Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana,  Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas

(SUPER LONG CASE!!!!) FACTS: - HAMBURG owned a steamship named SAMBIA, which proceeded to the port of Saigon and was taking the cargo belonging to COMPAGNIE. Apparently, there were rumors of impending war between Germany and France and other nations of Europe. The master of the steamship was told to take refuge at a neutral port (because Saigon was a French port). So, to stop that, COMPAGNIE asked for compulsory detention of his vessel to prevent its property from leaving Saigon. However, the Governor of Saigon refused to issue an order because he had not been officially notified of the declaration of the war. - The steamship sailed from Saigon, and was bound for Manila, because it was issued a bill of health by the US consul in Saigon. The steamship stayed continuously in Manila and where it contends it will be compelled to stay until the war ceases. No attempt on the part of the defendants to transfer and deliver the cargo to the destinations as stipulated in the charter party. That BEHN, MEYER and COMPANY (agent of HAMBURG in manila) offered to purchase the cargo from COMPAGNIE, but the latter never received the cable messages so they never answered. (obviously) - When a survey was done on the ship, it was found that the cargo was *weevily and heating* (whatever that means), so BEHN asked for court authority to sell the cargo and the balance to be dumped at sea. The proceeds of the sale were deposited in the court, waiting for orders as to what to do with it. - BEHN wrote COMPAGNIE again informing the latter of the disposition which it made upon the cargo. COMPAGNIE answered that it was still waiting for orders as to what to do. - COMPAGNIE of course wanted all the proceeds of the sale to be given to them (damages for the defendants’ failure to deliver the cargo to the destinations Dunkirk and Hamburg), while defendants contend that they have a lien on the proceeds of the sale (amount due to them because of the upkeep and maintenance of the ship crew and for commissions for the sale of the cargo). - The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. - On appeal, the defendants made the ff: assignments on appeal (that the court had no jurisdiction, that the fear of capture was not force majeure, that the court erred in concluding that defendant is liable for damages for non-delivery of cargo, and the value of the award of damages) - On appeal, the plaintiffs also contended that the court erred in not giving the full value of damages (kasi binawas un expenses ng mga defendants) ISSUE: WoN the master of the steamship was justified in taking refuge in Manila (therefore being the cause of the non-delivery of the cargo belonging to the plaintiffs)


COMPAGNIE contends that the master should have in mind the accepted principles of public international law, the established practice of nations, and the express terms of the Sixth Hague Convention (1907), the master should have confidently relied upon the French authorities at Saigon to permit him to sail to his port of destination under a laissez-passer or safe-conduct, which would have secured both the vessel and her cargo from all danger of capture by any of the belligerents. The SHIPOWNER contends that the master was justified in declining to leave his vessel in a situation in which it would be exposed to danger of seizure by the French authorities, should they refuse to be bound by the alleged rule of international law.




The Court held that after examining the terms and conditions of the convention that at the outbreak of the present war, there was no such general recognition of the duty of a belligerent to grant "days of grace" and "safe-conducts" to enemy ships in his harbors, as would sustain a ruling that such alleged duty was prescribed by any imperative and well settled rule of public international law, of such binding force that it was the duty of the master of the Sambia to rely confidently upon a compliance with its terms by the French authorities in Saigon. It was nothing but a *pious wish* at least, adherence to the practice by any belligerent could not be demanded by virtue of any convention, tacit or express, universally recognized by the members of the

Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana,  Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas society of nations; and that it may be expected only when the belligerent is convinced that the demand for adherence to the practice inspired by his own commercial and political interests outweighs any advantage he can hope to gain by a refusal to recognize the practice as binding upon him. The Court concluded that under the circumstances surrounding the flight of the Sambia from the port of Saigon, her master had no such assurances, under any well-settled and universally accepted rule of public international law, as to the immunity of his vessel from seizure by the French authorities, as would justify us in holding that it was his duty to remain in the port of Saigon in the hope that he would be allowed to sail for the port of destination designated in the contract of affreightment with a laissez-passer or safeconduct which would secure the safety of his vessel and cargo en route. The Court also held that it was the duty of the ship-owner to sell, and not to just transship the cargo, due to the fact of the perishable nature of the cargo (rice) and that he was justified in the delay of acting, so as to ascertain reasonably what course of action to take. RE: jurisdiction. It cannot be raised on appeal for the first time.



Facts: In 1949, a Peruvian political leader, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was given asylum in the Colombian Embassy located in Peru. The Colombian ambassador requested the government of Peru to allow de la Torre to leave the country on the ground that the Colombian government qualified de la Torre as a political refugee. Peru refused to accept the right of Colombia to characterize unilaterally the nature of de la Torre's offense. Colombia based its claim on certain international agreements among Latin-American states and in addition on American international law. Issue: W/n Colombia, on its own, can decide on the character of the offense of de la Torre, a citizen of Peru, with such decision binding upon the government of Peru... Held: NO. The Colombian government must prove that the rule (American international law more particularly regional or local custom peculiar to Latin-American States...) invoked by it is accordance with a constant and uniform usage practiced by the States in question, and that this usage is the expression of a right appertaining to the State granting asylum and a duty incumbent on the territorial state (in this case, Peru..). Colombia claims that this regional customs has been codified by the Monteviedo Convention, but this argument must fail. The limited number of States which ratified this Convention reveals the weakness of this argument. The Colombian Government failed to prove the existence of such customs as invoked by it. Even if such customs exist, it could not be invoked against Peru which has repudiated it by refraining from ratifying the Montevideo Conventions. The court further stated in its decision that the only solution to a dispute between states adhering to different set of customs is to go back in history to a time when a rule accepted by both groups of States exist and continue to apply that rule.

3) NICARAGUA VS. US - Calinisan c/o SC notes Tanquilit
FACTS: In 1946, the US made a declaration containing the following reservation: “this declaration shall remain in force for a period of 5 years and thereafter until the expiration of 6 months after notice may be given to terminate this declaration.”

Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio, Beron, Calinisan, Fernandez, Gana,  Lopez, Mendiola, Morada, Rivas, Sarenas In 1984, the US deposited with the UN Sec Gen a notification referring to the 1946 declaration, stating: “the aforesaid declaration shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America, any of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties to them may agree.” Nicaragua filed a claim against the US for damages in connection with military and paramilitary activities allegedly supported by the US in and against Nicaragua. The US argues that pursuant to the 1984 reservation that it made, the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the controversy, since it involves a dispute with a Central American State. Nicaragua argues that the ICJ has jurisdiction under the 1946 declaration, which was not terminated by the subsequent 1984 declaration, since the US never gave the 6-months notice of termination, as required by the reservation that it had made in 1946. According to Nicaragua, the US conceived, created, and organized a mercenary army, the contra force, in Nicaragua. The court found that contra force was not created by the US, but that a number of the operations were decided and planned, if not actually by the US advisers, then at least in close collaboration with them, and on the basis of the intelligence and logistic support which the US was able to offer. The US gave assistance to the contra force in the form of logistic support, the supply of information on the location and movements of the Sandinista troops, the use of sophisticated methods of communication, etc. However, the evidence does not warrant a finding that the US gave direct combat support. ISSUE: W/N the declaration is still binding on the US. HELD: The ICJ has jurisdiction. The 1946 declaration is still binding on the US. The US cannot derogate from the time-limit proviso included in its 1946 declaration. The notion of reciprocity is concerned with the scope and substance of the commitments entered into, including reservations, and not with formal conditions of their creation, duration, or extinction. Reciprocity cannot be invoked in order to excuse departure from the terms of a State’s own declaration. Nicaragua can invoke the six months’ notice against the US, not on the basis of reciprocity, but because it is an undertaking which is an integral part of the instrument that contains it. The 1984 notification cannot override the obligation of the US to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court vis-à-vis Nicaragua. ISSUE: Whether the contras can be considered as organs of the US Government, or as acting on its behalf. HELD: No, the contras are not agents of the US government. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the total dependence of the contras on US aid. A partial dependency may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by the US, and from other factors such as the organization, training and equipping of the force, planning of operations, the choosing of targets, and the operational support provided. There is, however, no clear evidence that the US actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf. Therefore, the contras, remain responsible for their own acts, in particular for alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the US to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that the State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed. 4) CORFU CHANNEL (UK V ALBANIA) – Fernandez

The channel was again checked (one in January and the other in February 1945) and had negative results. and Volage) left the port of Corfu and proceeded through the channel. 1950 categorically admitting the jurisdiction of the PCIJ. October 22. Mendiola. 5) TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (CAMBODIA V. The inevitable conclusion is that the laying of the minefield could not have been done without the knowledge of Albania. the Albanian Government’s attitude showed its intention to keep a jealous watch on its territorial waters. Beron. it protested strongly against the minesweeping conducted by Britain but not to the laying of mines. the Channel belongs to a class of international highways through which passage cannot be prohibited by a coastal State in time of peace. And when the Albania came to know of the minefield. while 42 were injured. Saumarez. 5 of the Statute of the Court says that acceptances made are only binding as such for the period which the PCIJ still has to run. on the other hand. and that prior authorization to pass should be acquired. cut 22 moored mines and took them to Malta for examination. Moreover. Issue: Should Albania be held responsible for the mines that struck the British warships? Held: Yes. THAILAND) – Gana Facts: The case arose from an Application filed by the Government of Cambodia regarding territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. Since Britain did not obtain prior authorization. While in Alabanian territorial waters. Albania’s contention is that there was no proof that such mines that damaged the ships were their own. British mine sweepers went through the North Corfu Channel. Hence. 1946) were not binding. Albania demands compensation from Britain. and that the Strait is of special importance to Greece. . on May 20. the ICJ ruled that the North Corfu Channel constituted a frontier between Albania and Greece.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. the British government instituted proceedings against Albania in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Its failure to undertake such constitutes neglect of its international responsibility. and that it owned a duty to pay compensation to Great Britain. Morada. its passage was not innocent. 1946. 16. Moreover.Cambodia argues that the PCIJ has jurisdiction over both countries based on a declaration made by the Thai gov’t. demanding compensation for damage to its ships and for the loss of lives. November 1946. One was regarding the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) while the other was regarding the territory itself. two of the warships (Saumarez and Volage) struck floating mines and sustained serious damage. Albania is responsible under international law for the damage and loss of lives. It is then its duty to notify and warn ships proceeding through the Strait. For this breach of international law. As to the argument on passage through territorial waters. First Objection: . Rivas. Before and after the incident. 36 par. Gana. the passage of the British warships through the Channel was carried out in such manner that is consistent with the principle of innocent passage—the guns were in a normal position and not targeted to the shores. the British Navy verified that no mines existed through the North Corfu Channel in the territory of Albania. that a part of it is wholly within the territorial waters of these 2 States. .Thailand made two preliminary objections. Leander.  Lopez. Fernandez. Sarenas Facts: • • • • • • October 1944.Thailand. 1946 a squadron of British warships (the Mauritius. Calinisan. the layout of the minefield shows that this could only be accomplished by stationing a look-out post near the coasts (that is in Albania). By a Special Agreement. It also asserted that coastal States have a right to regulate the passage of foreign ships through its territorial waters. 44 British officers and crew members died. And since Thailand became a party to said statute on Dec. declarations of acceptance made after the PCIJ ceased to exist (on April 19. then such . It is but showing that Albania desired the presence of such mines. This was because Art. argues that based on a 1959 decision of the PCIJ.

