2013

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 1
Primary Reference:
Lectures of ATTY. ANDRE PALACIOS

Secondary References:
Public International Law by Bernas, Cruz;
Supplementary Internet Sources

Part I
BASIC CONCEPTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Concepts

Q: Does International Law qualify as law?
Is it binding?

Yes. It consists of binding rules
accepted as such by the community.

There are however, two views to reflect:
Not a Law Qualified as Law
There can be no law
binding sovereign
states
There is no
international executive,
legislature and
judiciary
No assured position
identifying violations
Commonly disregarded
States are usually
bound by many rules
not promulgated
Social
interdependence
Predominance of
general interest
General respect for
law because of
possible consequence
of defiance
Not binding but merely
persuasive. There are
international
organizations such as
UN, ICJ, etc. but cannot
bind states unless states
give their consent.
Binding based on
(positivist theory) belief
that order and not chaos
is the governing
principle of the world
where we live.

Q: Are there similarities (or differences)
between Philippine law and International
Law?

Philippine Law International Law
Issued by political
superior for observance
of those who are under
its authority
Not imposed but simply
adopted by states as a
common rule of action
among themselves
Enactment is from a
lawmaking authority
Derived from sources of
international law
Regulates the relations
of persons with the state
and its citizens
elsewhere
Applies to the relations
inter se of states and
other international
persons
Violations are redressed
through local
administrative or judicial
process
Violations are resolved
through state to state
transactions
Generally entails
individual responsibility
Usually collective in the
sense that it attached
directly to the state, not
on its nationals

As to sources and application:

Philippine Law International Law
Primary (mandatory)
source
Constitution and Statutes
Jurisprudence
EOs, AOs, IRRs,
Ordinances
Treaties (PH is signatory)
Primary/formal source
Treaties or
Conventions
Custom
General principles
of law
Secondary (persuasive)
source
Law books and journals
Treaties (PH not a
signatory)
Restatements of the Law
US Supreme Court
decisions
Secondary source
Decisions of ICJ
Writings of highly
qualified publicists
Res judicata is observed Res judicata is
binding only to parties
and specific case
(Sec.59 of ICJ
Statute)
Stare decisis is applicable There is no stare
decisis being followed

Q: Is Philippine law part of the international
legal system?

Yes, Philippine law is part of
international law especially if it contains
provisions giving greater or less validity to
the legislation of other states, for it has
circumstantially the elements of international
law.

Definition of International Law
International law consists of rules and principles
of general application dealing with the conduct
of states and of international organizations and
with their relations inter se, as well as with some
of their relations with persons, whether natural
or juridical. (Restatement of the Law)

Theories of International Law

1. Command theory (John Austin) law
consists of commands originating from a
sovereign backed up by threats of
sanction if disobeyed. (already
discredited)

2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 2
2. Consensual theory international law
derives its binding force from the
consent of states. (however, many
binding rules are not derived from
consent) dominant

3. Natural law theory posits that law is
derived by reason from nature of man.

Monism and Dualism

Monism international law and domestic law
belong to only one system of law with
international law considered as superior to
domestic law.

Dualism (pluralist theory, based on positivism)
domestic and international law are two different
spheres of law. They would favor state law.

Status of national law in the international
legal system
National law provides for evidence of
(international) customs and general principles
which are authoritative sources of international
law.

Sources of International Law

Q: How are rules of International Law
created?

Rules of international law are created by
general practice of states.

Q: How does one know what a particular rule
of international law allows (or prohibits)?

Look into subsidiary means and judicial
decisions from highly qualified publicists.

Normally, sources of international law,
to be enforceable, must be accepted by the
majority of the family of nations. Treaties,
whether bilateral or multilateral, only takes
effect inter se the parties thereto. If the
treaty is a stipulation of generally accepted
practice of nations, it forms part of
customary law. If treaty is in conflict with
customary law based on peremptory norms
(jus cogens), the latter will prevail.

Q: Is a treaty superior to customary law?

Generally, NO, because they are equal
in the hierarchy of international law. Treaties
and customary law are usually taken as
complementary with each other. A treaty is
generally entered upon into for reasons of
establishing a customary law. But a later
treaty may be taken as superior in repealing
a prior customary law.

Q: Are there rules of customary law that are
superior to treaties?

Yes. When customary law has the
status of jus cogens or peremptory norms,
they are considered superior than any treaty
and custom.

Source of Law
Historical (material) sense
Refers to a causal or historical influence
explaining the factual existence of a
given rule of law at a given place and
time.
Legal (formal) sense
Means the criteria under which a rule is
accepted as valid in the given legal
system at issue.

Classification of Sources
Formal Sources various processes
by which rules come into existence.
Legislation
Treaty-Making
Judicial Decision-Making
Practice of States
Material Sources identify what the
obligations are.
Treaties
State Practice
Judicial Decisions
Writings of Jurists
Section 38(1), Statute of the ICJ

The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance
with international law such disputes as are submitted to
it, shall apply:

a)International conventions, whether general or
particular, establishing rules expressly recognized
by the contesting states;

b)International custom, as evidence of a general
practice accepted as law;

c)The general principles of law recognized by civilized
nations;

d)... Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as
subsidiary means for the determination of rules of
law.
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 3

102 ALI Restatement of the Law (Third)

(1) A rule of international law is one that has been
accepted as such by the international community of
states.
a)in the form of customary law;
b)by international agreement; or
c)by derivation from general principles common to
the major legal systems of the world.

(2) Customary international law results from a general
and consistent practice of states followed by them from
a sense of legal obligation.

(3) International agreements create law for the states
parties thereto and may lead to the creation of
customary international law when such agreements are
intended for adherence by states generally and are in
fact widely accepted.

(4) General principles common to the major legal
systems, even if not incorporated or reflected in
customary law or international agreement, may be
invoked as supplementary rules of international law
where appropriate.

Evidence of existence and content:
1. principal means (text of treaty and
state practice)
2. subsidiary means (judicial decisions
and teachings of highly qualified
publicists)

Treaty
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 designation. (Art.
2(1)(a), 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties)
Only the subjects of international law
States, international organizations, and
the other traditionally recognized entities
can conclude treaties under
international law.
Excludes agreements between States
which are governed by municipal law
and agreements between States which
are not intended to create legal relations
at all.

