manila Bay: The Court ruled in favour of the residents and ordered vari
ous governmental agencies to clean up Manila Bay. Environmental concerns: Not ju
st limited to atmosphere, land, sea, flora and fauna but also includes the prese
rvation of the cultural heritage of mankind as found in archaeological and artis
tic remains. The goal of environmental protectionists is the rational use of the
elements which make up the environment through control, reduction and eliminati
on of the causes of environmental degradation. Human rights is intricately relat
ed to environmental concerns because protection of the environment is a vital pa
rt of contemporary human rights doctrine, even considering it as a sine qua non
for many human rights such as the right to health and the right to life. Difficu
lty: Due to the various competing interests, it is difficult to espouse environm
ental concern because of issues of sovereignty and state responsibility, in addi
tion to individual interests and pursuits. This is compounded by the problem of
poverty and exploding population.
proceedings and remanded the case to the lower courts to receive evidence. .
III.
Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development: Encourages development in a man
ner and according to methods which do not compromise the ability of future gener
ation and other states to meet their needs. According to Justice Douglas, it is
the recognition that the voice of the inanimate object and the existing benefici
aries of tenvironmental wonders not be stilled. Emerging Principles
Stockholm De
claration (Summary): Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality, and ade
quate conditions of life, and has a responsibility to protect and improve the en
vironment for present and future generations. It is for the benefit of future an
d present generations. Earths capacity to sustain life must be maintained, in add
ition to the preservation of wildlife and their habitats, of current environment
al resources and the prevention of discharge of toxic substances or fumes and po
llution. Man must support the development of sustainable development, economic a
nd social development, the address of environmental deficiencies, the stability
of prices and earnings of basic goods for developing countries, environmental po
licies, an integrated and controlled approach to development planning of all Sta
tes to make compatible with environmental protection, rational planning to recon
cile development with environmental protection, demographic policies in overpopu
lated areas, science and technology to identify and remedy environmental risks,
research and development for environmental problems, and education regarding env
ironmental matters. The sovereignty of states is recognized, limited by their ow

n responsibility. State cooperation must be employed to aid pollution victims. T
he standard of applicability must be considered for all states, and internationa
l cooperation through multilateral and bilateral arrangements must be employed.
There is a prohibition against man-made destruction.
Rio Declaration (Summary):
Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. While th
ere is a recognition of their sovereign right to exploit their own resources, th
ey have the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction d
o not cause damage to the environment of other States. The right to development
must be fulfilled to meet developmental and environmental needs. To achieve sust
ainable development, environmental protection shall be an integral part of the d
evelopmental process. There shall be a spirit of global partnership to conserve,
protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earths ecosystem. States sho
uld reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption an
d strengthen endogenous capacity building for sustainable development by improvi
ng scientific and technological knowledge. Environmental issues are best partici
pated in by all concerned citizens. States shall enact effective environmental l
egislation and cooperate to promote a supportive and
IV.
II.
Environmental rights The real objects of protection are persons capable of havin
g rights, so trees and other inanimate objects cannot be said to have any rights
except in the metaphorical sense. The approach in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr is then
instructive as to the view of the law on the matter, where they used intergenera
tional protection and responsibility as the bases for the Secretary of Natural Re
sources to cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or a
pproving new timber license agreements. The Supreme Court agreed on the justicia
bility of the
Page 40 of 42

open international economic system which would lead to economic growth and susta
inable development. States must develop national law about liability and compens
ation for victims of environmental damage, and should cooperate to discourage or
prevent the relocation and transfer to other States activities causing environm
ental damage. The precautionary approach shall be applied by States to protect t
he environment. Internalization of environmental costs should be endeavoured by
national authorities. Environmental impact assessment shall be undertaken for pr
oposed activities which are perceived to have a large environmental impact. Stat
es should immediately notify other states in case of any natural disasters or ot
her emergencies. Indigenous peoples, women and the youth have vital roles in env
ironmental management and development. Warfare is inherently destructive and sho
uld respect international law providing protection for the environment in times
of armed conflict. States and people shall cooperate in good faith to fulfil all
the principles embodied herein.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank): To provide l
ong-term capital to support growth and development International Trade Organizat
ion (ITO): Intended to promote a liberal trading system by proscribing certain p
rotectionist trade rules.
General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) World Tra
de Organization (WTO) These are the two most important trade-oriented institutio
ns because they shape import and export laws which impact international trade an
d services.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN: INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW

I.
International Economic Law
Definitions: Distinct part of international law which
is related to the regulation of interstate trade, the creation of international
economic institutions, the formulation of definite rules covering a wide range
of economic matters and the establishment of methods of dispute resolution.
90%
of international law is economic because it includes all the international law a
nd international agreements governing economic transactions that cross state bou
ndaries that have implications for more than one state, like those governing mov
ement of goods, funds, persons, intangibles, technology, vessels and aircrafts.
Characteristics of International Economic Law: 1. International economic law is
a part of public international law 2. International economic law is entwined wit
h municipal law and is balanced accordingly with it. 3. International economic l
aw requires multidisciplinary thinking because it involves many other discipline
s such as history, political science, anthropology, geography, et cetera. 4. Emp
irical research is important for understanding its operation. Important economic
institutions: Bretton Woods Conference of 1944: Objectives were to advance the
reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers, and to create a global framework
designed to minimize economic conflicts. International Monetary Fund (IMF): To p
rovide short-term financing to countries in balance of payments and difficulties
Key principles of International Trade Law: Agreed tariff levels: Each state agre
es not to raise tariff levels above those contained in the schedule. The schedul
e is open to renegotiation. Most favored nation clause/principle: Embodies the p
rinciple of non-discrimination. Any special treatment given to a product from on
e trading partner must be made available for like products originating from othe
r contracting partners. AKA tariff concessions. Principle of national treatment:
This prohibits discrimination between domestic producers and foreign producers.
Once foreign producers have paid border charges, no additional burdens may be i
mposed. Principle of tariffication: Prohibits the use of quotas on imports or ex
ports and the use of licenses on importation or exportation. Prevents the imposi
tion of non-tariff barriers. Exceptions to Key Principles: General: Public moral
s, public health, currency protection, products of prison labor, national treasu
res of value and protection of exhaustible natural resources. Specific: Security
and regional trade exceptions, such as exception for developing nations. Tanada
v. Angara: WON the GATT is going to be detrimental to local industries and cons
titutes grave abuse of discretion in its implementation. The Court ruled that it
was not going to be detrimental because of the exceptions it provides to develo
ping nations because of its view towards raising standards of living and optimal
use of world resources for sustainable development, and lets the developing cou
ntries have a share in economic trade through reciprocal or mutual advantages. F
or example, the WTO gives developing countries a more lenient treatment by aidin
g and protecting their domestic industries. Dispute resolution: A Dispute Settle
ment Body (DSB) is established by the WTO Agreement. Each state has a right to t
he establishment of a Panel. The DSU provides for a permanent appellate body, co
nsisting of persons with recognized expertise in law to handle appeals from a Pa
nel decision.
Page 41 of 42

Expanded scope: IEL now includes intellectual property, services, sanitary and p
hysiosanitary measures and investment, as well as strengthening of the rules on
subsidies, countervailing duties and antidumping. It has become a very specializ
ed field and it is now affecting the sovereignty of states and their capacity to
give force to national objectives.
Page 42 of 42

Finals

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Finals

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Public International Law, 2009

Fr. Joaquin Bernas | MANIEGO, A2012

Public International Law, 2009

Historical development of International Law

decolonization, resulting in an expansion of membership in the UN composing of f

Public International Law, 2009

Sources, in general: custom, treaties and other international agreements, genera

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

overed by the Vienna Convention on Treaties, like administrative rules guiding p

Public International Law, 2009

Bilateral treaties: In the nature of contractual agreements which create shared

Functions of treaties: May be sources of international law; charters of internat

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

Ex. A state representative is subject to a restriction when concluding a treaty

Public International Law, 2009

Rebus sic stantibus (Fundamental change in circumstance): There is a fundamental

Can the President unilaterally terminate a treaty? In US jurisdiction (Goldwater

ails: ML must prevail (Dualists are positivistsstrong emphasis on state sovereign

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

ot a relevant factor; now, placing conditions leading to recognition implies an

Public International Law, 2009

facilitation of loans, access to foreign courts, etc. However, recognition of a

Fundamental Rights of StatesIndependence, equality, peaceful coexistence

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

a necessary factor. Legitimacy comes from their goal of selfdetermination. There

Public International Law, 2009

at the South Korean aircraft was an American reconnaissance aircraft.

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

resources of the high seas.

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

declarations and documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Public International Law, 2009

international community recognizes the legitimacy of the Passive Personality Pri

te unless there is a treaty.

Public International Law, 2009

is founded on principles of reciprocity, comity, independence and equality of S

Diplomatic and consular immunities

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

Kirkpatrick Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corporation: WON Kirkpatrick & Co. ca

APPENDICESCHAPTER TEN: IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

in respect of articles imported at the time of first installation. Members of th

Rights and privileges of Consuls:

Article 34 Freedom of Movement

Public International Law, 2009

from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detentio

Public International Law, 2009

Doctrine of State Responsibility

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

CHAPTER TWELVE: INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Public International Law, 2009

Public International Law, 2009

Practical: It is difficult to implement civil and political guarantees without t