The said project was for the construction of infrastructure on and around the Danube River. Czechoslovakia and Hungary entered into negotiations to come up with an alternative to the abandoned project. The treaty assigned the construction of that part of the project in Nagymaros to Hungary while that part in Gabcikovo to Czechoslovakia. Each country was responsible for certain parts of the project. Mendiola. the filing of the instant case. Rivas. During the suspension. Moreover. Thailand’s being a party to the statute expired on May 6. Both parties had their own responsibilities. On the other hand. Eventually. The Court held that the 1959 decision is only applicable to the parties thereto (which were Israel and Bulgaria). 1950. - - Issue: (a) Whether the Republic of Hungary was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon. Hungary encountered intense criticism from its citizens so it decided to postpone works on the project starting May 13. However. Thailand reiterates that the treaty says that the boundary between Thailand and Cambodia is based on the watershed and the boundary delineated by Annex 1 does not conform to this agreement.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Works on the project started in 1978. Sarenas acceptance was not anymore binding. Morada. 1950 was a new declaration made outside the operation of the Statute of the Court and consequently outside the application of Art. it’s declaration on May 20.In effect. Annex 1 or the treaty? Held: . Gana. SLOVAKIA) (1993) – Lopez Facts: The case started from a treaty entered into by Hungary and Czechoslovakia concerning the construction and operation of the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros System of Locks. This can be seen through the acts of France and Thailand. Negotiations continued but to no avail. and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission. One alternative is Variant C. the Court held that Thailand’s 1950 declaration made its situation different from that of Bulgaria. the works on the Nagymaros Project and on the part of the Gabcíkovo Project for which the Treaty attributed responsibility to the Republic of Hungary. 6) GABCÍKOVO-NAGYMAROS (HUNGARY VS. Thus. Calinisan. Second Objection: .Thailand argues that Annex 1 was never accepted by the parties to the treaty. Hungary abandoned the project on 27 October 1989. in September 1991. In 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed.Cambodia bases its claim on the Temple of Preah on a map (Annex 1) made by a group of people. Fernandez. the Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia. construction to put the Gabcíkovo Project into operation using Variant C. the Slovak Government decided to begin. Also. . 36. On 23 July 1991. Furthermore. Beron. Thus. it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so.The Court held that Annex 1 should be followed. 1989. which ran in between both countries. . Thailand bases its claim on a treaty signed by France (who was then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China) and Siam. Even if it was not accepted by France. Until. which confirmed the existing frontiers. and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. in 1989. Cambodia and Thailand are now estopped from questioning the validity of Annex 1.W/c to follow. the Hungarian Government transmitted to the Czechoslovak Government a Note Verbale terminating the 1977 Treaty with effect from 25 May 1992. The Court said yes.  Lopez. for the more productive use of the waters of the said river. . in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties. Issue: . Issue: Held: W/n the 1950 declaration of Thailand was an acceptance of the jurisdiction of the PCIJ. there was an implied acceptance of such map. On 19 May 1992.

  Lopez. the Czechs wanted to create their own system of works on the Gabcikovo side of the Danube. to wit: a. The Court considers that Czechoslovakia. In the Court's view. The Court took note that the basic characteristic of the treaty is to provide for the construction of the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros System of Locks as a joint investment constituting a single and indivisible operational system of works. described in the Report of the Working Group of Independent Experts of the Commission of the European Communities. This is obviously an internationally wrong act for it violated the treaty agreed upon between the parties. But. It did not terminate the treaty between the two states. Clearly. When Hungary made such a declaration. Czechoslovakia violated such main objective of the treaty. the State which is the author of that act must not have "contributed to the occurrence of the state of necessity" In this case. that act must not have "seriously impair[ed] an essential interest" of the State towards which the obligation existed e. No breach of the Treaty by Czechoslovakia had yet taken place and consequently Hungary was not entitled to invoke any such breach of the Treaty as a ground for terminating it when it did. by unilaterally assuming control of a shared resource. The state says that they had to abandon the treaty because of economic and ecological concerns.7 on Czechoslovak territory and resulting consequences on water and navigation course). a joint operational régime must be established in accordance with the . The Court also pointed out that Hungary helped in bringing about the state of necessity by rushing the projects without fully understanding the effects it would have in the environment. Calinisan. The future problems being pointed out by Hungary were not impending enough to justify their abandonment of the treaty (ie. through Variant C. Gana. which is the environment. The Court also pointed out that there were other means by which Hungary could have avoided the alleged perils attached to the continuation of the Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros System of Locks (ie. (b) The Court says no. Mendiola. therefore. be applied in a way approximating most closely to its primary object. Through Variant C. (c) What are the legal effects of the notification. to the "provisional solution" and to put into operation from October 1992 this system. the court held that the peril to be caused is not imminent. Morada. of the termination of the Treaty by the Republic of Hungary? Held: (a) The Court says No. Czechoslovakia rests its claim on what it calls the "principle of approximate application" to justify the construction and operation of Variant C. the notification of termination by Hungary on 19 May 1992 was premature. It was actually the one which violated the treaty by abandoning their obligations. it must. The principle states that whenever a legal instrument of continuing validity cannot be applied literally owing to the conduct of one of the parties. on 19 May 1992. the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic dated 23 November 1992 (damming up of the Danube at river kilometer 1851. (c) The 19 May 1992 declaration of Hungary did not have any legal effect. that interest must have been threatened by a "grave and imminent peril" c. Fernandez. (d) The Court finds that Hungary and Slovakia must negotiate in good faith in the light of the prevailing situation. in November 1991. it must have been occasioned by an "essential interest" of the State which is the author of the act conflicting with one of its international obligations b. the Court held that there was an essential interest. Beron. lessening of the river bed could have been solved by constant refilling of the bed with gravel). and thereby depriving Hungary of its right to an equitable and reasonable share of the natural resources of the Danube — with the continuing effects of the diversion of these waters on the ecology of the riparian area of the Szigetköz — failed to respect the proportionality which is required by international law. the act being challenged must have been the "only means" of safeguarding that interest d. problem regarding drinking water was a long-term problem). Rivas. The Court enumerated the requirements for the application of such a principle.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Sarenas (b) Whether the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled to proceed. without allowing that party to take advantage of its own conduct. There was no fault committed by the Czechs to justify what Hungary did. Hungary rests the validity of its action upon the principle of a state of necessity. it did not have any basis to terminate the treaty. and must take all necessary measures to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the Treaty. Unless the Parties otherwise agree.

Held: The Court has Jurisdiction. Mendiola. Beron. with the possibility of an agreement that recourse could be had to arbitration. paragraph 1. the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. Also. The question on which the advisory opinion of the Court has been requested is set forth in resolution ES-10/14 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 2003 at its Tenth Emergency Special Session. One of the arguments is to the effect that the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction in the present case because the request concerns a contentious matter between Israel and Palestine. borders. Even if Article 12. Sarenas Treaty. According to this view. The Court observes that the lack of consent to the Court’s contentious jurisdiction by interested States has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion.  Lopez. both the General Assembly and the Security Council initially interpreted and applied Article 12 to the effect that the Assembly could not make a recommendation on a question concerning the maintenance of international peace and security while the matter remained on the Security Council’s agenda. security. The Court has already indicated that the subject of the present request for an advisory opinion falls within the competence of the General Assembly under the Charter. In an Advisory Opinion of 1950. and Slovakia shall compensate Hungary for the damage it has sustained on account of the putting into operation of the "provisional solution" by Czechoslovakia and its maintenance in service by Slovakia. in respect of which Israel has not consented to the exercise of that jurisdiction.) Israel constructed a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including in and around east Jerusalem. this interpretation of Article 12 has evolved subsequently. without the Council having adopted any recent resolution concerning them. Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to issue an advisory position. Israel has emphasized that it has never consented to the settlement of this wider dispute by the Court or by any other means of compulsory adjudication. the Court explained that: . 7) ADVISORY OPINION ON THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PALESTINIAN WALL – Mendiola Facts: (Facts are really short. unless the Parties otherwise agree. Issue: W/N the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction to issue an opinion because of contentious matters between Israel and Palestine. Fernandez.” a request for an advisory opinion is not in itself a “recommendation” by the General Assembly “with regard to [a] dispute or situation”. on the contrary. it contends that the parties repeatedly agreed that these issues are to be settled by negotiation. the subject-matter of the question posed by the General Assembly “is an integral part of the wider Israeli-Palestinian dispute concerning questions of terrorism. Morada. Rivas. Calinisan. settlements. However. Held: The Court can exercise its jurisdiction. of the Charter provides that: “While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Gana. Hungary shall compensate Slovakia for the damage sustained by Czechoslovakia and by Slovakia on account of the suspension and abandonment by Hungary of works for which it was responsible. Jerusalem and other related matters”. As regards the practice of the United Nations. Thus the General Assembly deemed itself entitled in 1961 to adopt recommendations in the matter of the Congo (resolutions 1955 (XV) and 1600 (XVI)) and in 1963 in respect of the Portuguese colonies (resolution 1913 (XVIII)) while those cases still appeared on the Council’s agenda.