Soft Law
Guidelines of conduct which are neither
strictly binding norms of law, nor
completely irrelevant political maxims,
and operate in a grey zone between law
and politics.
e.g. Treaties not yet in force; or
Resolutions of international
organizations or conferences which lack
legally binding quality.
Norms which are vague with respect to
their content or weak with respect to the
requirements of the obligation.

Custom
As confirmed by the ICJ in Nicaragua v. USA,
custom is constituted by two elements:

(1) general practice (objective element);
and
(2) opinio juris (subjective element).

In the Continental Shelf case (Libya v. Malta),
the Court stated that the substance of customary
international law must be looked for primarily in
the actual practice and opinio juris of States.


Consistency & Uniformity
In the Asylum case (Colombia v. Peru), the ICJ
suggested that a customary rule must be based
on a constant and uniform usage. The ICJ,
however, held:

The facts... Disclose so much uncertainly and
contradiction, so much fluctuation and
discrepancy in the exercise of diplomatic
asylum and in the official views expressed on
various occasions... that it is not possible to
discern... any constant and uniform usage,
accepted as law.

In other words, what prevented the formation of
a customary rule in the Asylum case was not
the absence of repetition, but the presence of
major inconsistencies in the practice.

Major inconsistencies in the practice (i.e. a large
amount of practice which goes against the rule
in question) prevent the creation of a customary
rule.

The ICJ also emphasized that a claimant State
which seeks to rely on a customary rule must
prove that the rule has become binding on the
defendant State.

The Court does not consider that, for a rule to
be established as customary, the
corresponding practice must be in absolutely
rigorous conformity with the rule. In order to
deduce the existence of customary rules, the
Court deems it sufficient that the conduct of
States should, in general, be consistent with
such rules, and that instances of State conduct
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 4
inconsistent with a given rule should generally
have been treated as breaches of that rule, not
as indications of the recognition of a new
rule. (Nicaragua v. USA)

In the Fisheries case (U.K. v. Norway), the ICJ
noted that minor inconsistencies (i.e. a small
amount of practice which goes against the rule
in question) do not prevent the creation of a
customary rule, although in such cases the rule
in question probably needs to be supported by a
large amount of practice in order to outweigh the
conflicting practice in question.

Specially Affected States
A practice can be general even if it is not
universally accepted; there is no precise formula
to indicate how widespread a practice must be,
but it should reflect wide acceptance among the
States particularly involved in the relevant
activity. [The Restatement (Third)]

An indispensable requirement would be that
within the period in question, short though it
might be, State practice, including that of
States whose interests are specially affected,
should have been both extensive and
uniform. (North Sea Continental Shelf case)

In other words, customary law may emerge even
within a relatively short passage of time!

Persistent Objector
A State can be bound by the general practice of
other States even against its wishes if it does
not protest against the emergence of the rule
and continues persistently to do so.

The State must be sufficiently aware of the
emergence of the new practice and law.

In any event, the... rule would appear to be
inapplicable against Norway, inasmuch as she
has always opposed any attempt to apply it to
the Norwegian coast. (Fisheries case)

Opinio juris sive necessitatis
A conviction felt by States that a certain form of
conduct is required by international law.
Motivated by a sense of legal duty, and
not simply by courtesy or comity.
Can be proved by pointing to an express
acknowledgement of the obligation by
the States concerned, or by showing
that failure to act in the manner required
by the alleged rule has been
condemned as illegal by other States
whose interests were affected.

Examples of procedural & substantive Rules
from domestic law principles:
Right to a Fair Hearing
Dubio Pro Reo
Denial of Justice
Exhaustion of Local Remedies
Estoppel
Prescription
Liability for Fault

Decision ex aequo et bono a decision in
which equity overrides all other rules.

While a judge may not give a decision ex aequo et bono,
he/she can use equity to interpret or fill gaps in the law,
even when there is no express authorization to do so.
The principle of equity is a general principle common to
national legal systems [See River Meuse case
(Netherlands v. Belgium)]

Treaty vs. Custom
A treaty, when it comes into force, overrides
customary law as between the parties to the
treaty; one of the main reasons why States
make treaties is because they regard relevant
rules of customary international law as
inadequate.

On the other hand, treaties can come to an end
when the treaty is consistently ignored by one or
more parties, with the acquiescence of the other
parties (Desuetude). This takes the form of
the emergence of a new rule of customary law,
conflicting with the treaty.

Hierarchy of Sources


Treaties and Custom are of equal authority
Lex posterior derogat legi priori
(a later law repeals an earlier law)
Lex posterior generalis non derogat priori speciali
(a later general law does not repeal an earlier special law)
Lex specialis derogat legi generali
( a special law repeals a general law)

General principles of law are subordinate to
treaties and custom as their main function is to
fill gaps in treaty law and customary law.

2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 5
Judicial decisions and learned writings, as mere
subsidiary means, are subordinate to the three
(3) primary sources.

Jus Cogens
Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties provides:

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it
conflicts with a peremptory norm of general
international law. For the purposes of the present
Convention, a peremptory norm of general international
law is a norm accepted and recognized by the
international community of States as a whole as a norm
from which no derogation is permitted and which can be
modified only by a subsequent norm of general
international law having the same character.

Obligations Erga Omnes
Under the international law of reprisals, the
general rule is that only the directly injured State
is entitled to act against the violation of an
international obligation by another State.

Obligations erga omnes are concerned with the
enforceability of norms of international law, the
violation of which is deemed to be an offense
not only against the State directly affected by the
breach, but also against all members of the
international community.

In the Barcelona Traction case, the
ICJ recognized the existence of norms
which are the concern of all States.

In the East Timor case, the ICJ held:
In the Courts view, Portugals assertion
that the right of peoples to self-
determination, as it evolved from the
Charter and from United Nations
practice, has an erga omnes character,
is irreproachable. The principle of self-
determination of peoples has been
recognized by the United Nations
Charter and in the jurisprudence of the
Court...


Subjects of International Law

Q: Do non-state entities (e.g., natural
persons) have rights under the law of
nations?

Yes. Other subjects of international law are:
1) International organizations
2) Insurgents
3) National Liberation Movements
4) Individuals

Q: How does an entity become a state?

In the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on Rights
and Duties of States, the State as a person of
international law should possess the following
qualifications:
(a) A permanent population
(b) A defined territory
(c) Government
(d) Capacity to enter into relations with
other states
Entity must claim self determination to complete
the process.

Q: What are the fundamental rights of a
state?

Rights of states
1. Self-defense
2. Independence
3. Equality in law
4. Jurisdiction over its territory and
persons and things therein

Q: What are the basic obligations of a state?

Duties of states
1. Non-intervention
2. Non-use of force
3. Pacific settlement of disputes
4. Respect for human rights
5. Other duties

Recognition of states
Its act of acknowledging the capacity of an
entity to exercise rights belonging to statehood.
The question of recognition of states had
become less predictable and more a matter of
political discretion as a result of recent practice.

Recognition of governments
Its the act of acknowledging the capacity of an
entity to exercise powers of government of a
state.

Constitutive Theory of Statehood,
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a
state as a person of international law if, and only
if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states.
This theory of recognition was developed in the
19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if
another sovereign state recognized it as such.
Because of this, new states could not
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 6
immediately become part of the international
community or be bound by international law, and
recognized nations did not have to respect
international law in their dealings with them.
(Wikipedia)

Declarative Theory of Statehood
By contrast, the "declarative" theory defines a
state as a person in international law if it meets
the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a
permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a
capacity to enter into relations with other states.
According to declarative theory, an entity's
statehood is independent of its recognition by
other states. The declarative model was most
famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo
Convention. (Wikipedia)

Estrada Doctrine
The doctrine that recognition of a government
should be based on its de facto existence, rather
than on its legitimacy. It is named after Don
Genero Estrada, the Mexican Secretary of
Foreign Affairs who in 1930 ordered that
Mexican diplomats should issue no declarations
that amounted to a grant of recognition: he felt
that this was an insulting practice and offended
against the sovereignty of other nations. In 1980
the UK, USA, and many other states adopted
the Estrada doctrine. (Oxford Reference)

In other words, the Estrada Doctrine claims that
Mexico should not judge, positively or
negatively, the governments or changes in
government of other nations, in that such action
would imply a breach to their sovereignty. In
addition, this doctrine is based on the universally
recognized principles of self-
determination and non-intervention, which are
considered essential for mutual respect
and cooperation amongst nations. (Wikipedia)

Montevideo Convention
The state as a person of international law should
possess the following qualifications: (a) a
permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c)
government; and (d) capacity to enter into
relations with the other states.

Some have questioned whether these criteria
are sufficient, as they allow less-recognized
entities like the Republic of China (Taiwan) to
claim full status as states. According to the
alternative constitutive theory of statehood, a
state exists only insofar as it is recognized by
other states. It should not be confused with
the Estrada doctrine. (Wikipedia)

Q: What is the difference between an inter-
governmental organization (IO) and an
international non-governmental organization
(NGO)?

An international organization is an
organization that is set up by treaty
(between and) among two or more states.
NGO is set up by private persons.

Q: How are inter-governmental organizations
created?

The constituent document of
international organizations is a treaty. Thus,
every IO is created by stipulations of parties
creating it.

Q: Are ALL states bound to recognize the
personality of an inter-governmental
organization created by a group of states?

Generally NO. Only state members are
bound to recognize the personality of an
IGO. However, the United Nations is an
exception. In the Advisory Opinion by ICJ
(21 June 1971):

In its advisory opinion on the question put by
the Security Council of the United Nations,
"What are the legal consequences for States of
the continued presence of South Africa in
Namibia notwithstanding Security Council
resolution 276 (1970)?", the Court was of
opinion,
by 13 votes to 2,
(1) that, the continued presence of South
Africa in Namibia being illegal, South
Africa is under obligation to withdraw its
administration from Namibia immediately
and thus put an end to its occupation of
the Territory;
by 11 votes to 4,
(2) that States Members of the United Nations
are under obligation to recognize the
illegality of South Africa's presence in
Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on
behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to
refrain from any acts and in particular any
dealings with the Government of South
Africa implying recognition of the legality
of, or lending support or assistance to,
such presence and administration;
(3) that it is incumbent upon States which are
not Members of the United Nations to give
assistance, within the scope of
subparagraph (2) above, in the action
which has been taken by the United
Nations with regard to Namibia.
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 7

Q: Can a corporation which is organized and
existing under the domestic laws of a state
have rights under international law?

Yes. Corporations organized under
domestic laws may be subjects of
international law. As such, rights may be
claimed and enforced.

United Nations (objective personality)
International personality of an international
organization effective vis--vis all States, and
not simply Member States. The United Nations
is the only international organization with
objective international personality: fifty
States, representing the vast majority of the
members of the international community [in
1945], had the power, in conformity with
international law, to bring into being an entity
possessing objective international personality,
and not merely personality recognized by them
alone : (Reparation for Injuries
Case 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 174 at 178) (Wikipedia)

Principle of speciality
[P]rinciple of International law that is included in
most extradition treaties, whereby a person who
is extradited to a country to stand trial for certain
criminal offenses may be tried only for those
offenses and not for any other pre-extradition
offenses. Once the asylum state extradites an
individual to the requesting state under the
terms of an extradition treaty, that person can be
prosecuted only for crimes specified in the
extradition request. This doctrine allows a nation
to require the requesting nation to limit
prosecution to declared offenses. US courts
have been divided on allowing standing to assert
the doctrine when the other nation has not
explicitly or implicitly protested certain charges.
(Wikipedia)

A person who has been brought within the
jurisdiction of the court by virtue of
proceedings under an extradition treaty, can
only be tried for one of the offences described
in that treaty, and for the offence with which he
is charged in the proceedings for his
extradition, until a reasonable time and
opportunity have been given him, after his
release or trial upon such charge, to return to
the country from whose asylum he had been
forcibly taken under those proceedings. United
States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (U.S. 1886)




International Law and Philippine Law

Q: Is International Law superior to the
Philippine Constitution? a Philippine
statute? a Philippine executive issuance?