 Sarenas “The consent of States. the Israeli Prime Minister informed him that. Gana. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. In that correspondence. President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Mr. the agency requesting the opinion must be duly authorized. WHO’s Constitution and the Agreement between WHO’s agreement with the United Nations states that the General Assembly of the United Nations authorizes the WHO to request advisory opinions of the ICJ on legal questions arising within the scope of its competence. parties to a dispute. -With regard to the third requisite. the President of the PLO recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and made various other commitments. Issue: W/N building of the wall violates the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. -The WHA decides to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question: In view of the health and environmental effects. -The request for advisory opinion states. It follows that no State. to request opinions from the Court. since its resolution would require the ICJ to interpret the rules of law invoked regarding the obligations of the States. Calinisan. Fernandez. This question must be one arising within the scope of the activities of the requesting agency. the Rules and the Constitution of the organization must be referred to in order to . Yitzhak Rabin. sent to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice(ICJ) a decision of the World Health Assembly (WHA) to submit a question to the Court for an advisory opinion. Issue: W/N the Court has the jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by WHO.  Lopez. is the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction in contentious cases. Mendiola. The Court’s reply is only of an advisory character: as such. Morada. Yasser Arafat. 8) ADVISORY OPINION ON THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS – Morada Facts: -The World Health Organization(WHO). 3. 2. because the third requisite was not met -There is no question of compliance with regard to the first two requisites since. in summary. that: -In view of the report of the Director-General and the resolutions of the WHA on the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons. three conditions must be satisfied in order to found the jurisdiction of the Court when a request for an advisory opinion is submitted to it by a specialized agency: 1. under the Charter. would the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligation under international law including the WHO Constitution? -While the ICJ has the power to give advisory opinions. -As to the second requisite. the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue. whether a Member of the United Nations or not. Held: The building of the wall violates the self-determination doctrine. The opinion requested must be on a legal question. In reply. Held: NO. can prevent the giving of an Advisory Opinion which the United Nations considers to be desirable in order to obtain enlightenment as to the course of action it should take. The situation is different in regard to advisory proceedings. and assess whether the behaviour in question conforms to those obligations. Such existence has moreover been recognized by Israel in the exchange of letters of 9 September 1993 between Mr. Beron. it has no binding force. as regards the first one. Rivas. the issue posed is indeed a legal question. Israeli Prime Minister. The political nature of the motives which may have inspired the request and the political implications that the opinion given might have are irrelevant in the establishment of jurisdiction.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. in the light of those commitments. “the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people”. and -Recalling that primary prevention is the only appropriate means to deal with the health and environmental effects of the use of nuclear weapons.

. -The request for an advisory opinion submitted by the WHO does not related to a question which arises “within the scope of the activities” of WHO. Morada. Held: NO. . GUATEMALA) – Rivas FACTS: .’ but not to the ‘legality of the use of such weapons in view of their health and environmental effects. having been adopted by the requisite majority.The Law reveals concern that naturalization should only be granted with full knowledge of all the pertinent facts and adds that the grant of nationality is barred where circumstances are such as to cause apprehension that prejudice may enure to the State of Liechtenstein.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. in voting a resolution. Mendiola. their effects on health would be the same. 1934.Nottebohm was born at Hamburg and was a German national. cannot suffice to remedy the fundamental defect of such resolution. Side issues: Issue: W/N the resolution of WHA requesting for an advisory opinion. o that he has concluded an agreement concerning liability to taxation with the competent authorities and has paid a naturalization fee. Fernandez. Being a specialized agency. . o that he has been resident in the Principality for at least three years. . Sarenas determine its field of activity or area of competence. subject to waiver of this requirement under stated conditions. Issue: W/N the opinion of the General Assembly of UN welcoming the resolution of WHO to request an advisory opinion grants WHO the competence to do so.The necessary conditions for the naturalization of foreigners in Liechtenstein are laid down by the Liechtenstein Law of 4th January. . it being ultra vires. . A Certificate of Nationality was also produced to the effect that Nottebohm had been naturalized by a Supreme Resolution of the Prince of 13th October. which necessarily deal with public health. he must prove that he will lose his former nationality as the result of naturalization. Beron. Rivas. o that.Liechtenstein had filed an Application instituting proceedings against Guatemala.A Document dated 15th October. must be presumed to have been validly adopted.On 20th October Nottebohm took the oath of allegiance and on 23rd October an arrangement concerning liability to taxation was concluded. where he resumed his former business activities. -It must be noted that WHO is a “specialized agency” under the UN . 1939. although this requirement can be dispensed with in circumstances deserving special consideration and by way of exception. Gana. Held: The mere fact that a majority of States.’ -None of the function of WHO has a sufficient connection with the question of legality of the use of nuclear weapons. 1939 certifies that on that date the citizenship of Mauren had been conferred upon him. -The ICJ finds that the activities of WHO relate only to the ‘effects of the use of nuclear weapons on health. a little more than a month after the opening of the Second World War. claiming: . it is empowered only to take such action for the accomplishment of its specific objectives. 1939. that he applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein but he continued to have his fixed abode in Guatemala where he resumed his usual business activities. . Whether nuclear weapons are used legally or illegally. have complied with the rules of form. o that the applicant for naturalization must prove that acceptance into the Home Corporation (Heimat verband) of a Liechtenstein commune has been promised to him in case of acquisition of the nationality of the State. -There is no doubt that questions concerning the use of force. 1939.Nottebohm then obtained a Liechtenstein passport and had it visa-ed by the Consul General of Guatemala in Zurich on 1st December.In October 9. not to pass upon WHO’s competence to request an opinion on the question raised 9) NOTTEBOHM (LIECHTENSTEIN VS. the regulation or armaments and disarmament are within the competence of the United Nations and lie outside that of the specialized agencies. It cannot encroach on the responsibilities of other parts of the United Nations System. The General Assembly only meant to lend its political support to the action taken by WHO. marked by Germany's attack on Poland.  Lopez. and returned to Guatemala at the beginning of 1940. Calinisan.

The prayer is that the secretary of DENR to cancel all existing timber license agreements and refuse to accept new ones. and complains of Guatemala's refusal to readmit him. .In order to resolve the conflict they have. and their importance will vary from one case to the next: o habitual residence of the individual concerned o the centre of his interests. He stayed there until his removal as a result of war measures in 1943 (remember that he became a citizen of Liechtenstein in 1979). Guatemala contended that the Court was without jurisdiction. different factors are taken into consideration. his participation in public life. Nottebohm its citizen was one which could be relied upon against Guatemala in regard to the exercise of protection. in a manner contrary to international law. 10) OPOSA VS. The minors are saying that they represent their generation as well as generation yet unborn. which was the centre of his interests and his business activities. his family ties. international arbitrators or the Courts of third States which are called upon to deal with this situation would allow the contradiction to subsist if they confined themselves to the view that nationality is exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the State. a citizen of Liechtenstein. Nottebohm had been settled for 34 years in Guatemala. in alleged contravention of international law. . .Also. The complaint was instituted as a taxpayers’ class suit. on the contrary. FACTORAN – Sarenas Facts: • • • • The petitioners in this case are all minors represented by their parents. Members of Nottebohm's family had. Nottebohm.According to the practice of States. HELD: .At the time of his naturalization. The RTC judge approved the motion. Factoran filed a motion to dismiss saying that petitioners do not have a cause of action and what is involved is a political question that is for the legislative department to resolve. Mendiola. . moreover.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio.Nottebohm always retained his family and business connections with Germany and that there is nothing to indicate that his application for naturalization in Liechtenstein was motivated by any desire to dissociate himself from the Government of his country. Calinisan. Factoran was the then secretary of the DENR. sought to ascertain whether nationality has been conferred in circumstances such as to give rise to an obligation on the part of the respondent State to recognize the effect of that nationality. Sarenas damages in respect of various measures which Guatemala had taken against the person and property of M. his intentions for the near future.In determining his nationality. to Liechtenstein than to any other State? . Beron. his establishment. does Nottebohm appear to have been more closely attached by his tradition. his family ties.When two States have conferred their nationality upon the same individual and this situation is no longer confined within the limits of the domestic jurisdiction of one of these States but extends to the international field. Friedrich Nottebohm.  Lopez. his interests.There is thus the absence of any bond of attachment with Liechtenstein. nationality constitutes the juridical expression of the fact that an individual is more closely connected with the population of a particular State. the principal ground for its objection being that the validity of its declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court expired a few weeks after the filing of the Application by Liechtenstein o - ISSUE: . Fernandez. o that the Government of Guatemala had acted towards Mr. asserted his desire to spend his old age in Guatemala. his activities. o attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children. Morada. . a link which his naturalization in no way weakened. etc. Rivas. .NO! Nottebohm is still considered a citizen of Guatemala. . but there is a long-standing and close connection between him and Guatemala. .W/N the unilateral act by Liechtenstein in making M. Gana.