It depends on the case brought about
and which legal system they are brought. If
the question is brought in the international
tribunal, international law will prevail over
domestic law. If the dispute is brought
before domestic courts, domestic law must
prevail over international law. This is
consistent with the dualist theory adopted by
the Philippines.

Q: How may one invoke rules of International
Law before a Philippine court?

International law may be used in the
same manner as citing primary sources of
Philippine laws. It may be invoked by citing
treaties, customary law or general principles
of international law as written by highly
qualified publicists.

Q: What are the Philippine rules on treaty-
making?

Philippine rules on treaty making are
enunciated in the 1987 Constitution and
Executive Order No. 59 (1997). Treaty
agreements shall have the concurrence of
2/3 of the Senate and ratification by the
President.

Cases:

Ichong v. Hernandez
101 Phil. 1155 (1957)

Another subordinate argument against the
validity of the law is the supposed violation
thereby of the Charter of the United Nations
and of the Declaration of the Human Rights
adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly. We find no merit in the Nations
Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations
regarding the rights and freedom of their
subjects (Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United
Nations, 1951 ed. pp. 29-32), and the
Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing
more than a mere recommendation or a
common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations (Id. p. 39.) That such is
the import of the United Nations Charter aid of
the Declaration of Human Rights can be
inferred the fact that members of the United
Nations Organizations, such as Norway and
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 8
Denmark, prohibit foreigners from engaging in
retail trade, and in most nations of the world
laws against foreigners engaged in domestic
trade are adopted.

The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of
the Philippines and the Republic of China of
April 18, 1947 is also claimed to be violated by
the law in question. All that the treaty
guarantees is equality of treatment to the
Chinese nationals "upon the same terms as
the nationals of any other country." But the
nationals of China are not discriminating
against because nationals of all other
countries, except those of the United States,
who are granted special rights by the
Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging
in the retail trade. But even supposing that the
law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is
always subject to qualification or amendment
by a subsequent law (U. S. vs. Thompson, 258,
Fed. 257, 260), and the same may never curtail
or restrict the scope of the police power of the
State (plaston vs. Pennsylvania, 58 L. ed. 539.)

Gonzales v. Hechanova
9 SCRA 230 (1963)

It is [lastly] contended that the Government of
the Philippines has already entered into two (2)
contracts for the Purchase of rice, one with the
Republic of Vietnam, and another with the
Government of Burma; that these contracts
constitute valid executive agreements under
international law; that such agreements
became binding effective upon the signing
thereof by representatives the parties thereto;
that in case of conflict between Republic Acts
Nos. 2207 and 3452 on the one hand, and
aforementioned contracts, on the other, the
latter should prevail, because, if a treaty and a
statute are inconsistent with each other, the
conflict must be resolved under the
American jurisprudence in favor of the one
which is latest in point of time; that petitioner
herein assails the validity of acts of the
Executive relative to foreign relations in the
conduct of which the Supreme Court cannot
interfere; and the aforementioned contracts
have already been consummated, the
Government of the Philippines having already
paid the price of the rice involved therein
through irrevocable letters of credit in favor of
the sell of the said commodity. We find no
merit in this pretense.

The Court is not satisfied that the status of
said tracts as alleged executive agreements
has been sufficiently established. The parties
to said contracts do not pear to have regarded
the same as executive agreements. But, even
assuming that said contracts may properly
considered as executive agreements, the same
are unlawful, as well as null and void, from a
constitutional viewpoint, said agreements
being inconsistent with the provisions of
Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452. Although
the President may, under the American
constitutional system enter into executive
agreements without previous legislative
authority, he may not, by executive agreement,
enter into a transaction which is prohibited by
statutes enacted prior thereto. Under the
Constitution, the main function of the
Executive is to enforce laws enacted by
Congress. The former may not interfere in the
performance of the legislative powers of the
latter, except in the exercise of his veto power.
He may not defeat legislative enactments that
have acquired the status of law, by indirectly
repealing the same through an executive
agreement providing for the performance of
the very act prohibited by said laws.

The American theory to the effect that, in the
event of conflict between a treaty and a
statute, the one which is latest in point of time
shall prevail, is not applicable to the case at
bar, for respondents not only admit, but, also
insist that the contracts adverted to are not
treaties. Said theory may be justified upon the
ground that treaties to which the United States
is signatory require the advice and consent of
its Senate, and, hence, of a branch of the
legislative department. No such justification
can be given as regards executive agreements
not authorized by previous legislation, without
completely upsetting the principle of
separation of powers and the system of
checks and balances which are fundamental in
our constitutional set up and that of the United
States.

As regards the question whether an
international agreement may be invalidated by
our courts, suffice it to say that the
Constitution of the Philippines has clearly
settled it in the affirmative, by providing, in
Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the
Supreme Court may not be deprived "of its
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify,
or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error
as the law or the rules of court may provide,
final judgments and decrees of inferior courts
in (1) All cases in which the constitutionality
or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation is in question". In
other words, our Constitution authorizes the
nullification of a treaty, not only when it
conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also,
when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

Tanada v. Angara,
G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997

Third issue (WTO Agreement and Legislative
Power)
The Constitution has not really shown any
unbalanced bias in favor of any business or
enterprise, nor does it contain any specific
pronouncement that Filipino companies
should be pampered with a total proscription
of foreign competition. On the other hand,
respondents claim that WTO/GATT aims to
make available to the Filipino consumer the
best goods and services obtainable anywhere
in the world at the most reasonable prices.
Consequently, the question boils down to
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 9
whether WTO/GATT will favor the general
welfare of the public at large.