W/N the petitioners failed to assert a legal right Petitioners have successfully showed that they have a specific legal right. They can file the case for themselves as well as for the succeeding generations.e.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Reasons for the ruling: a) the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case because Indonesia is not a party thereto. it could or could not have acquired the power to enter into treaties on . A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty to respect or protect the same gives right to a cause of action. Gana. W/N the case should be dismissed due to non-impairment of contracts (referring to the timber licenses) The non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. Portugal and Australia) under Article 36. Art II of the 1987 Constitution) The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. Rivas. Beron. Decision: Order of dismissal set aside (I guess remanded yung case) 11) EAST TIMOR – Anastacio 1. paragraph 2. Sarenas • Issue: • Held: • Issue: • Held: • • • Issue: • Held: • Issue: • Held: • Plaintiffs thus filed the motion for certiorari. Specifically.. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Sec 16. The court held that in order to rule on the proceedings instituted by Portugal against Australia concerning "certain activities of Australia with respect to East Timor". Morada. Fernandez. The main ruling of the Court (the majority opinion) is that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the case notwithstanding the fact that it has been conferred jurisdiction through the declarations made by the parties (i. having regard to the circumstances in which Indonesia entered and remained in East Timor. Mendiola. Calinisan.  Lopez. It is the DENR’s duty to protect such right. W/N the case involves a political question No. the court held that the very subject-matter of its decision would necessarily be a determination whether. of its Statute. W/N petitioners have a cause of action Petitioners indeed have locus standi to file the case. What is principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-à-vis policies already formulated and expressed in legislation. it would be necessary for the court to determine the rights and obligations of Indonesia. All licenses may be revoked or rescinded by executive action.

and taking internal legislative measures for its application. are thus justiciable on the basis of its unilateral conduct. Accordingly. he believes that Australia’s actions. This. paragraph 2. namely. Reports 1954. Indonesia because of its lack of consent to the court’s jurisdiction. Morada. a third State. after analyzing the Monetary Gold decision and the prior and subsequent jurisprudence on the matter. this is what is referred to in the Treaty of 11 December 1989 between Australia and Indonesia as an area between the Indonesian Province of East Timor and Northern Australia). Not unless and until such time as Portugal had been established as having the status of the coastal State entitled to the corresponding continental shelf could any issue concerning the seabed area of the "Timor Gap" have been the subject matter of a dispute between Portugal and Australia Since Portugal does not have such status as yet. I. d) if the court were to exercise jurisdiction over the case and render judgment thereon notwithstanding the lack of Indonesia’s consent. The Court could not make such a determination in the absence of the consent of Indonesia. as such. its complaint should be dismissed on such ground. concluding and initiating performance of the Timor Gap Treaty. but not with Australia. Whatever the nature of the obligations invoked. in effect. His reasoning appears to be based on his view that the central issue in the case is whether Portugal or Indonesia. while agreeing that Portugal's Application should be dismissed as the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. as in the Court's Judgment. Judge Weeramantry. that the Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a State with its consent" (Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943. Rivas. Mendiola. on the other hand. Re the dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry: Judge Weeramantry disagrees with the majority view on the question as to whether or not the Court lacks jurisdiction on the ground that a decision against Australia would involve a decision concerning the rights of Indonesia. He bases this on the view that a central principle of State responsibility in international law is the individual responsibility of a State for its actions. the Court nonetheless considers that the erga omnes character of a norm and the rule of consent to jurisdiction are two different things. its decision would affect. b) regarding the contention that Portugal and Australia have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36. not before the Court. negotiated with Australia while. He notes that on the matter of the delimitation of the continental shelf in the relevant areas. of its Statute. the Monetary Gold decision is not relevant inasmuch as the Court could determine the matter before it entirely on the basis of the obligations and actions of Australia alone. but would not be binding on. precludes the court from exercising jurisdiction since were it to rule on the case. as a State lying opposite to Australia. Fernandez. was entitled to the continental shelf in the "Timor Gap"(maybe. Sarenas behalf of East Timor relating to the resources of its continental shelf. concludes that. considers that its dismissal should not have been based upon the absence of Indonesia's consent. has an erga omnes character. Gana. Had Portugal also claimed that status. quite apart from the complicity of another State in those actions. . c) while it is true that the right of peoples to self-determination. the court noted that Indonesia did not do so. such a judgment would run directly counter to the "well-established principle of international law embodied in the Court's Statute.C. Calinisan. Re the dissenting opinion of Judge Skubiszewski: . as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice. 32). it has no locus standi and hence.J. it appears that since the seventies. but upon the sole consideration that Portugal lacked locus standi. Indonesia claimed the status of a coastal State for East Timor and. it could and should have initiated a dispute over the corresponding title to the continental shelf with Indonesia. the Court could not rule on the lawfulness of the conduct of a State when its judgment would imply an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of another State which is not a party to the case.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Re the separate opinion of Judge Oda: Judge Oda. Portugal did not. Beron. in negotiating.  Lopez. without any need to make an adjudication on the conduct of Indonesia. having regard to the facts of this case. p.

Judge Skubiszewski believes that the Court can decide on the lawfulness of some unilateral acts of Australia leading to the conclusion of the Treaty. it is his view that Portugal has the capacity to act before the Court in this case on behalf of East Timor and to vindicate the respect for its position as administering Power.) Huber. kanya yung island. to the exclusion of any other State. i. Contention of US: It bases its title on discovery and by virtue of which it acquired sovereignty over the islands. In 1906... the court has jurisdiction because even it finds itself without jurisdiction to adjudicate on any issue relating to the Timor Gap Treaty. and that no reservations or protests were made by the Netherlands in respect of the delimitation of the Philippines which included the Palmas. 12) ISLAND OF PALMAS – Beron Facts: The Island of Palmas sits about halfway between the islands of Mindanao in the Phil and Nanusa of the Netherlands Indies. A decision thereon does not imply any adjudication on Indonesia. It claims that this title is further confirmed by the Treaty of Monster to which Spain and the Netherlands are themselves contracting parties. Morada. Issue: Whether the island of Palmas in its entirety forms a part of territory belonging to the US or if Netherlands territory. However the territorial sovereignty (which as stated above serves as good title. it can still rule on Portugal’s first submission. nor does it involve any finding on the validity of the Treaty. Sovereignty over a territory is the right to exercise therein. however.. Rivas. the selected arbitrator disagreed with this contention of the US. This is so because the first submission can be separated from the other submissions which concern exclusively the specific issues of the treaty.. It is. within the boundaries of the Phil as defined by Spain and thus ceded to the United States (US) in 1898 by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. Further. Sarenas In his view. Even considering that the US possesses an imperfect title over the Palmas by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. The principle of contiguity as contention should also fail. Discovery alone without subsequent act cannot at the present time suffice to prove sovereignty over the Palmas. US claims that it is unnecessary to establish facts showing the actual display of sovereignty over the Island of Palmas. Continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty is as good as a title. the applicability to that territory of the principle of self-determination and some other basic principles of international law. The conduct of Australia can be assessed in the light of United Nations law and resolutions. US also based its claim on the principle of contiguity (ibig sabhin. The position of Portugal as administering Power was questioned by Australia. the Court should have clarified this issue. Gana. It is recognized that the US communicated the Treaty of Paris to the Netherlands. that is mere discovery is sufficient to acquire sovereignty over a territory. Beron. with the status of East Timor. American General Wood visited Palmas and discovered that the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over the island. Fernandez. It is within its jurisdiction. this principle would be in conflict with what has been said about territorial sovereignty .. the functions of a State. Mendiola.e. Held: It is within the Netherlands territory. If this principle alone is to be used as basis for acquiring sovereignty over a territory. kung kanino bansa mas malapit.  Lopez. this title cannot prevail over the continuous display of authority of another state. and the position of Portugal as administering Power. Calinisan. Such assessment is not linked to any passing upon Indonesia's activities.) which Netherlands exercised over the Palmas could not be affected by the mere silence as regards a treaty which has been notified. This principle itself is by its very nature so uncertain and contested that even governments of the same state have on different occasions maintained contradictory opinions.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio.

 Beron." We wryly note that this sentiment is admirable in the abstract but difficult in implementation.) – Calinisan Facts: • Beginning January 2002. they are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. it was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. The target of "Balikatan 02-1 I" the Abu Sayyaf. Rivas.  Lopez. As conceived.'activities" arose from accident." • These so-called "Balikatan" exercises are the largest combined training operations involving Filipino and American troops. that in reality.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. In our view. • W/N American troops may actually engage in combat in Philippine territory Held: • Yes. . Lim and Paulino P. and that the provision on self-defense serves only as camouflage to conceal the true nature of the exercise. in "Balikatan 02-1. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition. Fernandez." It contains provisions relative to entry and departure of American personnel. In theory. visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military. the United States. observing the honored legal maxim "Nemo potest facere per alium quod non potest facere per directum. importation and exportation. in conjunction with the Philippine military. and the like. petitioners Arthur D. medical and humanitarian missions. Sarenas 13) VFA CASE (LIM VS. disaster relief operations. Bush in reaction to the tragic events that occurred on September 11. After studied reflection. Issue: • W/N "Balikatan 02-1" is covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement. 2002. • February 1. attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise • The lack of consensus(agreement) was eventually cured when the two nations concluded the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in 1999. driving and vehicle registration. 2001 • Mutual Defense Treaty—as the "core" of the defense relationship between the Philippines and its traditional ally. personnel from the armed forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part. SEC. They cannot be expected to pick and choose their targets for they will not have the luxury of doing so. Paragraph 8 of section I stipulates that US exercise participants may not engage in combat "except in self-defense. movement of vessels and aircraft. The Terms of Reference are explicit enough. In this manner. Mendiola. it appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word . civic action projects such as the building of school houses. • Visiting Forces Agreement—provides the "regulatory mechanism" by which "United States military and civilian personnel [may visit] temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government. as well as the duration of the agreement and its termination. claims. Calinisan. We state this point if only to signify our awareness that the parties straddle a fine line. Morada. Gana. sea search-and-rescue operations to assist vessels in distress. criminal jurisdiction. EXEC. "Balikatan 02-1 " is actually a war principally conducted by the United States government. Its primary goal is to facilitate the promotion of optimal cooperation between American and Philippine military forces in the event of an attack by a common foe. a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. A clear pronouncement on this matter thereby becomes crucial. cannot reasonably be expected to sit idly while the battle is brought to their very doorstep. in re: VFA."11 The indirect violation is actually petitioners' worry. • • Notes: • The entry of American troops into Philippine soil is proximately rooted in the international anti-terrorism campaign declared by President George W. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American counterparts. the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of patrol and surveillance to protect the nation's marine resources.

expressly or impliedly. By the ratification of the Agreement. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. defective since it did not include other documents contained in the Final Act signed by the DTI Secretary? Held: An initial question was posed regarding jurisdiction. However. Senate adopted a resolution expressing its concurrence in the ratification of the international agreement. nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.  Lopez. While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level. the Philippines is bound by generally accepted principles of law as they automatically form part of the laws of the land. A Final Act is not the treaty itself. Issues: Is the WTO Agreement consistent with the Constitution? Does the WTO Agreement unduly limit and restrict Philippine sovereignty? Does the concurrence made by the Senate and the President. This action was filed by Tanada et al questioning the validity/constitutionality of the WTO Agreement. The SC ruled that it has jurisdiction over the matter since it has the power to determine whether there was GADLEJ on the part of the Senate and President. In addition. Gana. So by their voluntary act. but is not necessarily reprehensible. ANGARA) – Fernandez Facts: • • • • The Republic of the Philippines. Moreover. It is just a summary of the proceedings that took place during the negotiation stage. services. For instance. the GATT itself has provided built-in protection from such unfair foreign competition and trade practices. Of great importance is the principle of pacta sunt servanda. the Senate did what the Final Act required—the concurrence tot the WTO Agreement. the SC will not review the wisdom of their decisions. . These are broad constitutional principles that need legislative enactments to implement them. the absoluteness of our sovereignty. while the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods. at the same time. (the important part) Participating in the WTO Agreement did limit or restrict. Another letter on the same subject was given to the Senate. The Philippine Senate. which means that international agreements must be performed in good faith. They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but are guidelines for legislation. through DTI Secretary Navarro signed in the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. However. as a member of the family of nations.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. the WTO Agreement ratified by the President did not contain certain documents contained in the Final Act signed by the DTI Secretary. The Constitution did not intend to promote an isolationist policy. in essence. In fact. labor and enterprises. eminent domain and police power. the President signed the Instrument of Ratification. then. when the Philippines joined the UN and other bilateral relations with other States. It can then be inferred that a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution by virtue of the Philippines being bound by generally accepted principles of law. to some extent. Beron. it effectively limits its sovereign powers of taxation. The WTO Agreement is not violative of the Constitution. it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. received a letter from the President of the Philippines stating that the Uruguay Round Final Act (the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization) is submitted to them for their concurrence. Fernandez. it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines. Mendiola. The reliance on the priniciple of economic nationalism espoused in Articles 2(sec 19) and 12(secs 10 and 12) of the Constitution is misplaced as these are not self-executing provisions. Sarenas 14) WTO CASE (TAÑADA VS. Rivas. Morada. Calinisan. Thereafter. the other documents in question (Ministerial Declarations etc) were deemed adopted. Through the incorporation clause in the Constitution.

This is considered a special circumstance because the difference is substantial. Norway also points out that by the conduct of Denmark. 6 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf should be followed. US) – Lopez Facts: - - Nicaragua is assailing certain acts of the US as being contrary to customary international law. though. Norway enacted legislation empowering their government to establish 200-mile economic zones around its coast. This medial line. 15) CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE AREA BETWEEN GREENLAND AND JAN MAYEN (DENMARK VS. The said article states that in cases where two or more states have disputes of the same sort as the one in this case. Norway also bases its claim on the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. there was no GADLEJ on the part of the Senate and the President. Sarenas Plus. Notwithstanding objections against possible limitations on national sovereignty. the WTO Agreement itself stipulated what multilateral agreements are deemed included. How to divide the area between Greenland and Jan Mayen? The Court held that Art. Norway argues that both parties already came up with an agreement over the overlapping zones on Dec. Also. the Senate and the President was exercising. Thus. Mendiola. The adjustment would be based on special circumstances. can be adjusted as stated in the Article and affirmed by several decisions of the International Court. The said agreement limited the claims of both countries up to a median line which was at the center of Greenland and Jan Mayen. at the discretion of the Court. through an Executive Order. Norway pointed to a Royal Decree. and o Attacking certain places in Nicaragua. It pointed out that such use of force in self- . Morada. The distance between the coast of Greenland and Jan Mayen is 250 nautical miles. its sovereign duty and power. 8. Beron. The US argues that it was merely doing so in self-defense. Greenland possesses a much longer coastline. thus it should be afforded a wider claim over the disputed area based on the principle of proportionality. The problem arose when Denmark. there should be a median line formed equidistant from the coasts of the states involved. When the WTO Agreement was ratified and made part of the law of the land. to wit: o Placing of mines in the ports of Nicaragua.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio.  Lopez. NORWAY) – Gana Facts: - - The case is a dispute between Denmark and Norway regarding the territorial jurisdiction over the part of the Atlantic Ocean between Greenland (part of the Kingdom of Denmark) and the island of Jan Mayen (part of the Kingdom of Norway). the WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral trading and development of international trade law. which also solves the problem of overlapping claims by instituting a median line which is equidistant from the coasts of either state. Fernandez. the Court found that the respective coastal lengths of Greenland and Jan Mayen can be considered as a special circumstance which calls for the adjustment of the median line. In this case. In sum. a Danish Act and diplomatic notes and letters as proofs of such. it can be inferred that the latter accedes to the idea of a median line. Rivas. legitimately. Calinisan. there was an overlap between the fishery zone of Denmark (off the coast of Greenland) and the economic zone of Norway (off the coast of Jan Mayen). o Supporting a military group called the contra forces which has committed violations of human rights of some Nicaraguans. declared the area 200 miles from the coast of Greenland as fishery zones of Denmark. Issue: Held: - - 16) CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA VS. Gana. 1965.

Commerce and Navigation. Nicaragua argues that the ICJ has jurisdiction under the 1946 declaration. in Nicaragua. Costa Rica and Honduras. stating: “the aforesaid declaration shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State or arising out of or related to events in Central America. which was not terminated by the subsequent 1984 declaration. The Court said that the acts were contrary to customary international law. the US was implicitly interfering in the governance of Nicaragua through the use of force. and has committed acts in contradiction with the terms of the Treaty. The US was saying that Nicaragua was attacking El Salvador.” Nicaragua filed a claim against the US for damages in connection with military and paramilitary activities allegedly supported by the US in and against Nicaragua. any of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties to them may agree. Costa Rica and Honduras and that the US was merely acting to defend the said countries. Calinisan. Commerce and Navigation of 1956.Calinisan c/o SC notes Tanquilit FACTS: In 1946. What Nicaragua was guilty of was the sending of arms to the opposition in El Salvador. since the US never gave the 6-months notice of termination. Beron. the US made a declaration containing the following reservation: “this declaration shall remain in force for a period of 5 years and thereafter until the expiration of 6 months after notice may be given to terminate this declaration. the US deposited with the UN Sec Gen a notification referring to the 1946 declaration. The US argues that all these acts were in self-defense. By supporting the contra forces in Nicaragua. The Court does not agree with the US. Fernandez. the US was impliedly coercing the government of Nicaragua to do acts in the manner preferable to the US. Obviously. the Court held that the US is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law enumerated above and by the breaches of the Treaty of Friendship. the contra force. since it involves a dispute with a Central American State. o First. Mendiola. by attacking Nicaragua and placing mines in its ports. but that a number of the operations were decided and . The court found that contra force was not created by the US. o The court found that the acts of the US also violated the principle of non-interference which respects the sovereignty of a state over its territory.” In 1984. Sarenas defense is allowed by international law. o In the end. The court held that based on customary international law. Gana. Rivas. Morada. NICARAGUA VS. o The Court also finds that the placing of mines by the US in the ports of Nicaragua was a violation of the freedom of navigation and commerce guaranteed by Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship.  Lopez. created. and organized a mercenary army. The Court therefore finds that the United States is prima facie in breach of an obligation not to deprive the 1956 Treaty of its object and purpose (pacta sunt servanda). the attacks on Nicaragua were against the principle of the non-use of force in international relations. It held that there was no actual armed attack on the countries allegedly being protected by the US to warrant the attack on Nicaragua. the US employed force against Nicaragua. In short. Issue: Held: W/n the acts of the US are contrary to customary international law.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. US . as required by the reservation that it had made in 1946. the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the controversy. According to Nicaragua. The US argues that pursuant to the 1984 reservation that it made. the US conceived. these acts are not considered as armed attacks to justify the attacks made by the US as being in self-defense.

the contras are not agents of the US government. The Essex court proclaimed that they didn't have jurisdiction over the tower and the British government chose to drop the case due to mockery by the media. and stamps for their new country. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the total dependence of the contras on US aid. no clear evidence that the US actually exercised such a degree of control as to justify treating the contras as acting on its behalf. 17) Treaty of Antarctica – Mendiola 18) Principality of Sealand – Morada Facts: The Principality of Sealand. Therefore. HELD: No. A partial dependency may be inferred from the fact that the leaders were selected by the US. or extinction. Morada. ISSUE: Whether the contras can be considered as organs of the US Government. etc. or as acting on its behalf.  Lopez. including reservations. Nicaragua can invoke the six months’ notice against the US. however. the evidence does not warrant a finding that the US gave direct combat support. Sarenas planned. it would have to be proved that the State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed. then at least in close collaboration with them. passports. and not with formal conditions of their creation. However. 1976. and the operational support provided. For the US to be legally responsible. The 1984 notification cannot override the obligation of the US to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court vis-à-vis Nicaragua. and from other factors such as the organization. In 1967. training and equipping of the force. but because it is an undertaking which is an integral part of the instrument that contains it. Reciprocity cannot be invoked in order to excuse departure from the terms of a State’s own declaration. He and his wife discussed independence with British attorneys and subsequently declared independence for the Principality of Sealand on September 2. In support of Sealand's sovereignty. not on the basis of reciprocity. Rivas. They began issuing coins. The notion of reciprocity is concerned with the scope and substance of the commitments entered into. the supply of information on the location and movements of the Sandinista troops. The 1946 declaration is still binding on the US. The Prince was charged with unlawful possession and discharge of a firearm by the British government. Gana. The US gave assistance to the contra force in the form of logistic support. The US cannot derogate from the time-limit proviso included in its 1946 declaration. Beron. claims that it is a legitimate independent country but that's quite doubtful. remain responsible for their own acts. the choosing of targets. the contras. That case represents Sealand's first . Mendiola. planning of operations.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. if not actually by the US advisers. and on the basis of the intelligence and logistic support which the US was able to offer. ISSUE: W/N the declaration is still binding on the US. HELD: The ICJ has jurisdiction. duration. Bates called himself Prince Roy and named his wife Princess Joan. Calinisan. There is. retired British Army major Paddy Roy Bates occupied the abandoned Rough's Tower in the North Sea. located on an abandoned World War II anti-aircraft platform seven miles (11 km) off the English coast. in particular for alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. Prince Roy fired warning shots at a buoy repair boat that came close to Sealand. the use of sophisticated methods of communication. Fernandez.