This Court notes and appreciates the ferocity
and passion by which petitioners stressed
their arguments on this issue. However, while
sovereignty has traditionally been deemed
absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed
to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly,
as a member of the family of nations.
Unquestionably, the Constitution did not
envision a hermit-type isolation of the country
from the rest of the world. In its Declaration of
Principles and State Policies, the Constitution
"adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land,
and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with
all nations." By the doctrine of incorporation,
the country is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which are
considered to be automatically part of our own
laws. One of the oldest and most fundamental
rules in international law is pacta sunt
servanda international agreements must be
performed in good faith. "A treaty engagement
is not a mere moral obligation but creates a
legally binding obligation on the parties . . . A
state which has contracted valid international
obligations is bound to make in its legislations
such modifications as may be necessary to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations
undertaken."

By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or
restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By
their voluntary act, nations may surrender
some aspects of their state power in exchange
for greater benefits granted by or derived from
a convention or pact. After all, states, like
individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit
of mutually covenanted objectives and
benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the
exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.
Thus, treaties have been used to record
agreements between States concerning such
widely diverse matters as, for example, the
lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of
territory, the termination of war, the regulation
of conduct of hostilities, the formation of
alliances, the regulation of commercial
relations, the settling of claims, the laying
down of rules governing conduct in peace and
the establishment of international
organizations. The sovereignty of a state
therefore cannot in fact and in reality be
considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter
into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the
very nature of membership in the family of
nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty
stipulations. As aptly put by John F. Kennedy,
"Today, no nation can build its destiny alone.
The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over.
The age of interdependence is here."

[In the foregoing treaties] the Philippines has
effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its
sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain
and police power. The underlying
consideration in this partial surrender of
sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of
the other contracting states in granting the
same privilege and immunities to the
Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The
same reciprocity characterizes the Philippine
commitments under WTO-GATT.

Treaty-making under Philippine law

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 459
PROVIDING FOR THE GUIDELINES
IN THE NEGOTIATION OF INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS AND ITS RATIFICATION

WHEREAS, the negotiations of international agreements are
made in pursuance of the foreign policy of the country;

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as
the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that the
Department of Foreign Affairs shall be the lead agency that
shall advise and assist the President in planning,
organizing, directing, coordinating and evaluating the total
national effort in the field of foreign relations;

WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 292 further provides that
the Department of Foreign Affairs shall negotiate treaties
and other agreements pursuant to the instructions of the
President, and in coordination with other government
agencies;

WHEREAS, there is a need to establish guidelines to govern
the negotiation and ratification of international agreements
by the different agencies of the government;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared
the policy of the State that the negotiations of all treaties and
executive agreements, or any amendment thereto, shall be
coordinated with, and made only with the participation of, the
Department of Foreign Affairs in accordance with Executive
Order No. 292. It is also declared the policy of the State that
the composition of any Philippine negotiation panel and the
designation of the chairman thereof shall be made in
coordination with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.
a. International agreement shall refer to a contract
or understanding, regardless of nomenclature,
entered into between the Philippines and another
government in written form and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments.
b. Treaties international agreements entered into
by the Philippines which require legislative
concurrence after executive ratification. This term
may include compacts like conventions,
declarations, covenants and acts.
c. Executive Agreements similar to treaties except
that they do not require legislative concurrence.
d. Full Powers authority granted by a Head of
State or Government to a delegation head
enabling the latter to bind his country to the
commitments made in the negotiations to be
pursued.
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 10
e. National Interest advantage or enhanced
prestige or benefit to the country as defined by its
political and/or administrative leadership.
f. Provisional Effect recognition by one or both
sides of the negotiation process that an agreement
be considered in force pending compliance with
domestic requirements for the effectivity of the
agreement.

SECTION 3. Authority to Negotiate. Prior to any
international meeting or negotiation of a treaty or executive
agreement, authorization must be secured by the lead
agency from the President through the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs. The request for authorization shall be in writing,
proposing the composition of the Philippine delegation and
recommending the range of positions to be taken by that
delegation. In case of negotiations of agreements, changes
of national policy or those involving international
arrangements of a permanent character entered into in the
name of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines,
the authorization shall be in the form of Full Powers and
formal instructions. In cases of other agreements, a written
authorization from the President shall be sufficient.

SECTION 4. Full Powers. The issuance of Full Powers
shall be made by the President of the Philippines who may
delegate this function to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

The following persons, however, shall not require Full
Powers prior to negotiating or signing
a treaty or an executive agreement, or any amendment
thereto, by virtue of the nature of their
functions:
a. Secretary of Foreign Affairs;
b. Heads of Philippine diplomatic missions, for the
purpose of adopting the text of a treaty or an
agreement between the Philippines and the State
to which they are accredited;
c. Representatives accredited by the Philippines to
an international conference or to an international
organization or one of its organs, for the purpose
of adopting the text of a treaty in that conference,
organization or organ.

SECTION 5. Negotiations.
a. In cases involving negotiations of agreements, the
composition of the Philippine panel or delegation
shall be determined by the President upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs and the lead agency if it is not the
Department of Foreign Affairs.
b. The lead agency in the negotiation of a treaty or
an executive agreement, or any amendment
thereto, shall convene a meeting of the panel
members prior to the commencement of any
negotiations for the purpose of establishing the
parameters of the negotiating position of the
panel. No deviation from the agreed parameters
shall be made without prior consultations with the
members of the negotiating panel.

SECTION 6. Entry into Force and Provisional Application of
Treaties and Executive Agreements.
a. A treaty or an executive agreement enters into
force upon compliance with the domestic
requirements stated in this Order.
b. No treaty or executive agreement shall be given
provisional effect unless it is shown that a pressing
national interest will be upheld thereby. The
Department of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with
the concerned agencies, shall determine whether
a treaty or an executive agreement, or any
amendment thereto, shall be given provisional
effect.

SECTION 7. Domestic Requirements for the Entry into Force
of a Treaty or an Executive Agreement. The domestic
requirements for the entry into force of a treaty or an
executive agreement, or any amendment thereto, shall be as
follows:
A. Executive Agreements.
i. All executive agreements shall be transmitted
to the Department of Foreign Affairs after
their signing for the preparation of the
ratification papers. The transmittal shall
include the highlights of the agreements and
the benefits which will accrue to the
Philippines arising from them.
ii. The Department of Foreign Affairs, pursuant
to the endorsement by the concerned
agency, shall transmit the agreements to the
President of the Philippines for his ratification.
The original signed instrument of ratification
shall then be returned to the Department of
Foreign Affairs for appropriate action.
B. Treaties.
i. All treaties, regardless of their designation,
shall comply with the requirements provided
in subparagraph 1 and 2, item A (Executive
Agreements) of this Section. In addition, the
Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit
the treaties to the Senate of the Philippines
for concurrence in the ratification by the
President. A certified true copy of the treaties,
in such numbers as may be required by the
Senate, together with a certified true copy of
the ratification instrument, shall accompany
the submission of the treaties to the Senate.
ii. Upon receipt of the concurrence by the
Senate, the Department of Foreign Affairs
shall comply with the provision of the treaties
in effecting their entry into force.

SECTION 8. Notice to Concerned Agencies. The
Department of Foreign Affairs shall inform the concerned
agencies of the entry into force of the agreement.

SECTION 9. Determination of the Nature of the Agreement.
The Department of Foreign Affairs shall determine
whether an agreement is an executive agreement or a
treaty.

SECTION 10. Separability Clause. If, for any reason, any
part or provision of this Order shall be held unconstitutional
or invalid, other parts or provisions hereof which are not
affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

SECTION 11. Repealing Clause. All executive orders,
proclamations, memorandum orders or memorandum
circulars inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.

SECTION 12. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take
effect immediately upon its approval.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 25th day of November, in
the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and NinetySeven.


2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 11
Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005

The case is about a petition
for mandamus filed by Pimentel et al. to
compel the Office of the Executive Secretary
and the Department of Foreign Affairs to
transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court to the
Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in
accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution.

Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on
International Law, describes the treaty-making
process in this wise:

The usual steps in the treaty-making
process are: negotiation, signature,
ratification, and exchange of the
instruments of ratification. The treaty may
then be submitted for registration and
publication under the U.N. Charter,
although this step is not essential to the
validity of the agreement as between the
parties.

Negotiation may be undertaken
directly by the head of state but he now
usually assigns this task to his authorized
representatives. These representatives
are provided with credentials known as
full powers, which they exhibit to the
other negotiators at the start of the formal
discussions. It is standard practice for
one of the parties to submit a draft of the
proposed treaty which, together with the
counter-proposals, becomes the basis of
the subsequent negotiations. The
negotiations may be brief or protracted,
depending on the issues involved, and
may even collapse in case the parties
are unable to come to an agreement on
the points under consideration.

If and when the negotiators finally
decide on the terms of the treaty, the
same is opened for signature. This step is
primarily intended as a means of
authenticating the instrument and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of
the parties; but, significantly, it does not
indicate the final consent of the state in
cases where ratification of the treaty is
required. The document is ordinarily
signed in accordance with the alternat,
that is, each of the several negotiators is
allowed to sign first on the copy which he
will bring home to his own state.

Ratification, which is the next step,
is the formal act by which a state confirms
and accepts the provisions of a treaty
concluded by its representatives. The
purpose of ratification is to enable the
contracting states to examine the treaty
more closely and to give them an
opportunity to refuse to be bound by it
should they find it inimical to their
interests. It is for this reason that most
treaties are made subject to the scrutiny
and consent of a department of the
government other than that which
negotiated them.

x x x

The last step in the treaty-making process
is the exchange of the instruments of
ratification, which usually also signifies
the effectivity of the treaty unless a
different date has been agreed upon by
the parties. Where ratification is
dispensed with and no effectivity clause is
embodied in the treaty, the instrument is
deemed effective upon its signature.

Petitioners submission that the Philippines is
bound under treaty law and international law to
ratify the treaty which it has signed is without
basis. The signature does not signify the final
consent of the state to the treaty. It is the
ratification that binds the state to the
provisions thereof. In fact, the Rome Statute
itself requires that the signature of the
representatives of the states be subject to
ratification, acceptance or approval of the
signatory states. Ratification is the act by
which the provisions of a treaty are formally
confirmed and approved by a State. By
ratifying a treaty signed in its behalf, a state
expresses its willingness to be bound by the
provisions of such treaty. After the treaty is
signed by the states representative, the
President, being accountable to the people, is
burdened with the responsibility and the duty
to carefully study the contents of the treaty
and ensure that they are not inimical to the
interest of the state and its people. Thus, the
President has the discretion even after the
signing of the treaty by the Philippine
representative whether or not to ratify the
same. The Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties does not contemplate to defeat or
even restrain this power of the head of states.
If that were so, the requirement of ratification
of treaties would be pointless and futile. It has
been held that a state has no legal or even
moral duty to ratify a treaty which has been
signed by its plenipotentiaries. There is no
legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but it goes
without saying that the refusal must be based
on substantial grounds and not on superficial
or whimsical reasons. Otherwise, the other
state would be justified in taking offense.

It should be emphasized that under our
Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in
the President, subject to the concurrence of
the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is
limited only to giving or withholding its
consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Hence, it is within the authority of the
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
Senate or, having secured its consent for its
ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that
should not be taken lightly, such decision is
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 12
within the competence of the President alone,
which cannot be encroached by this
Court via a writ of mandamus. This Court has
no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin
the President in the performance of his official
duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the
writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners
as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the
executive branch of the government to
transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the
Senate.

PETITION WAS DISMISSED.


Philippine Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument
of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law
of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.

Philippine Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 21
No treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at
least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.

Philippine Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2)(a)
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law
or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in
question.


Part II
SUBSTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Law of Treaties

Q: Is a state bound by a treaty to which it is a
party? Or one to which it is not a party?

Generally NO, but a NON-party may
take obligation by accepting/signing it.

Q: Compare the definition of treaty in VCLT
and in Executive Order No. 459. Which
definition is broader?

VCLT EO 459
international agreement
concluded between two
states in written form
governed by international
law whether embodied in
a single instrument or in
two or more related
instrument and whatever
its particular designation
International
agreements entered by
the Philippines which
requires legislative
concurrence and
executive ratification.
This term may include
compacts like
conventions,
declarations, covenants
and acts.

VCLT definition is broader in scope; EO
459 requires concurrence.

Q: May an individual enter into a treaty?

NO. Only states can enter into treaties.
This is clear in the definition of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Q: What are the stages in the treaty making
process?

1. Authorization, "full powers" required
[except: heads of state/ government or
DFA Secretary, head of diplomatic
missions / ambassadors (adopting text),
representative to international
organization]
2. Negotiation
3. Adoption and authentication of text
4. Expression of Consent to be bound
5. Entry into force

Q: What is the difference between a
signatory to a treaty and a party to a treaty?

Signatory - means having the authority
to enter into an agreement, but still subject
to ratification.

Party - a state which has consented to
be bound by the treaty and from which the
treaty is enforced.

Q: Can a treaty be invalidated? Or
terminated? Is there a difference between the
two?

Yes. Yes. Yes. The main difference is
that in invalidity, the grounds are present
before perfection of treaty, while termination
may be accomplished by subsequent action
of the parties.

2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 13
Pacta sunt servanda - (obligation of) treaties
must be complied with in good faith; based on
consensual theory

VCLT definition of treaty
International agreement concluded between two
states in written form governed by international
law whether embodied in a single instrument or
in two or more related instrument and whatever
its particular designation. (see also the
comparison table on p.12)

Interpretation of Treaties
G-ood faith in accordance with the O-rdinary
meaning given to the terms of the treaty in their
C-ontext and in light of its O-bject and purpose.
(G-O-C-O)

VCLT (1969)
Article 31
General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be
given to the terms of the treaty in their context
and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of
a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text,
including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which
was made between all the parties in
connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or
more parties in connection with the
conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the
other parties as an instrument related to the
treaty.

3. There shall be taken into account, together with
the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the
parties regarding the interpretation of the
treaty or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of
the treaty which establishes the agreement of
the parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) any relevant rules of international law
applicable in the relations between the
parties.
4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is
established that the parties so intended.

Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of
interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty
and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm
the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to
determine the meaning when the interpretation according to
article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or
unreasonable.


Article 33
Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more
languages
1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or
more languages, the text is equally authoritative in
each language, unless the treaty provides or the
parties agree that, in case of divergence, a
particular text shall prevail.
2. A version of the treaty in a language other than
one of those in which the text was authenticated
shall be considered an authentic text only if the
treaty so provides or the parties so agree.
3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the
same meaning in each authentic text.
4. Except where a particular text prevails in
accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison
of the authentic texts discloses a difference of
meaning which the application of articles 31 and
32 does not remove, the meaning which best
reconciles the texts, having regard to the object
and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.

Invalidity of treaties
(a) error of fact
(b) corruption
(c) duress/coercion
(d) violation of jus cogens

Termination of treaties
(a) material breach
(b) supervening impossibility of
performance
(c) fundamental change of circumstances
(rebus sic stantibus)

Cases:

BAYAN v. Zamora,
G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

(VFA as a treaty in international law)

This Court is of the firm view that the
phrase recognized as a treaty means that the
other contracting party accepts or
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To
require the other contracting state, the United
States of America in this case, to submit the
VFA to the United States Senate for
concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to
accord strict meaning to the phrase.

Well-entrenched is the principle that the words
used in the Constitution are to be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical
terms are employed, in which case the
significance thus attached to them prevails. Its
language should be understood in the sense
they have in common use.

Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the
United States treats the VFA only as an
executive agreement because, under
international law, an executive agreement is as
binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 14
VFA possesses the elements of an agreement
under international law, the said agreement is
to be taken equally as a treaty.
A treaty, as defined by the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties, is an international
instrument 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 designation. There are
many other terms used for a treaty or
international agreement, some of which are:
act, protocol, agreement, compromis d
arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration,
exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter
and modus vivendi. All writers, from Hugo
Grotius onward, have pointed out that the
names or titles of international agreements
included under the general term treaty have
little or no legal significance. Certain terms are
useful, but they furnish little more than mere
description.

Article 2(2) of the Vienna Convention provides
that the provisions of paragraph 1 regarding
the use of terms in the present Convention are
without prejudice to the use of those terms, or
to the meanings which may be given to them in
the internal law of the State.

Thus, in international law, there is no
difference between treaties and executive
agreements in their binding effect upon states
concerned, as long as the negotiating
functionaries have remained within their
powers. International law continues to make
no distinction between treaties and executive
agreements: they are equally binding
obligations upon nations.

Nicolas v. Romulo,
G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009

[These are petitions for certiorari, etc. as special civil actions
and/or for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith v. Hon. Benjamin T.
Pozon, et al., in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212, dated January 2,
2007]

The rule in international law is that a foreign
armed forces allowed to enter ones territory is
immune from local jurisdiction, except to the
extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces
Agreements involving foreign military units
around the world vary in terms and conditions,
according to the situation of the parties
involved, and reflect their bargaining
power. But the principle remains, i.e., the
receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over
the forces of the sending State only to the
extent agreed upon by the parties.

As a result, the situation involved is not one in
which the power of this Court to adopt rules of
procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather
one in which, as is normally encountered
around the world, the laws (including rules of
procedure) of one State do not extend or apply
except to the extent agreed upon to
subjects of another State due to the
recognition of extraterritorial immunity given
to such bodies as visiting foreign armed
forces.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such
agreements recognizing immunity from
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction
(such as custody), in relation to long-
recognized subjects of such immunity like
Heads of State, diplomats and members of the
armed forces contingents of a foreign State
allowed to enter another States territory. On
the contrary, the Constitution states that
the Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the
law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).

x x x

It is clear that the parties to the VFA
recognized the difference between custody
during the trial and detention after conviction,
because they provided for a specific
arrangement to cover detention. And this
specific arrangement clearly states not only
that the detention shall be carried out in
facilities agreed on by authorities of both
parties, but also that the detention shall be by
Philippine authorities. Therefore, the
Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19
and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the
detention of the accused in the United
States Embassy, are not in accord with the
VFA itself because such detention is not by
Philippine authorities.

Respondents should therefore comply with the
VFA and negotiate with representatives of
the United States towards an agreement on
detention facilities under Philippine authorities
as mandated by Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA.

NOTE: Jessup problem (Compromis)
not included in these discussions. It
must be read and studied separately.

End of Topic for Midterm Purposes


Law of the Sea

Q: How are international rules of the sea
created?

They are created by treaties and
customs. The latest was the Convention of
the Law of the Sea (LOS) of 1982 whose
provisions are a repetition of earlier
convention law (Geneva Conventions 1958,
1960) or a codification of customary law,
with matters not regulated is governed by
the principles of international law.
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 15

Q: Who are bound by international rules of
the sea?

State parties to the convention or those
states which have consented to be bound by
international rules of the sea shall be bound
as such. All other states are deemed party
to the Convention after failing an expression
of different intention [Article 316(4),
UNCLOS]

Q: What rights can a state exercise over:
waters that are near its land territory? fish
that are in waters near its land territory?
other natural resources (e.g., oil) that are in
waters near its land territory? submerged
land underneath waters that are near its land
territory?

Article 2
Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over
the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil
1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends,
beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in
the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic
waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as
the territorial sea.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the
territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.
3. The sovereignty over the territorial sea is
exercised subject to this Convention and to other
rules of international law.

Q: Do other states have rights over said
resources?

NO. Article 1 of the Geneva Convention
specifically excludes from the six freedoms
(navigation, overflight, fishing, lay submarine
cables and pipelines, construct artificial
islands and structures and of scientific
research) all parts of the sea that are not
included in the territorial sea or in the
internal waters of a State.

Q: How will legal disputes involving state
rights under UNCLOS be resolved?

Under Article 188 of UNCLOS, disputes
may be submitted to the:
(a) International Tribunal of the Law
of the Sea (ITLOS),
(b) an ad hoc chamber of the
Seabed Disputes Chamber, or
(c) to a binding commercial
arbitration

Q: What has the Philippines done to define
which waters are near its land territory?

The Philippines already enacted several statutes
defining the baselines of Philippine territory:
(a) Republic Act No. 3046 (1961) baselines
(b) Republic Act No. 5446 (1968) baselines
(c) Presidential Decree No. 1599 (1978) on
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ)
(d) Republic Act No. 9522 (2009) baselines

Wikipedia Excerpts:

(1) United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the
Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is
the international agreement that resulted from
the third United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place
between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea
Convention defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations in their use of the
world's oceans, establishing guidelines for
businesses, the environment, and the
management of marine natural resources. The
Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four
1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994,
a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to
sign the treaty. As of October 2012, 164
countries and the European Union have joined
in the Convention. However, it is uncertain as to
what extent the Convention codifies customary
international law.

While the Secretary General of the United
Nations receives instruments of ratification and
accession and the UN provides support for
meetings of states party to the Convention, the
UN has no direct operational role in the
implementation of the Convention. There is,
however, a role played by organizations such as
the International Maritime Organization,
the International Whaling Commission, and
the International Seabed Authority (the latter
being established by the UN Convention).

(2) Fisheries Case (UK v. Norway)

The Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v.
Norway) was the culmination of a dispute,
originating in 1933, over how large an area of
water surrounding Norway was Norwegian
waters (that Norway thus had exclusive fishing
2013
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (8/9/13) | ARELLANO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW


Notes By: ENGR. JESSIE A. SALVADOR,MPICE http://twitter.com/engrjhez

Page 16
rights to) and how much was 'high seas' (that
the UK could thus fish).

On 24 September 1949, the UK requested that
the International Court of Justice determine how
far Norway's territorial claim extended to sea,
and to award the UK damages in compensation
for Norwegian interference with UK fishing
vessels in the disputed waters, claiming that
Norway's claim to such an extent of waters was
against international law.

On 18 December 1951, the ICJ decided that
Norway's claims to the waters were not
inconsistent with international laws concerning
the ownership of local sea-space.

(3) Corfu Channel Incident

The Corfu Channel Incident refers to three
separate events involving Royal Navy ships in
the Channel of Corfu which took place in 1946,
and it is considered an early episode of the Cold
War. During the first incident, Royal Navy ships
came under fire from Albanian fortifications. The
second incident involved Royal Navy ships
striking mines and the third incident occurred
when the Royal Navy conducted mine-
clearing operations in the Corfu Channel, but in
Albanian territorial waters, and Albania
complained about them to the United Nations.
This series of incidents led to the Corfu Channel
Case, where the United Kingdom brought a case
against the People's Socialist Republic of
Albania to the International Court of Justice. The
Court rendered a decision under which Albania
was to pay 844,000 to Great Britain, the
equivalent of 20 million in 2006. Because of the
incidents, Britain, in 1946, broke off talks with
Albania aimed at establishing diplomatic
relations between the two countries. Diplomatic
relations were only restored in 1991.

(4) Exclusive Economic Zones

An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a seazone
prescribed by the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea over which a state has
special rights over the exploration and use
of marine resources, including energy
production from water and wind. It stretches
from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles from
its coast. In colloquial usage, the term may
include the territorial sea and even
the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit.



(5) Continental Shelf

The continental shelf is the extended perimeter
of each continent and associated coastal plain.
Much of the shelf was exposed during glacial
periods, but it is now submerged under relatively
shallow seas (known as shelf seas)
and gulfs and was similarly submerged during
other interglacial periods.

The continental margin, between the continental
shelf and the abyssal plain, comprises a steep
continental slope followed by the flatter
continental rise. Sediment from the continent
above cascades down the slope and
accumulates as a pile of sediment at the base of
the slope, called the continental rise. Extending
as far as 500 km from the slope, it consists of
thick sediments deposited by turbidity
currents from the shelf and slope.

Under the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea, the name continental shelf was
given a legal definition as the stretch of
the seabed adjacent to the shores of a
particular country to which it belongs.