only Prince Roy lives on the tower at sixty feet above the sea. No. (The United Kingdom demolished the only other nearby tower lest others get the idea to also strive for independence. The British government was quoted in Wired. Morada. Certainly. Fernandez. If it had any citizens. 5) Has a transportation system for moving goods and people. No. 4) Has the power of social engineering. out of the reach of governmental control.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. 2) Has people who live there on an ongoing basis. Beron.K. can assert that it owns this platform. but that police power is certainly not absolute. The Bateses all maintain "dual" citizenship in the United Kingdom and Sealand. No other country recognizes Sealand. Michael takes care of much of the business for Sealand. While Sealand issued money. Sealand also lies within the United Kingdom's proclaimed 12 nautical mile territorial water limit. There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country or not. As of 2000. citizenship and passport. Sealand claims that since it asserted its sovereignty before the U. As far as we are concerned. 6) Has a government which provides public services and police power.5 nautical mile territorial water. Sealand came into the news because a company called Haven Co Ltd planned on operating a complex of Internet servers at Sealand.K. extended its territorial waters. Sealand's stamps only have value to a philatelist (stamp collector) as Sealand is not a member of the Universal Postal Union. HavenCo gave the Bateses $250. Perhaps. Not really. An official from the United States Department of State was quoted in Wired. Sealand also claims its own 12. there's no use for it beyond collectors. Mendiola. In 2000. The United Kingdom can assert its authority over Sealand quite easily with a few police officers. Yes. lest he end up somewhere where Sealand's passport isn't recognized. it's a tower built by the British as an anti-aircraft platform during World War II. 7) Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the State's territory. Rivas. No. Gana." The British Home Office was quoted by the BBC that the United Kingdom does not recognize Sealand and. it concept of being "grandfathered in" applies. Today. A State regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money. Prince Roy maintains his U. Likewise." . Sealand has no land or boundaries at all. This transaction was especially satisfying to the Bateses as the maintenance and support of Sealand has been quite expensive over the past 33 years. Bates styles the platform as the Principality of Sealand. Haven Co represents Sealand's only economic activity up to now. "Although Mr. Issue: W/N Sealand is an independent State Held: NO. the government of the U." 8) Has external recognition. A State has been "voted into the club" by other States. "We've no reason to believe that anyone else recognizes it either.) The second de facto recognition was when the Dutch government sent a diplomat to Sealand to petition the release of its nationals who were detained by Prince Roy as prisoners of war.K. only one person lives at Sealand and he's going to move out. 3) Has economic activity and an organized economy.K. No. No. to be replaced by temporary residents working for Haven Co.000 and stock to lease Rough's Tower and the company has the option to purchase Sealand in the future. Sarenas claim to de facto international recognition as an independent country. mail from Sealand can't be sent elsewhere (nor is there much sense in mailing a letter across the tower itself). the U. they are just Crown dependencies of Britain. The United Kingdom has power over Sealand's territory. 1) Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries.  Lopez. "There are no independent principalities in the North Sea. he also lives onshore. Princess Joan's arthritis isn't conducive to living on the North Sea and though the royal family's son. Calinisan. such as education. government does not regard Sealand as a state.

it requests . the court has no jurisdiction over the Holy See In PIL.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Discovery of terra nullius is not enough to establish sovereignty. Spain. Fernandez. DFA later on intervened in the case (the DFA always intervenes in cases involving diplomatic immunity) Issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction over the Holy See Held: No. Beron. Cirilos in behalf of the Holy See and Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC) sold to Ramon Licup 3 parcels of land in Paranaque. Licup paid the earnest money and later on transferred his rights to Starbright. engaged in the real estate business. Cirilos called for dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. Del Rosario – Sarenas Facts: The Holy See exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio Rosario is the judge of RTC of Makati. Gana. Calinisan. Cirilos informed Starbright that this cannot be done because the squatters refuse to leave. when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity. Morada. Starbright then proposed that if they themselves will remove the squatters. Cirilos refused such offer. Starbright discovered that the lots have been sold to Tropicana. Mauritania and Algeria asserts sovereign rights over it ISSUE: W/N Western Sahara is terra nullius (territory which prior to occupation belonged to no state or which has been abandoned by a prior occupant) HELD: It is not terra nullius Territories inhabited by tribes or people having a social and political organization were not regarded as terra nullius The court concludes that the material and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty over the Western Sahara. returned the earnest money and demanded payment of the whole price. Msgr. the purchase price should be reduced. The agreement was made on the condition that Licup give P100k as earnest money and that the sellers will clear the lots of squatters.  Lopez. Msgr. Msgr. Sarenas 19) Western Sahara Case – Rivas FACTS: Western Sahara is inhabited by organized but nomadic tribes. Private respondent is Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc. It must be accompanied by effective control 20) Holy See vs. Later on. Rivas. Starbright demanded from the sellers that they clear the lots of squatters. Msgr. He then gave the option that either Starbright clear the lots themselvesor that the earnest money be returned to them. Mendiola.

the old constitution was restored and elections were held under it The Law of Nullities was passed invalidating contracts with the government during the Tinoco regime as well as nullifying the issue if 15M Colones currency notes and the circulation of notes of nomination of 1. Norway delimited its territorial waters by draing baselines from point to point on the islands off its coast (“skjaergaard”). 23) Anglo-Norweigian Fisheries Case – Calinisan using Fernandez’ Book Under a 1935 decree. Law are deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land. Sarenas the Foreign office of the state where it is to convey to the court that it is entitled to immunity. Beron. Morada. Great Britain are claiming Costa Rica’s indebtedness and concession which both had been annulled by the Law of Nullities Costa Rica on the other hand denies liability for the acts and obligation of the Tinoco government ISSUE: W/N Costa Rica is liable for the liabilities of the Tinoco government HELD: YES! Under the Principle of Continuity of States. Gonzales was overthrown by Tinoco Tinoco’s government continued for 2 years falling soon after his retirement After the fall of the Tinoco administration. Fernandez. affect its position in the International Law. Rivas.000 Colones bills by the Tinoco government. not into its de facto sovereignty but into its illegitimacy or irregularity of origin. See the case for history of the sovereignty of the Vatican (The Lateran Treaty established the statehood of the Vatican City) The Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of foreign sovereign. But when recognition of a government is determined by inquiry. Mendiola. the sate is bound by the engagements entered into by governments that have ceased to exist. The restores government is generally liable for the acts of the usurper Also changes in the government or the internal policy do not. it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government. Though the government changes. Principles of Intl. Sec 2 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution adopts principles of International Law. 21) Expenses of the UN – Anastacio 22) Tinoco Arbitration – Beron FACTS: The government of Costa Rica under Pres. In the Philippines. Calinisan. the nation remains. their non-recognition loses evidential weight – it cannot outweigh evidence of the de facto character if a government.  Lopez. British fishing vessels had operated within the . Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch. Gana. the practice is to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. is usually appropriate evidence that it has not attained the independence and control entitling it by International Law to be classified as such. with rights and obligations unimpaired Non-recognition by other nations of a government claiming to be a national personality. It had diplomatic representations with the country since 1957. Since 1911.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. as a rule.

which is at the vasis of the determination of the rules relating to bays. This idea. It follows that while such a State must be allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt its delimitation to practical needs an d local rewuirements. Sarenas Norweigian Coast. Both parties agreed that four miles could be used as the breadth of the territorial waters. in carrying out the delimitation of the continental shelf.. is important in ascertaining jurisdiction over the waters that is “bordering” them in common) If you look at the map of this region. Another fundamental consideration of particular importance in this case is the more or less close relationship existing between certain sea areas and the land formations which divide or surround them. Rivas. Taking cognizance of the extraordinary geographic peculiarities of the Norweigina coastline of about 120. the baseline must be the actual low water mark. The dispute was eventually brought to the ICJ by the British Government in 1949. that of certain economic interests peculiar to a regionm the reality and importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage. and between Germany and Netherlands. 24) North Sea Continental Shelf Cases – Fernandez (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark) (Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) Facts: The case is about the delimitation of the continental shelf between Germany and Denmark. the scope of the which extends beyond purely geographical factors. the geographical configuration of which is as unusual as that of Norway. Germany’s coastline on the north (that which faces the North Sea) is going inwards the mainland (basically it’s a concave figure). there is one consideration not be overlooked. while Denmark is on the other. the court in part ruled: Some reference must be made to the close dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain. the Court rejected the British Contenetions (1) that the outer limits of Noweigian territorial waters must not be more than four miles from some point of the shore. on the contention that seizure occurred more than four miles off the Norweigian Coast. Eventually. Finally. Beron. . in view of the historic Norweigian claim to four miles. The case was submitted to the ICJ to determine the principles or rules of international law. Gana. (The determination of a State’s continental shelf. It is the land which confers upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coasts. The real question raised in the choice of baselines is in effect whether certain sea areas living within these lines are sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the regime of internal waters.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Fernandez. Upholding Norway’s claim to use straight baselines. and (2) that with the exception of bays. Calinisan. Mendiola. the drawing of base lines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast. It is also noticeable that the coastlines of Denmark and Netherlands (the ones facing the North Sea) are outwardly curving. particularly in adjacent coastal States. rocks and reefs. Netherlands is on one side of Germany. disregarding the decree claiming the waters as high seas as not of the islands were more than 3 miles from each others.000 islands.  Lopez. the British fishing vessels were seized and condemned by norweigian authorities for violation of the regulations of the coastal state by fishing in the norweigian territorial sea. should be liberally applied in the case of a coast. applicable. Morada.

despite the latter’s non-ratification of said treaty. Gana. Since a State has sovereignty over its land territory. because that provision has formed part of international custom and can even be considered to be a general principle of law.e. If said principle is to be applied to Germany. While Denmark and Netherlands would benefit from a widening tendency on the area of continental shelf off that coast. Second. but merely to delimit it. the treaty itself allows for reservations (in effect. Such principle essentially entails that your country’s continental shelf will be drawn up to a certain distance from your shorelines--following the contours and indentations. the continental shelf. Germany prays that the States involved be entitled to a continental shelf area up to a central point as its median line. In addition. Netherlands and Denmark argue that Germany is bound by Art 6 of the Geneva Convention. the Court tried to reach an equitable conclusion. (On apportioning the continental shelf area into just and equitable shares) The Court is not tasked to apportion the areas concerned. the configuration of Germany’s coast constituted a special circumstance (this is similarly provided in the provision) which would justify a departure from the equidistance principle. it argues that even if the provision has gained the status of custom. Germany argues otherwise. state practice was neither extensive enough nor virtually uniform to show a general recognition of an evolving norm. Germany contends that all the parties should be given a “just and equitable share” in proportion to the length of its sea-frontage (essentially following the area facing the North sea without regard to inward or outward indentations). Moreover. The continental shelf is a natural prolongation of a State’s land territory. For the court to apportion the areas is inconsistent with the basic concept of continental shelf entitlement. contracting States may practice or not practice the equidistance principle) (On the argument of treaty) Germany was not legally bound by Article 6. Clearly the equidistance principle is to the disadvantage of Germany—it having an inward shoreline. Calinisan. Though it signed the Geneva Convention. Issue: How should the delimitation of the North Sea continental shelf be carried out? Held: It should be carried out by agreement between the States taking into account geographical equitable considerations including general and special features of the coasts. Why is this case important on the topic of territory of States? The case illustrates a mode of settling disputes on overlapping maritime areas. The Court decided the case based on equity considerations. it has not ratified said treaty. Morada. And fourth.  Lopez. The provision cannot be said to have crystallized into a rule of customary international law for several reasons: First.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Fernandez. Article 6 was framed to be purely contractual (Suffice it to state that the Convention was not a treaty of codification but purely de lege ferenda [creating new rules between the contracting States]). Sarenas Netherlands and Denmark argue that the “equidistance principle” in Article 6 of the Geneva Convention is applicable. it naturally has a right over the prolongation of its land—i. It has been observed that . Beron. Third. then it would necessarily lose jurisdiction over certain portions of the North Sea. (On the argument of custom) Article 6 of the Geneva Convention does not embody an existing customary norm. the number of ratifications and accessions to the treaty was hardly sufficient to constitute a general rule of international law. Mendiola. Since neither treaty nor custom is governing. Rivas.

the official called out the names of accused as listed in the passengers’ manifest and ordered them to sign on the masking tape placed on the boxes allegedly recovered from their respective baggages. the tour group went to the baggage claim area to retrieve their respective checked-in baggages. Gomez informed an airport official of his findings. Upon receipt of these bundled boxes. After passing through and obtaining clearance from immigration officers at the NAIA. Francisco testified that shortly after all boxes of Alpen Cereals were recovered. Morada. UNCLOS III has also recognized such manner of settling overlapping maritime areas. Capt. Issue: W/N the evidence was admissible. A careful study of the records reveal that accused were never informed of their fundamental rights during the . As Gomez pulled out these boxes from their respective baggages.  Lopez. He found that they contained a crystalline substance that was in a plastic bag. Fernandez.” Capt. Wong Chuen Ming) – Mendiola Facts: A PAL flight arrived in the Philippines which contained the 11 accused in this case – 2 of which were Hong Kong (British) Nationals. Gana. he became suspicious and opened the boxes. Beron. as well as on the plastic bags containing “shabu. However. All the accused assail the conviction of the court below by alleging the evidence was inadmissible. At first.Lopez Ah Sing (People vs. the Court holds that the signatures of accused on the boxes. Mendiola. Gomez paid no mind to the boxes labeled “Alpen Cereals” which he found in the first 2 baggages. His test showed that the substance was indeed “shabu. he bundled said boxes by putting masking tape around them and handed them over to the airport official. Eastern Greenland (Norway vs. when he found the same boxes in the third baggage. At the outset. Calinisan. while the rest were Malaysians. At Camp Crame. Francisco immediately informed the eleven (11) accused that they were under arrest. Rivas. Sarenas International courts and arbitration bodies have applied equitable principles instead of traditional median line or middle lines.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. they were also made to sign the plastic bags that contained the shabu. They placed the same in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5 which at that time was manned by customs examiner Danilo Gomez. he conducted a field test on a sample of the white crystalline substance. Held: The evidence is inadmissible.” are inadmissible in evidence. They were brought to Camp Crame. Denmark) – Gana Skylab .

accused were not informed of their Miranda rights i. the District Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that it violated the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico (Extradition Treaty or Treaty). Rivas. therefore. After concluding that DEA agents were responsible for the abduction. Specifically. both aliens and citizens. Sarenas entire time that they were under investigation. Issue: W/N the forcible abduction prohibits trial.  Lopez. accused in effect made a tacit admission of the crime charged for mere possession of “shabu” is punished by law. Gana.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. the court found that. These signatures of accused are tantamount to an uncounselled extra-judicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Section 12[1][3]. inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from the accused in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. Morada. By affixing their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals and on the plastic bags. where he was arrested for his participation in the kidnapping and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent and the agent's pilot. France) – Morada Achille Lauro Incident – Rivas Pinochet Case – Sarenas Adolf Eichman – Anastacio Tuscanino Case – Beron Alvarez-Machain – Calinisan Facts: Respondent. Fernandez. The fact that all accused are foreign nationals does not preclude application of the “exclusionary rule” because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend to all persons. when they were made to affix their signatures on the boxes of Alpen Cereals while they were at the NAIA and again. Based on one of its prior decisions. jurisdiction was improper. . They are. on the plastic bags when they were already taken in custody at Camp Crame. 1987 Constitution).e. Lotus Case (Turkey vs. Mendiola. Calinisan. Beron. was forcibly kidnapped from his home and flown by private plane to Texas. a citizen and resident of Mexico. since the United States had authorized the abduction and since the Mexican government had protested the Treaty violation. and ordered respondent's repatriation. that they had the right to remain silent and to counsel and any statement they might make could be used against them. Article III. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

supra.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. Sarenas Held: The fact of respondent's forcible abduction does not prohibit his trial in a United States court for violations of this country's criminal laws. and language to curtail Ker was drafted as early as 1935. • A new Chief of Administration came—Minister Counsellor Kasim—he found the services of Vinzon unsatisfactory and called for the termination of the agreement. is a matter for the Executive Branch. Mendiola. In this Agreement. generators. a court may properly exercise jurisdiction even though the defendant's presence is procured by means of a forcible abduction. United States v. The agreement shall be effective for 4 years and will renew itself automatically unless cancelled by either party. It was the practice of nations with regard to extradition treaties that formed the basis for this Court's decision in Rauscher. . Vinzon said that Minister Kasim could not have been dissatisfied of their services as the latter even requested for an additional worker in the Embassy. • Vinzon claims that the termination was arbitrary and unlawful.  Lopez. It would go beyond established precedent and practice to draw such an inference from the Treaty based on respondent's argument that abductions are so clearly prohibited in international law that there was no reason to include the prohibition in the Treaty itself. (b) Neither the Treaty's language nor the history of negotiations and practice under it supports the proposition that it prohibits abductions outside of its terms. Rivas. Ker v. (c) General principles of international law provide no basis for interpreting the Treaty to include an implied term prohibiting international abductions. (a) A defendant may not be prosecuted in violation of the terms of an extradition treaty. Gana. While respondent may be correct that his abduction was "shocking" and in violation of general international law principles. the Treaty's current version contains no such clause. Republic of Indonesia vs. owner of Vinzon Trade and Services. would require a much larger inferential leap with only the most general of international law principles to support it. The Treaty says nothing about either country refraining from forcibly abducting people from the other's territory or the consequences if an abduction occurs. Thus. the rule of Ker applies and jurisdiction was proper. when a treaty has not been invoked. however. Morada. However. water pumps) in the Indonesian Embassy in Manila and in Ambassador Soeratmin’s official residence here. Beron. although the Mexican government was made aware of theKer doctrine as early as 1906. the decision whether he should be returned to Mexico. In addition. if the Extradition Treaty does not prohibit respondent's abduction. electrical facilities. to imply a term in the extradition treaty between the United States and England. Calinisan. water heaters. Illinois. Fernandez. as a matter outside the Treaty. Vinzon is to maintain certain equipment (aircon units. Rauscher. Vinzon – Fernandez Facts: • Republic of Indonesia entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with James Vinzon. Respondent's argument.

 Mendiola. the Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with Vinzon. Applying it in this case. has sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as a party-defendant in the Philippines. Issue: Did the Republic of Indonesia (and its diplomats) waive its immunity from suit? Held: No. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity. The provision in the contract is not necessarily a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is clear that a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. People – Gana FACTS . Calinisan. He further stated that the two diplomats can be held liable in their private capacities for tortious acts done with malice and bad faith. Consequently. Sarenas • • • Vinzon filed a case against the Republic of Indonesia. And a State may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. When a State enters into purely commercial activities the nature of the act should be determined as to whether it is jure imperii (public) or jure gestionis (private). Though there are exceptions (i. the Republic of Indonesia did not waive its immunity. Beron. It must be given explicitly or by necessary implication. real action relating to private immovable property. Submission by a foreign state to local jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal.  Lopez. These courts said that the Republic of Indonesia gave its consent to be sued and voluntarily submitted itself to the laws and jurisdiction of Philippine courts and the diplomats waived their immunity as well. the case does not fall under any of them. RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss. Fernandez.e. The Republic filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it is a foreign sovereign State. The establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act jure imperii. Gana. furnishings and equipment of the embassy and the living quarters of its diplomatic agents and officials. it is covered by sovereign immunity. then it is an act jure imperii. or an incident thereof. Morada. CA affirmed. Rivas. The acts of the 2 diplomats were incidental to the exercise of an official function. As to whether or not Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Kasim may be sued in their private capacities. There is no such waiver in this case. Even Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Kasim cannot be sued as they enjoy diplomatic immunity. action relating to succession. Vinzon claims that the Republic of Indonesia already waived its immunity based on a provision in the Agreement stating that any legal action arising out of the said Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines. action relating to any professional or commercial activity outside official functions). A State may not be sued without its consent. Jeffrey Liang vs.

dismissed the case On petition for certiorari and mandamus. Rivas. the Court held that it had no cogent reason to disturb its Decision of January 28. like Polly Frost in a rather different social milieu. a Chinese national who was employed as an Economist by the said bank MTC of Mandaluyong City.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. the issue in this case is not really about diplomatic immunity but whether or not the statements allegedly made by LIANG were uttered while in the performance of his official functions. the RTC set aside the order of the MTC Hence. its officials and staff. Fernandez. from legal and judicial processes in the Philippines W/N LIANG CAN CLAIM DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY FOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST HIM FOR GRAVE ORAL DEFAMATION NO. for which there was no legal redress. and Lords Justices Lopes and Kay. and who called himself Albert Baker. 2000. Morada. the slander of a person. 1893. for breach of promise. Mendiola. promised her marriage. including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank. After careful consideration. Sultan of Johore – Lopez The fifth case. Master of the Rolls. Calinisan. who appeared gentlemanly. . this petition LIANG argues for the diplomatic immunity of the ADB.  Lopez. so she sued him. wealthy and plausible. As the Court has stated therein. acting pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that LIANG enjoyed immunity from legal processes. He promised marriage to her and then reneged on the promise. A man she had met in high society. cannot be considered as falling within the purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel RATIO • • • Mighell vs. Sarenas • • • • • ISSUE HELD Two criminal informations for grave oral defamation were filed by CABAL. The case again attracted a wealth of legal talent: Lord Esher. that of Mighell v Sultan of Johore in 1894 deals with a woman who fell under another kind of spell. a member of the clerical staff of the Asian Development Bank against LIANG. SLANDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY THE IMMUNITY GRANTED TO ADB EMPLOYEES REGARDING ACTS PERFORMED BY THEM IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY Nowhere in the assailed decision is diplomatic immunity denied However. Gana. by any stretch. Beron. The case came on for hearing in the Court of Appeal on November 27. shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities: (a) Immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity. in order for this case to fall squarely under the provisions of Section 45 (a) of the "Agreement Between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank ." to wit: Officers and staff of the Bank.

Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. political considerations and agendas often decide the day. unless he waives this privilege.000. an American jumped out of the cab with a drawn high-powered gun. A distinction was drawn between private transactions and matters of sovereign authority. Minucher vs. He was made to sit down while in handcuffs while the defendant was inside his bedroom. Miss Mighell. Sarenas Apparently Miss Mighell knew already that her fiancé was not Albert Baker: this was a not very imaginative pseudonym for Abu Bakr. but the peculiar nature of breach of promise also meant she was a victim because she was a woman.that they are both public and private personalities. He was handcuffed and after about 20 minutes in the street. Minucher and Scalzo entered into contracts of sale wherein Scalzo bought caviar.s argument was that he had originally presented himself as a private individual and a subject of the Queen. under the regime of the Shah of Iran. Minucher expressed his desire to acquire a US Visa. One day. In 1894 the British Government was unwilling to offend a friendly foreign potentate to appease a private individual. His Serene Highness the Sultan of Johore. The defendant told him that he would be leaving the Philippines very soon and requested him to come out of the house for a while so that he can introduce him to his cousin waiting in a cab. but the defendant told him to `shut up. Without much ado.s status. This pointed up of course the duality of a sovereign. In this sense. it must be an active waiver was the uncompromising answer. On several occasions. Rivas. were playing chess. Japan and Manila. and without putting on his shirt as he was only in his pajama pants. Gana. from Minucher. all armed. Scalzo came back again to plaintiff's house and directly proceeded to the latter's bedroom. a long way absent from his kingdom in the Malay Straits. rugs. When the Shah of Iran was deposed by Ayatollah Khomeini. Ultimately. Mendiola. Minucher opened his safe in the bedroom and obtained $2. he followed the defendant where he saw a parked cab opposite the street. Beron. He asked for any warrant.  Lopez. where the latter and his countryman. Had Abu Bakr. etc. Abbas Torabian. To his complete surprise. CA – Mendiola Facts: Minucher is an Iranian national. Calinisan. The status of the defendant was important. He was in the company of about 30 to 40 Filipino soldiers with 6 Americans. . Morada. Fernandez. which Abu Bakr was not going to do. Did his conduct amount to waiver? Persisted the lawyers for Miss Mighell. In 1976. he was appointed Labor Attaché for the Iranian Embassies in Tokyo. Scalzo told Minucher that he can help him in exchange for $2k.00 from it. Minucher was introduced to Scalzo. who was an informer of the Intelligence Unit of the military. Miss Mighell was a victim of state policy. he became a refugee of the United Nations and continued to stay in the Philippines. gave it to the defendant for the latter's fee in obtaining a visa for plaintiff's wife. he was brought inside the house by the defendant.’ He was nevertheless told that he would be able to call for his lawyer . (who declined to appear in court) lost this privilege of diplomatic immunity by his deceit? An independent sovereign is entitled to immunity from jurisdiction. The case revealed his secret life in the high society of London. Philippines. No. He came to the Philippines to study in the University of the Philippines in 1974.

In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher. if not consent. Mendiola. Beron.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. as well as the participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the “buy-bust operation” conducted at the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo. However. Fernandez. vesting a person with diplomatic immunity is a prerogative of the executive branch of the government. The main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature. to inform local law enforcers who would then be expected to make the arrest. Still. and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher. through the DFA. this Court is constrained to rule that respondent Arthur Scalzo. Gana.  Lopez. recognized his status as a person with diplomatic immunity. Also. Scalzo still claims that he may not be proceeded against by Minucher. Issue: W/N Scalzo has diplomatic immunity. Minucher files this appeal. it is. because he is an agent of the US Drugs Enforcement Agency. All told. The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and. certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy. Sarenas who can defend him. later acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the government of the two countries. to the activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. submitted several documents showing that the Philippines. after having ascertained the target. in fact. Calinisan.B. Morada. may be inadequate to support the "diplomatic status" of the latter but they give enough indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur. Rivas. It might be recalled that the privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensuing legal liability. The lower court adjudged Scalzo to be liable to pay Minucher damages. an immunity from the exercise of territorial jurisdiction Fisheries Case – Morada . Minucher filed a complaint against Scalzo. As a result of the search. the agents found heroin inside the house of Minucher. Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties. an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine government to conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem on the drug traffic. Held: Scalzo has immunity. Scalzo. N. can be gleaned from the facts mentioned. is entitled to the defense of state immunity from suit. rather. The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. the CA reversed saying that Scalzo is absolutely immune because he is clothed with diplomatic immunity by virtue of the Vienna convention.

the memo cannot be considered as the express waiver by the Director General. Aquino – Beron Chorzow Factory (Germany vs. •NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the case. 1990. Callado submitted an answer and defenses. •The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its DirectorGeneral is the only way which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity. Poland) – Calinisan (from SC Tanquilit files) Poland expropriated a factory at Chorzow. Beron. •According to the Memo: in cases involving dismissal of employees. IRRI waives its immunity. the Institute may waive its immunity. Morada. Calinisan. Callado got into an accident while on an official trip to the NAIA. France) – Rivas Callado vs. Mendiola. the Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal. •IRRI terminated the services of Callado. •The investigation by the HRD of IRRI found Callado to have been driving under the influence of liquor.Dec. 1990. ILO – Anastacio WHO vs.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. civil and administrative proceedings. signifying that such waiver is discretionary on its part. Fernandez.  Lopez. It is merely an internal memo. Sarenas Nuclear Tests Case (Australia/New Zealand vs. Gana. •IRRI invoked immunity from suit before the Labor Arbiter. •Though there is a memo regarding guidelines to implementation of PD 1620. Callado filed an illegal dismissal case against IRRI before the Labor Arbiter. Germany filed a claim for damages against Poland caused by the illegal expropriation. International Rice Research Institute – Sarenas Facts: •Ernesto Callado was employed as a driver at the IRRI from April 1983 . Rivas. HELD: The essential principle contained in the notion of an illegal act is that reparation must. . •The Labor Arbiter took notice of the contention of IRRI but still continued with the case. Issue: •W/N IRRI has waived its immunity from suit in a dispute which arose from an employeremployee relationship Held: •NO! •Under PD 1620 (Act Granting to IRRI the privileges of an international organization). contrary to the Geneva Convention of 1922 between Germany and Poland. The Labor Arbiter maintains that in all cases of termination. On Feb.

But the Greek Government subsequently took up the case. Mendiola.  Lopez. which value is designed to take the place of restitution which has become impossible. Jaffa. Morada. and on the part of Britain’s government to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. payment of a sum corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind would bear. Being signatory to his Mandate. Calinisan. a State is in reality asserting its own rights. the case is undoubtedly between a Mandatory (Britain) and another member of the League of Nations (Greece). Rivas. It raised. Issue: Whether the case is a dispute between 2 States so as to vest the PCIJ with jurisdiction? Held: Yes. have existed if that act had not been committed. According to Britain. be ordered to pay compensation to Mavrommatis for the projects in Jerusalem and Jaffa.Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio. or if this is not possible. the PCIJ will only have jurisdiction if the dispute is between the Mandatory (in this case Britain) and another member of the League of Nations (in this case Greece). The fact that the opposing parties are States is sufficient to comply with the Palestinian Mandate. the award. as a defense. then. In this case. Mavrommatis (a Greek) under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities in regard to concessions for certain public works to be constructed in Palestine. Restitution in kind. the obligation of Poland is to restore the factory and. entered into a new phase: it became a dispute between two States and is covered by international law. of damages for loss sustained which would not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it – such are the principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act contrary to international law. such is irrelevant now. wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would. • The British government questioned the jurisdiction of the Court. if need be. if this be not possible. Beron. Gana. as Mandatory for Palestine. It is true that the dispute was at first between a private person (Mavrommatis) and a State (Britain). and El-Hodja. Sarenas as far as possible. Referring to the Mandate of Palestine. that according to the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. The case. These include electric tramway systems and supply of power and water in Jerusalem. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions – Fernandez Facts: • The Government of the Greek Republic comes before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) because of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palestine. the case is not of such nature. When Greece took the case of one of its subjects and resorted to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on that person’s behalf. in all probability. • The Greek Republic asks that the British government. Britain has . Though the present dispute originated in an injury to a private interest. Fernandez. In addition. Poland must pay the compensating loss sustained as a result of the seizure. to pay its value at the time of the indemnification.

 Gana. Mendiola. Fernandez. Beron. But upheld the objection as to the claims in Jaffa.  Lopez. The court said that the claims in Jaffa were not subject of the Mandate of Palestine with which Britain submitted jurisdiction. Sarenas given consent to the PCIJ’s jurisdiction. Calinisan. Morada. Rivas. The Court’s decision dismissed Britain’s objection with respect to the claims in Jerusalem. Neer Case – Gana Roberts Case – Lopez Zafiro Case – Mendiola Texaco – Morada .Public International Law (Dean Roy): Case Digests Anastacio.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful