PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Class Notes by Dr. A. O. Adede © 2005

University of Nairobi

Introduction
International law traditionally concerned itself with relations with sovereign
states but nowadays it also deals with relations between natural and juridical
persons. These are individual human beings and incorporated companies.
Individuals benefit from the protection of international law but they cannot be
described as proper subjects of international law.
Multi-national corporations are busily engaged in international transactions with
states. Consequently new rules of law have been developed to cover these
relationships. However these corporations fail to qualify as international subjects.
States and international organizations like the United Nations are the main actors
on the international community, the only entities with true international
personality and principal creators of international law.
The Minimum Standards of International Justice with respect to aliens qua aliens.

Any of the following actions amount to denial of justice to aliens.

 Failure to inform an alien reason for his arrest
 Failure to provide an alien with an interpreter if he needs one
 Holding an alien incommunicado
 Refusing an alien the right to consult their counsel
These were rights that were being reserved to protect aliens and being enforced
mostly in the developing countries and the Latin American countries.
Calvo Doctrine
The Calvo Doctrine (or principle) holds that jurisdiction in international investment
disputes lies with the country in which the investment is located; thus, the investor has
no recourse but to use the local courts. The principle, named after an Argentinean jurist,
has been applied throughout Latin America and other areas of the world. It is a body of
international rules regulating the jurisdiction of governments over aliens and the scope
of their protection by their home states, as well as the use of force in collecting
indemnities. The doctrine was advanced by the Argentine diplomat and legal scholar
Carlos Calvo.
An Argentinian by the name Calvo – said that “we cannot assign foreigners in
our countries special treatment as this would be like having two regimes in a
country which would amount to political monstrosity. Calvo developed the
Calvo Doctrine and argued for equality of treatment between nationals and
aliens. No special regimes. An alien is supposed to accept everything in the host

1
country and no special treatment. Having minimum standard of international
justice to be observed with respect to aliens qua aliens was wrong.
This doctrine developed what became known as the Calvo clause. To implement
calvo doctrine required the calvo clause. Under the Calvo clause Latin American
countries decided that any foreign country coming to do business in their
countries, whether mining or any activity under a contract will have a clause in
that contract in which the alien waives its right to ask its own government to
espouse its claim before the international court a claim.
Many countries in Latin America have worked under the Calvo Doctrine until they
started signing FTAs and BITs.
The Calvo Doctrine is a doctrine and not a law and basically says that a country is
sovereign and does not have to hand over their sovereignty to an international court to
resolve a dispute when foreigners are involved.
http://www.britannica.com/needmoreInternational Law of Europe and America in
Theory and Practice (1868).
North American Dredging Co. v. Mexico

The company waived its rights ever to ask USA to bring the case against Mexico.
The Mixed Claims Commission found out that the obvious purpose of the clause
was to prevent abuse of the right of diplomatic protection and to draw a
reasonable line between the sovereign rights of a state i.e. issue of jurisdiction
and Diplomatic protection. It stated that the clause was part of the contract and
had to be upheld unless it was repugnant to a recognized rule of international
law. It found further that a contractual clause purporting to restrict or exclude
the rights normally owed to an alien would be valid to the extent that it did not
preclude diplomatic protection for violations of international Law.
An alien cannot deprive his government its right of diplomatic protection in case
of violations of international law nor may he deprive himself of the right to apply
to his government on the ground. But in such a case the claimant’s complaint
would be not that his contract was violated but that he had been denied justice.
The commission declared that North American Dredging Company had fully
ignored the local remedies rule provided by Mexican Law. The claimant having
agreed to Article 18 of the Contract could not rightfully present a breach of
contract claim to its government for its espousal and therefore the claim was
unanimously dismissed.
The western world response to Calvo clause was that the individual had no right
to waive a state’s right. This had to become a legal jurisprudence of international
law.

2
In the Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case the very issue was settled when the
permanent court of international justice said that when a state Mavrommatis
espouses the claim of its national to take to an international tribunal, it had to be
the state in its own rights and its own interest rather than the individual
involved. It is the state that wants to assert its own right to ensure that its rights
are being asserted.
From the beginning the Western world was of the view that there was no right to
expropriate the property of aliens. They decided that the rule to apply is when
one expropriates property they must pay prompt, adequate and just
compensation if one must expropriate.
From this evolved the permanent sovereignty of natural resources. They began to
challenge the standard of prompt, adequate and just compensation. Under the
principles of exercising permanent sovereignty the countries said they had the
right to determine the amount of compensation they paid. The host state
determines the amount of compensation because they were the only ones who
could determine the value of the property. If for example an alien owed taxes the
amounts would be deducted. The developing countries won. In 1974 there was
a famous UN Resolution that adopted the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties
of States.

APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION
Article 2 (c) provides that the state which has expropriated the property of aliens
has the right to pay appropriate compensation. Once that state has arrived at a
just compensation the amount is not subject to any proceeding outside that
country. No more taking cases of expropriation to international court. This is
how Libya responded to Texaco Oil CO. in Texaco Oil Co. v. Libya and Libya
applied the charter of economic rights and duties principle and decided how
much was to be paid to Texaco. This case was heard by a French lawyer and the
question was how Libya could rely on a clause that had been rejected by the rest
of the world. The Judge ruled that Libya would not rely on this Article as it had
been rejected by the developed world. This is a decision that favoured the
Western World.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
The countries of western world got tired of these series of espousing claims
simply because as subjects of international law, companies had no right to bring
a case before an international court. In 1966 they decided to negotiate a
convention for settlement of investment disputes between states and companies
direct. This convention established a centre called International Centre for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) between states and companies
directly.

3
The entire Latin American country rejected ICSID entirely because they wanted
aliens to have all issues settled at home. (Calvo Clause). Once the country
involved has accepted the jurisdiction of the centre, it allows the company to
approach the centre but insists that the company exhausts the remedies available
locally.
ICSID is thus a thriving institution in Washington D.C.

PART II
Exhaustion of local remedies.
Pannevezys Saldutiskis Railway Case – before an alien can have his case admitted
in ICSID must have local remedies exhausted. Establishing the local remedies
rule Clear opinions, are all to the effect that the principle of the exhaustion of
local remedies lays down a condition for generation of the international
responsibility of the State, were expressed by three other judges, namely, Judge
Hudson in his dissenting opinion in the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case, 1
Judge Cordoba in his separate opinion in the Interhandel case,
Judge Morelli gave a thorough definition of the principle of the exhaustion of
local remedies in the following terms:
"However, the local remedies rule, as a rule of general international law, is in my
view substantive and not procedural. It is indeed a rule which is supplementary to other
rules which also themselves possess the character of substantive rules, namely the rules
concerning the treatment of foreigners.
"Those rules require from the States to which they are directed a particular final
result in respect of the treatment of foreign nationals, leaving the State which is under
the obligation free as regards the means to be used. Consequently, if an organ of the
State which is under the obligation performs an act contrary to the desired result, the
existence of an internationally unlawful act and of the international responsibility of the
State cannot be asserted so long as the foreign national has a possibility of securing,
through the means provided by the municipal legal system, the result required by the
international rule." (I.C.J. Reports 1964, p. 114.)
Mavrommatis Palestine Concession – when the state brings a claim on behalf of its
own national it is exerting its right other than that of its national
1 Judge Hudson wrote:
"It is a very important rule of international law that local remedies must have been
exhausted without redress before a State may successfully espouse a claim of its national
against another State. This is not a rule of procedure. It is not merely a matter of orderly
conduct. It is part of the substantive law as to international, i.e. State-to-State, responsibility.
If adequate redress for the injury is available to the person who suffered it, if such a person
has only to reach out to avail himself of such redress, there is no basis for a claim to be
espoused by the State of which such person is a national. Until the available means of local
redress have been exhausted, no international responsibility can arise." (P.C.I.J. Series A/B,
No. 76, p. 47.)

4
Chattin Claim – elucidated and put down succinctly the concept of denial of
justice dealing with irregularities that open the way to approach international
court.
Interhandel Case – merely confirmed that the exhaustion of local remedies is a well
established principle of international law that must be observed unless States dispense
with this agreement under treaty. If the state does not require local remedies to be
exhausted, again this case can be cited.
Ambatielos Case - this is the case that if you had a witness who could come and
help you in your case in the local court and failed to call that witness and the
court decided that had the witness come the case would have been decided
differently, it was decided that this would amount to failure to exhaust local
remedies. Failure to call a key witness was declared to be non-exhaustion of local
available remedies.
The minimum standard of intentional justice to be observed with respect to
aliens qua aliens are:
1. failure to provide an interpreter
2. holding an alien incommunicado
3. failure to allow access to a counsel
4. failure to disclose reason for arrest

Civilized states - recognized major legal systems of the world

AN ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE:
Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts
of another government done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by
reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by
Sovereign powers as between themselves. This doctrine was argued in the
following case.

BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA v. SABBATINO, 376 U.S. 398 (1964)

376 U.S. 398
BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA v. SABBATINO, RECEIVER, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 16
Argued October 22-23, 1963
Decided March 23, 1964

5
Respondent American commodity broker, contracted with a Cuban corporation
largely owned by United States residents to buy Cuban sugar. Thereafter,
subsequent to the United States Government's reduction of the Cuban sugar
quota, the Cuban Government expropriated the corporation's property and
rights. To secure consent for shipment of the sugar, the broker by a new contract
agreed to make payment for the sugar to a Cuban instrumentality which
thereafter assigned the bills of lading to petitioner, another Cuban
instrumentality, and petitioner instructed its agent in New York to deliver to the
broker the bills of lading and sight draft in return for payment. The broker
accepted the documents, received payment for the sugar from its customer, but
refused to deliver the proceeds to petitioner's agent. Petitioner brought this
action for conversion of the bills of lading to recover payment from the broker
and to enjoin from exercising dominion over the proceeds a receiver who had
been appointed by a state court to protect the New York assets of the corporation.
The District Court concluded that the corporation's property interest in the sugar was
subject to Cuba's territorial jurisdiction and acknowledged the "act of state" doctrine,
which precludes judicial inquiry in this country respecting the public acts of a recognized
foreign sovereign power committed within its own territory. The court, nevertheless,
rendered summary judgment against the petitioner, ruling that the act of state doctrine
was inapplicable when the questioned act violated international law, which the District
Court found had been the case here. The Court of Appeals affirmed, additionally relying
upon two State Department letters which it took as evidencing willingness by the
Executive Branch to a judicial testing of the validity of the expropriation. Held:
1. The privilege of resorting to United States courts being available to a
recognized sovereign power not at war with the United States, and not
being dependent upon reciprocity of treatment, petitioner has access to
the federal courts.
2. The propriety of the taking was not governed by New York law since
the sugar itself was expropriated.
3. This suit is not uncognizable in American courts as being one to enforce
the "public" acts of a foreign state since the expropriation law here
involved had been fully executed within Cuba.
4. The Government's uncontested assertion that the two State Department
letters expressed only the then wish of the Department to avoid
commenting on the litigation, obviates the need for this Court to pass
upon the "Bernstein exception" to the act of state doctrine, under which a
court may respond to a representation by the Executive Branch that in
particular circumstances it does not oppose judicial consideration of the
foreign state's act.

6
 5. The scope of the act of state doctrine must be determined according to
federal law.
6. The act of state doctrine applies and is desirable with regard to a foreign
expropriation even though the expropriation allegedly violates customary
international law.
(a) Disagreement exists as to relevant standards of international law
concerning a State's responsibility toward aliens.
(b) The political branch can more effectively deal with expropriation than
can the Judicial Branch.
(c) Conflicts between the Judicial and Executive Branches could hardly be
avoided were the judiciary to adjudicate with respect to the validity of
expropriations. Even if the combination alleged in this case of retaliation,
discrimination, and inadequate compensation made the expropriation
here violative of international law, a judicial determination to that effect
would still be unwise as involving potential conflict with or
embarrassment to the Executive Branch in later litigation.
7. A foreign country's status as a plaintiff does not make the act of state
doctrine inapplicable.
307 F.2d 845, reversed and remanded.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN stated;

“The question which brought this case here, .. is whether the so-called act of state
doctrine serves to sustain petitioner's claims in this litigation. Such claims are
ultimately founded on a decree of the Government of Cuba expropriating certain
property, the right to the proceeds of which is here in controversy. The act of state
doctrine in its traditional formulation precludes the courts of this country from inquiring
into the validity of the public acts a recognized foreign sovereign power committed within
its own territory.”

While acknowledging the continuing vitality of the act of state doctrine, the court
believed it inapplicable when the questioned foreign act is in violation of international
law. Proceeding on the basis that a taking invalid under international law does not
convey good title, the District Court found the Cuban expropriation decree to violate
such law in three separate respects: it was motivated by a retaliatory and not a public
purpose; it discriminated against American nationals; and it failed to provide adequate
compensation. Summary judgment against petitioner was accordingly granted.

Respondents, pointing to the severance of diplomatic relations, commercial

embargo, and freezing of Cuban assets in this country, contend that relations
between the United States and Cuba manifest such animosity that

7
unfriendliness is clear, and that the courts should be closed to the Cuban
Government. We do not agree. This Court would hardly be competent to
undertake assessments of varying degrees of friendliness or its absence, and,
lacking some definite touchstone for determination, we are constrained to
consider any relationship, short of war, with a recognized sovereign power as
embracing the privilege of resorting to United States courts. Although the
severance of diplomatic relations is an overt act with objective significance in
the dealings of sovereign states, we are unwilling to say that it should
inevitably result in the withdrawal of the privilege of bringing suit. Severance
may take place for any number of political reasons, its duration is
unpredictable, and whatever expression of animosity it may imply does not
approach that implicit in a declaration of war.
"Every sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts
of the government of another done within its own territory. Redress of grievances
by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of
by sovereign powers as between themselves."
If a transaction takes place in one jurisdiction and the forum is in another, the forum
does not by dismissing an action or by applying its own law purport to divest the first
jurisdiction of its territorial sovereignty; it merely declines to adjudicate or makes
applicable its own law to parties or property before it. The refusal of one country to
enforce the penal laws of another is a typical example of an instance when a court will
not entertain a cause of action arising in another jurisdiction. While historic notions of
sovereign authority do bear upon the wisdom of employing the act of state doctrine, they
do not dictate its existence.

The act of state doctrine does, however, have "constitutional" underpinnings. It arises
out of the basic relationships between branches of government in a system of separation of
powers. It concerns the competency of dissimilar institutions to make and implement
particular kinds of decisions in the area of international relations. The doctrine as
formulated in past decisions expresses the strong sense of the Judicial Branch that its
engagement in the task of passing on the validity of foreign acts of state may hinder
rather than further this country's pursuit of goals both for itself and for the community
of nations as a whole in the international sphere. Many commentators disagree with this
view; 22 they have striven by means of distinguishing and limiting past decisions and by
advancing various considerations of policy to stimulate a narrowing of the apparent
scope of the rule. Whatever considerations are thought to predominate, it is plain that the
problems involved are uniquely federal in nature. If federal authority, in this instance
this Court, orders the filed of judicial competence in this area for the federal courts, and

8
the state courts are left free to formulate their own rules, the purposes behind the doctrine
could be as effectively undermined as if there had been no federal pronouncement on the
subject.
Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Case (Belgium v. Spain) [1970]
ICJ the shareholders of a Canadian company asked the government of Belgium
to take their case against Spain which had expropriated their property. The ICJ
decided that Belgium like Kitui lacked locus Standi to bring the case against
Spain on behalf of shareholders of a company that was not organised in Belgium
but in Canada.

Diplomatic protection of nationals abroad = espousing a national’s claim.

1. On citizenship

This is the one issue in which international law has left to be in the domain of
national government which has the law that defines how to confer that
citizenship and how to withdraw it. It is an area which has been left to a state.
Only a state can define who its citizens are. The ICJ will not allow a national
who holds dual citizenship to bring a case against one of the countries he claims
to hold citizenship. In the case of Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) duo
citizenship is not inimical/disadvantageous. The situation of statelessness is not
favoured by the international community and the international community has
adopted a United Nations Convention against statelessness. Nottebohm was a
German by birth (born in 1881) and very rich and in 1905 he moved from
Germany to Guatemala where he was doing a thriving business and acquired
Guatemalan citizenship. At that time his interest was to protect his property
because he was a German and German Property after the 2 nd World war was
being expropriated. He was living in Guatemala. Nottebohm decided after the
2nd World war to go back to Europe and decide to live in Liechtenstein. In the
end Nobttebohm now claimed that his property that had been taken by
Guatemala should be returned to him and Guatemala refused on the ground that
Nottebohm was its national and according to them they had already satisfied his
claim upon which Liechtenstein agreed to take Nottebohm to the ICJ. The
Nottebohm case produced another principle

“Since Nottebohm was a German and for expedience took the citizenship
of Guatemala and that since the end of 2 nd world war he left Guatemala and was
living in Liechtenstein without going back to Guatemala again for many years
and yet it was also shown that with respect to Liechtenstein he went back to his

9
original state Germany, he therefore did not show any genuine link with
Liechtenstein and therefore Liechtenstein could not bring his case against
Guatemala.

In the early 60’s learned publicists did not write works commenting on court
decisions because the courts in the case of Nottenbohm went haywire in deciding
that Nottenbohm had not established a genuine link and thus almost rendering
him stateless. The concept of genuine link that the courts pulled out was heavily
criticized by international jurists as this concept deals with ships.

1. Nature and function of international law

International law relates with the problem of settling issues between the subjects
of international law like two states like Bamburi and Franconia in relation to
Mutakha Mambo.

2. Sources of International Law

Article 38 of statute of International Court of Justice

“on sources of international law therefore and combining with the
function of court of justice article 38 reads “the court whose function is to decide
in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it shall
apply
a. International conventions whether general or particular establishing
rules expressly recognised by the states;
b. International Customs as evidence of general practice accepted as law;
c. General principles of law recognised by civilised nations (major legal
systems of the world;
d. Judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of various nations which shall be considered subsidiary
sources of international law.
International Convention
Covenants
Treaty
International Agreement
Protocol
Accord
Act
Memorandum of Understanding
Charter – Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States

10
DECLARATION –
LEGAL STATUS OF EASTERN GREENLAND CASE
(DENMARK V. NORWAY)
Denmark made a declaration that their government would not seek to occupy a
portion of Greenland. The Danish Foreign Minister made the declaration that
the government of Denmark would not occupy that part of Greenland and it was
held to be binding. Greenland could rely on this declaration to be legally
binding. The law is that a declaration made by a person with a legal right to do
so is binding. Recent decision in the,
NUCLEAR TEST CASE (Australia v. France, New Zealand v. France) [1974]
I.C.J. Reports
Australia and New Zealand went to court for provisional measures or interim
measures of protection.
Article 41 “the court shall have the power to indicate if it considers that
circumstances so require any provisional measures which ought to be taken to
preserve the respective rights of either party.”
Does indicate mean that those measures can be complied with? The argument
that it may not mean compliance became overwhelming so that at a later stage
when people were negotiating another statute, they said the court may prescribe
provisional measures.

After the case went to court, before the court could decide, the government of
France made a declaration that they would no longer conduct any test and the
question was, was that a binding obligation on the part of France on which
Australia and New Zealand could rely now that France had undertaken not to
conduct any other test. The court reminded them of the interim declaration
saying that a declaration by a person with authority to make it can indeed bind
the state in the same way the person is bound and therefore the declaration was
legally binding and the court considered the case moot.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 this is the treaty that laid down
the rules on how treaties would be laid down and negotiated. It said that a
treaty is an instrument between states or other subjects of international law
governed by international law. It is an agreement governed by international law
in written form. Whether in a single or more documents and whatever its
designation. If it is governed by international law and it is produced in writing
in a single form or more documents it will still be a treaty.
Exchange of Notes ‘note verbale’ if the delegation of Bulgaria visits Nairobi and
has an appointment to meet with their counterpart i.e. a minister of the same

11
portfolio when the Minister of Bulgaria goes back home, he writes a notes
verbale (the minister of Bulgaria present his compliments etcetera) exchange of
notes verbale can become lead to the signing of an international agreement.
MOU -
Conventions as sources of international law
The holding is that statements made by persons believed to represent a country
are binding. We are dealing with individuals who make declarations that are
binding.
1. The UN resolutions/declarations are not legally binding because they
are political in nature and they do no more than indicate the direction
in which countries want to move and no state can rely on these
resolutions because the way they are framed they are not framed in
language that can be legally binding. It provides inspiration for states
to use in other legally binding instruments. Nobody is required to
accept a UN resolution as domestic law.
A declaration and a covenant compared one finds out that there are things in the
declaration that are not found in a covenant.
Only the parts of a declaration that have been incorporated in the covenant are
binding. After the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promulgation, certain
states and courts used the declarations to rule on issues of human rights.
In the case of Japan it requires an enlightened court to incorporate declarations
in its rulings.
The UN Security Council also passes resolution. The latest is resolution on
terrorism in which it created a counter terrorism committee and asked states to
report on the measures they are taking aimed at fighting terrorism. This
resolution is being complied with by all states as if it were legally binding.
Kenya has made 3 reports concerning this resolution and is reporting on the
measures they are taking to comply with the Security council Resolution under
Chapter VII.
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States this was drafted creating rights
and obligations. When this has been drafted, the UN can use the draft and turn
it into a treaty that is then presented to governments at a conference. They
normally do this in the general assembly and when discussion is complete, they
pass a resolution, they annex the text of the charter.
The UN Resolution that contained the Economic Rights and Duties of States is
what Gaddafi had relied on in the case of Texaco Oil v. Libya case.
Charter connotes legally binding instruments this is why when states decide that
they have found a problem which they think can only be dealt with through
internationally concerted effort and which require a legal framework, they ask
whether they need a charter or legally binding principles. If they are not

12
prepared to enter into legally binding principles, they enter into a code of
conduct e.g. code of conduct for transfer of technology. Code of conduct for liner
conferences which are later translated into conventions where they become
legally binding. A code of conduct is usually just for guidance.
The law of state responsibility emerged out of excessive concern of the western
with concern of their nationals abroad. The law has evolved and now only deals
with a wrongful act which a state conducts against another state. Direct injury to
state when there is violation of a treaty or in a tort situation.
The responsibility which a state has arising from injury to alien is called
vicarious responsibility as opposed to direct responsibility. A state engages
vicarious liability if it arise from the right or failure to protect an alien.
Rules like exhaustion of local remedies are supposed to allow states to do justice
with their local means. Local remedies rule also performs the function of
allowing states to appreciate their international responsibilities by preventing
injuries.
The International Law Commission of United Nations has taken close to 15 years
studying the law of state responsibility having been emancipated from concern
with injuries to aliens so it becomes a concern.
The law of state responsibility which is bound with protection of foreign aliens is
now emancipated to law that deals with.

ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE:

“Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts
of the other government done within its own territory. Redress of grievances by
reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be available by
sovereign powers as between themselves.”
Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company case (Belgium v Spain) [1970] ICJ.
A Canadian company asked the government of Belgium where they were doing
business to take their case against Spain. ICJ decided Belgium lacked locus standi
to bring the case against Spain on behalf of the shareholders of a company that
was not organized in Belgium but in Canada.
Citizenship
This is the one issue the international law has been left in the domain of national
government, i.e. only the state who can decide who is the citizen.
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) [1955] ICJ Reports 4. Nottebohm
was a German by birth during 1935 he moved from Germany to Guatemala
where he was doing a thriving business and acquired Guatemalan citizenship. At
that point his interest was to protect his property (as the allied powers were
seizing property of Germans). After the World War II he decided to go to

13
Liechtenstein where he also acquired citizenship. In the end Nottebohm now
claimed that his property that had been taken by Guatemala should be returned
to him and Guatemala refused on the grounds that Nottebohm was their national
upon which Liechtenstein agreed to take Nottebohm’s case against Guatemala.
ICJ decision: since Nottebohm was a German and for expedience took the
citizenship of Guatemala and since the end of the Second World War he left
Guatemala and was living in Liechtenstein without going back to Guatemala and
he went to Germany and only briefly in Liechtenstein, therefore did not show
“genuine link” with Liechtenstein and therefore Liechtenstein could not bring
his case against Guatemala.
The idea of genuine link is also used in the legislation of ships.
The decision of ICJ was heavily criticized by international lawyers. Decision
rendered Nottebohm stateless.
UN Convention against statelessness
Issues
1. Nature and functions of international law: Settling issues of subjects of
international law.
2. Sources of international law: treaty. Article 38 of the statutes of the ICJ:
“The court whose function is to decide in accordance with the
international law such disputes as submitted to it shall apply:
(a) international conventions whether general or particular
establishing rules generally recognized by..
(b) international custom as evidence of general practice accepted as
law
(c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations
(d) judicial decisions and the teaching of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations
convention
treaty
international agreement
protocol
accord
act
memorandum of understanding
charter
note verbale, exchange of notes
Vienna Convention on the law Treaties 1959—the treat of treaties: Said that a
treaty is an instrument between states or other international organization
governed by international laws in written form whether in a single or more
documents and whatever its designation.

14
Exchange of notes: note verbale.

Trieppel and Strup were the dualists: international law and municipal law are
separate, each with its own sphere and none can oust the other. International law
supposed to regulate relationships between states among themselves inter se.
Domestic laws regulate the conduct of individuals within the state.
Kelsen and Lauterpacht, these were the monists: we have to see areas where
there might be a conflict and according to them international law should take
precedence where there is doubt. International law takes over where domestic
law stops.
The coordination: coordinating the two systems of law to arrive at a solution that
is judicially defensible.
A case concerning a German …is quoted the world over for the proposition that
the state cannot be permitted to evoke its domestic law to avoid an international
obligation (where a treaty has been signed).
Article 34 of the ICJ: only states can be parties in cases before the court.
Self-determination – right of citizens to determine their own destiny without
outside interference.
The force to intervene to deal with situations of chaos is a collective decision, i.e.
does not belong to one state.
Being invited becomes a legal argument for the intervening party. Being invited
by itself is not conclusive.

RECOGNITION OF A STATE
It is a term that is used to refer to a situation in which a state conducts normal
international relations with other states which it recognizes. Distinguish between
recognition of states and recognition of a government. Once a state is recognized it
remains recognized. You may not want to deal with a particular regime:
1. Government de jure
2. Government de facto
Theories of Recognitin
Two theories .
1. Declaratory recognition. Have declared myself I am.
2. Constitutive theory of recognition. Recognition by several states.

AU: shun governments that come to power unconstitutionally, i.e. through

the bullet.

15
 3. The Estrada theory. Estrada was a Mexican foreign minister who said a
government should not be denied recognition irrespective of how they
got to that position. President Wilson refused to recognize the Huerta
regime in Mexico that emerged through revolution. This was positive
non-recognition.
Recognition is a very important act. We need a stable frontier. We need a self-
generating population. An act of an unrecognized state
What is a belligerent?
ADIZ
Extradition is governed by treaty. There is no customary law in extradition.
Extradition treaty between the two countries operates. It will spell out the
extraditable offence and the procedure in the domestic country in which the
extradition is required to determine whether the offence is extraditable.
States are always reluctant to extradite their own nationals, even when there is a
treaty. Political offences: nobody should be extradited for a political offence.
You will only be tried on that only for which you extradited.
Commonwealth extradition treaty. But you can vary it. UN Convention Against
Taking Hostages has a provision saying that if a hostage taking situation arises
between two states that have no extradition treaty between them, they can use
this convention to effect extradition.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW Lecture 4

ASYLUM
Question of Asylum – Mrs. Nyabera seeks protection from the Embassy of
Dandora. An embassy is protected and nobody can enter an embassy without
permission of the owners of the embassy. An embassy is inviolate. This is under
United Nations Conventions and Privileges.
It was claimed that Mrs. Nyabera was a political offender and seeks safe
conduct. This is what happened in the,
Asylum Case (Columbia v. Peru [1950])
A Peruvian Leader named Haya de la Torre had led a rebellion in Peru and was
just about to topple it just like Nyabera. In the same pattern Haya ran and
sought protection in the Colombian embassy in Peru. The Colombian
Ambassador said that Haya was a political offender and must be given a safe exit
out of Peru. This became a matter referred to international court of justice for
determination. The court decided that it is a 3rd party procedure that can determine
whether or not Haya was a political offender and therefore entitled to safe passage. The
court rejected the Colombian ambassador unilateral decision to characterize
Haya as a political offender entitled to safe conduct. The court also rejected the
Peruvian claim that Haya was a common criminal because he had been trying to

16
overthrow the Peruvian government. No particular person can determine whether a
person is a political offender. Only an international court can decide. He was entitled
to asylum but safe conduct was to be negotiated. Only those who commit
political offences will be treated in a political way.
ASYLUM AND THE LAW OF DIPLOMATIC PROTECTION:
An Ambassador was called His Excellency, Extraordinary, plenipotentiary titles
that are maintained to this day. They were addressed as Plenipotentiary because
they were full of power to represent their governments and extraordinary
because they could make decisions without referring to their governments.
Article 2 paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations: Nothing contained in
the present charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters
which are essentially within domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the
Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter; but this
principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under
Chapter VII.
Connolly Amendment – it is the State itself that can determine that a matter is
within its jurisdiction. The charter says that UN shall not intervene in matters
that are essentially within the jurisdiction of the state. It is under this article that
for years South Africa prevented the whole world from discussing Apartheid
because apartheid was a matter within the jurisdiction of South Africa and there
is nothing the international community could do except to make South Africa a
pariah. Governments could have nothing to do with South Africa by trade
sanctions, diplomatic sanctions as the countries could not use force to force South
Africa to abandon apartheid.
This was the case until human rights begun to catch on, a state could treat its
citizens in any way it could without a care.
The United Nations Covenant on civil and political rights
The United Nations Covenant on economic and social rights
Now we have a treaty that can be enforced against a state
Connolly Amendments – an amendment where a state reserves the right to
determine what is within its own jurisdiction. Bulgaria invoked the Connolly
Amendment when they shot down an American aircraft in their airspace and
America became a victim of its own wickedness.
The use of force in international relations is prohibited under
Article 2 paragraph 4 of the UN Charter
Which says that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another
state or in any other manner inconsistence with the purposes of United Nations.
It is noted that from this the UN Charter is a form of a treaty in which the
member states accept the obligation to refrain from matters which are not within

17
the jurisdiction of their state and to refrain from the use of force. This is the
formula used after the 2nd World War to protect and preserve territorial integrity
and political independence.
If there is a dispute between two small states, the dispute persists but if it is
between a big state and a small state, the small state disappears. If the dispute is
between two powerful states, the dispute will disappear.
Article 53 of the Charter of the United Nations which states
“…the security council shall where appropriate utilise regional arrangements.
The Latin American countries popularised the use of regional arrangements
before approaching the United Nations. They had the Organisation of American
States that could deal with regional issues. In Africa they can first try the
Organisation of African Unity first before approaching the United Nations.
The Charter of the United Nations is not only a treaty but it is also a constitution in that
it contains provisions that define the powers and functions of the major organs
established under it.
1. The General Assembly is the organ of the UN in which all member
states that are independent up to now except one are represented and
each has one vote. Until two years ago there were two Switzerland
was not a member of the UN but now it is. Liechtenstein is not a
member of the UN.
2. Security Council –
3. Economic and Social Council referred to as ECOSOC
4. Trusteeship council
5. International Court of Justice
6. The Secretary General of the United Nations.
These are the 6 major organs of the UN whose functions are described in the
Charter. By Kenya becoming a member of the UN it does not necessarily mean
that it has accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Veto:

Article 23 of the UN Charter

States the Composition of the Security Council.
“… the Security Council shall consists of the 15 members of United Nations, Republic
of China, France, Union of Soviet Social Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and the United States shall be permanent members of the security council. The
general assembly shall elect other 10 members to be members of the Security Council.”
Article 27 of the Charter deals with the vote of security council “each member of
the security council shall have one vote. Paragraph 2 decisions of the security
council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of 9
members.

18
Decisions of the Security Council on all other substantive matters shall be made
by an affirmative vote of 9 members including the concurring votes of the
permanent members.
A state only needs 9 votes out of 15 but the 9 must include the 5 permanent
members and if any of the 5 permanent members does not agree, even with the
other 12 the decision is not adopted.
It would seem as if the United Nations was never intended to take action against
any of the 5 permanent members or their friends. If the US for example has done
something wrong e.g. like by going to Iraq, a resolution cannot pass because the
US will veto it.
Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations assigns to the Security Council the
primary responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.
“In order to ensure prompt action by the UN its members confers on the Security
Council primary responsibility of maintenance of international peace and the
Security Council will act on behalf of their members. The Security Council under
this article was supposed to act as a fire brigade just put out the fire but the
opposite happens with the Security Council, when there is war, the Security
Council discuss the options instead of just putting out the fire and this has
paralysed the United Nations.
Article 14 of the Charter of the United Nations reads as follows “subject to the
provisions of article 12 the general assembly may recommend measures for the
peaceful adjustment of any situation regardless of origin which deals to impair
the general welfare of friendly nations amongst states.
Asylum
Political offender
Safe conduct
Asylum case (Columbia v Peru). In that case a Peruvian leader of a revolution
called Haya dela Torre. Sought refugee in Columbian embassy. Columbian
ambassador held Haya de la Torre was a political offender but Peru argued that
he was not a political offender. So they went to ICJ and held that only a third
party such as the court can rule on whether he was a political offender. But the
court held that Peru was wrong to characterize Haya dela Torre was common
criminal. Therefore he should be given safe conduct.
Extraordinary
Plenipotentiary
Article 2 (7): nothing contained in this charter shall authorize the UN to intervene
in matters that are within the jurisdiction of any state
Connally Amendment: it is the state itself which will determine that a matter is
within its jurisdiction. At it was under this article that South African prevented
the whole world from discussing apartheid.

19
PROBLEM 2:
PART ONE UPTO PARAGRAPH 8
Civil Strife with International Implications:
Does international law permit violation of airspace in case where countries want
to airlift their nationals?

States have used the excuse that they have been invited by the government in
power especially where the said government is overwhelmed by civil strife. In
the cold war, this was a recipe for disaster because the opposition will also ask
another friendly government to intervene to protect them from the government
in power. As soon as a civil strife torn country invited say USA, the USSR would
rush to the opposition’s rescue. This developed into cynicism where it was
alleged that the superpowers were using unfortunate situations to test their latest
weapons.
International law states that the question of inviting a foreign state to the rescue
violates the sovereignty of that nation and interferes with the rights of the
nationals to decide on their own problems. The law sanctions against continued
loss of life, genocide and unacceptable use of force. The United Nations uses
collective legitimate use of power to end genocide and loss of life.
It has always been the excuse that even where no other party intervenes, a state is
always being criticised for inviting external forces.
Is the invitation the all and be all? Can one question the circumstances under
which the invitation is issued? An argument in PIL is never conclusive, when the
only organ that has the right to use force (UN) enters the scene the first thing
they do is to ask that the combatants cease fire. When a nation intervenes to
supply arms for the rebels who are de-stabilising the legitimate government they
are accused of meddling.
Recognition of a state: this is a term used to refer to a situation in which a state
conducts normal international relations business with another state which it
recognises as a state i.e. by opening embassies, negotiating agreements ,or
making a statement recognising it as a state. Once a state has been recognised, it
will continue to exist as a state. A Government de jure and a Government de
facto.
The de jure is the one that possess the sovereignty having been in power but is being
prevented from exercising that power.
De facto does not have the sovereignty but is busy trying to exercise it (opposition)
If the de facto government is trying to usurp power by use of bullet other than
ballot, then that government ought to be denied recognition. This brings to mind
two theories of recognition

20
 1. Declaratory – the opposition has declared as the government of Elgon;
2. Constitutive – however much one declares to be a state, nobody will
care until a body or a state like the UN or OAU decide to recognise
that state. EU now has in its charter that where governments are
coming to power through coups are no longer acceptable. If a govt
comes to power through the gun – this leads to the Estrada Theory –
Estrada was the Mexican foreign minister who took the position that
even if a govt comes to power through the barrel of the gun, he should
not be denied recognition. All governments that emerge and become
de jure have sovereignty and control of the country should be
recognised irrespective of how they come into power. Estrada was
responding to a situation in which President Wilson of USA refused to
recognise a regime that came into power in Mexico through a
revolution which was spearheaded by Huerta. Wilson refused to
recognize the Huerta regime and said that he would never recognise
the Huerta regime (this is positive non-recognition) if there is ever to
be relations such a regime, another positive statement of recognition
would be required. Recognition is an important political act. It took
the USA 20 years to recognise China.
What is a state? It is more than a national anthem or its currency, it consists of
the general population etc.
International law allows a state to pick its friends through established rules of
international law.
By remaining neutral or silent, a state could find itself being accused of taking
sides.
Belligerency – section of the state which is competing to control power of that
state i.e. in this case Nyabera (leader of opposition) it is entitled to protection as a
belligerent and therefore allowed to request help on its own behalf.

EXTRADITION:
Extradition is only governed by treaties and there is no customary law of
extradition. This means that arresting someone who is alleged to have
committed a crime somewhere else or in ones own country but against the
interests of another country,
Nobody can be extradited to stand trial in another state except in accordance
with the extradition treaty between those two states. In the treaty of extradition
the parties will spell out the extraditable offences. They will list the crimes for
which they agree to turn over the offenders through the treaty.

21
Before somebody is turned over the state being requested must see to it that the
offence for which extradition is required is checked by the domestic state to
determine whether the extradition is proper. There has to be a procedure
followed to determine whether to extradite or not.
No state likes to extradite its own nationals to stand trial elsewhere especially if
the crimes they are accused of can be dealt with locally whether there is a treaty
of not. This is a state practice.
There is a big defence against extradition which is a political defence namely
nobody should be extradited for a political offence. Political offence being so
broad one may be accused with all kinds of charges that are politically
motivated.
If one is extradited because the offence is enumerated in that treaty, one will only
be tried only for that offence that they were extradited i.e. if one is extradited for
embezzlement, they cannot again charge you with any other offence even if it is
shown that apart from embezzlement you are selling drugs.
After Kenya attained independence, Her Majesty convinced Kenya to subscribe
to the Commonwealth Extradition Treaty. Please note that the treaty can be
varied depending on each case. The United Nations Conventions against taking
of Hostages has a provision saying that if a hostage taking situation arises
between two states who have no extradition treaty between them but if they are a
party to the UN hostage convention, then they can use it to effect extradition.
Collusion under International Law: Kenya criticised for allowing Israel Entebbe
raid casualties to be treated in Nairobi. There is no law against collusion. There
is however retortion which means that one state can withdraw a favour
originally granted.

The famous article of the Charter of the United Nations:-

Article 33 (1):
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the
maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all seek a solution
by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement,
resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own
choice.”
1. Negotiation
2. Enquiry
3. Mediation
4. Conciliation
5. Arbitration,
6. Judicial settlement

22
 7. Regional arrangements
Good offices -- entered in the 1950s, where a third party enters to make an
inquiry; it is informal. The third party is acceptable to both parties. It is a mailbox
services.

A mediator if different from somebody offering good offices. A mediator has the
power to study the situation from the result of the enquiry and suggest how to
solve the problem, offers solutions to the problems as he sees them. A person
offering good offices may become a mediator.
Proximity talks, instead of shuttle diplomacy.
Conciliation: elucidates the problems, and is usually several not one, with a
chairman: hence conciliation commissions.
Negotiation-enquiries-mediation-conciliation-good officer:. Informal non-
compulsory procedures for the settlement of disputes, meaning that whatever
solutions arrived can be rejected by any of the parties. So it is heavily politicized.
And this is why states hesitate to go to the next stop: arbitration. Once again
arbitrators appointed like mediators. The arbitrators are actually judges and the
result is binding upon the parties. Known otherwise as compulsory procedures.
States reluctant to move to the arbitration states, which closes in on judicial
settlement (through pre-constituted courts).
Arbitration is ad hoc. Judicial settlement you chose a court that already exists.
1962: Ethiopia and Liberia bring a case against South Africa over the League of
Nations trusteeship of South-West Africa. ICJ Agreed the two countries had the
procedural rights to bring the case before the court.
Four years later, in 1966, the ICJ decides that although Ethiopia and Liberia have
the procedural rights to bring the case, they did not have any of their citizens in
South Africa suffering the injury of apartheid, therefore the court could not offer
judicial. A Pakistan judge excused himself, thus allowing the majority to make
that decision.
Under article 24, a judge can excuse himself by informing the president of the
court.
The decision led to a boycott of ICJ by African countries: ICJ was a white man’s
court dispensing white man’s justice.
15 years later after the Security Council had decided to take away the control of
South-west Africa from South Africa and South Africa refusing to leave.
The UN created the Council for Namibia to take over the administration of
South-West Africa from South Africa, renamed Namibia. The Council even
passed laws to control the mines in Namibia.
But South Africa continued to sit tight. So in 1971 the Security Council asked ICJ
for an advisory opinion on South-West Africa, whether South African action was

23
a violation of international law. The ICJ. The ICJ gave an opinion favourable to
Africans and from then on African countries began taking cases to ICJ.
Article 53, paragraph 1 of the Statutes of ICJ: when one of the parties does not
appear before the court or fails to defend its case the other side may ask the court
to rule in its favour.
Do no harm+ Equitable utilization

Problem 3
1962: Ethiopia and Liberia bring a case against South Africa over the League of
Nations trusteeship of South-West Africa. ICJ Agreed the two countries had the
procedural rights to bring the case before the court.
Four years later, in 1966, the ICJ decides that although Ethiopia and Liberia have
the procedural rights to bring the case, they did not have any of their citizens in
South Africa suffering the injury of apartheid, therefore the court could not offer
judicial. A Pakistan judge excused himself, thus allowing the majority to make
that decision.
Under article 24,a judge can excuse himself by informing the president of the
court.
The decision led to a boycott of ICJ by African countries: ICJ was a white man’s
court dispensing white man’s justice.
15 years later after the Security Council had decided to take away the control of
South-west Africa from South Africa and South Africa refusing to leave.
The UN created the Council for Namibia to take over the administration of
South-West Africa from South Africa, renamed Namibia. The Council even
passed laws to control the mines in Namibia.

But South Africa continued to sit tight. So in 1971 the Security Council asked ICJ
for an advisory opinion on South-West Africa, whether South African action was
a violation of international law. The ICJ gave an opinion favourable to Africans
and from then on African countries began taking cases to ICJ.
Article 53, paragraph 1 of the Statutes of ICJ: when one of the parties does not
appear before the court or fails to defend its case the other side may ask the court
to rule in its favour.

Do no harm+ Equitable utilization

LAW OF THE SEA:

From the time sailors ventured into the sea, there was a problem of how far they
could go. Coastal states where fishermen go seaward looking for fish since time

24
immemorial, it was a problem as to how far the state would extend its
jurisdiction to the sea. Two competing concepts were debated in the early 1600.

John Selden said that the sea was closed or ‘closed sea – mare clossum that the
sea only belonged to countries with coasts. This was opposed by a Dutch Jurist
Hugo Grotius who argued for the freedom of the sea and that all countries
could come to the sea and do whatever they wanted freedom of the sea – mare
liberum. Grotius won. Which means that the High Seas belonged to everybody
and other countries can come and enjoy. But the declaration of the freedom of
the sea concept did not settle 1930 the question of determining the extent of
coastal state jurisdiction sea-ward how far coastal state can extend their
jurisdiction in the sea. From 1600 –remained unanswered. Some extended their
jurisdiction 3 nautical miles others 12 and some 20 nautical miles as territorial
sea.

In 1930 the League of Nations decided to undertake a study of the Law of the Sea
to see if they could settle the question the breadth of territorial sea. The League
of Nations to codify the Law of the Sea failed and the question of coastal
jurisdiction remained unanswered. 3 Nautical Miles was declared by the USA
argument has it that that was the distance of a canon ball shot at the coast. The
USA was only going to acquire territory that it could defend.
In the early 40’s after failure of the League of Nations to settle the issue there
emerged a number of unilateral declarations by states extending their territorial
sea.
In 1947 Harry S Truman’s Proclamation brought in the concept of the doctrine of
Continental shelf. Truman said that the coastal state jurisdiction should be on
the basis of the continental shelf which he described as a natural prolongation of
the land mass. At this time 1947 -1950 in response to Truman some states
extended their territory to 100 nautical miles and most South American countries
extended their jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles of territorial sea.
The United Nations decided to codify Law of the Sea so from 1950 – 1958 the UN
was studying and trying to codify international law of the sea. In 1958 the
Geneva Convention on the Law of the sea was passed. Four conventions were
actually passed, one on territorial sea, one on continental shelf, one on High Seas
and one on fisheries jurisdiction. At this time apart from the countries that had
declared 200 miles, the world was beginning to realise it was perhaps not
realistic. The Vienna convention accepted the natural prolongation of the land
mass theory but one can follow the land mass to the extent it permits
exploitation. This became the law of the sea as was produced in 1958. this was
the first UN conference on the Law of the Sea. UNCLOS I.

25
In 1960 the United Nations there was another convention exclusively devoted to
solving the Fisheries jurisdiction UNCLOS II. This one failed miserably.
Richard Quenton claimed UNCLOSE II was not a total failure as he met his
future wife here. It failed because it was unable to answer the crucial question of
how far the state could extend fishing jurisdiction.
Not all countries have continental shelves. There are those shelf-locked countries
which do not even have a coast to speak about. There are other countries with
shelf continuing to the deep sea and those that have straight coast lines. The
legal definition of continental shelf became the continental shelf proper,
continental slope, continental rise which equals to continental margin. Some
states claimed upto to 600 miles some 500, some 400, some 3000 some land-
locked and others with barely a shelf – how was an agreement to be arrived at?
It was discovered that countries like Japan could roam the world and were
fishing from coasts of other countries. The United Nations convened the 3 rd
United Nations Conference on the law of the Sea UNCLOS III this is the one that
for almost 8 years began to unravel all the problems of the continental sea shelf.
It was agreed that efforts must be made to get a solution on how far a state can
extend jurisdiction and the rest would be high seas and whatever was in the
High Seas was to be declared common heritage of mankind.
The seabed, the sub-soil and the resources thereof beyond the limit of natural
jurisdiction were declared common heritage of mankind and cannot be
expropriated by any state but can only be exploited on behalf of mankind.
It took almost 9 years to come to an agreement. The states finally negotiated and
arrived at an agreement …all the countries wanted a new law of the sea and were
ready to agree. In this effort there was an appeal for all the states to have a
territorial sea that extended only upto 12 nautical miles so now all countries of
the world have territorial seas of up to 12 nautical miles.
Kenya came up with the concept of Exclusive Economic Zone and floated the
idea Frank Njenga the legal adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggested
at the meeting of African, Asian Legal meeting suggested that they tried an area
in which the state exercised less than complete sovereignty. The area was to be
called an exclusive economic zone. The question was how far could the exclusive
economic zone extend? What was to be the regime of the economic zone?
Landlocked states jumped in and EEZ and wanted to share in the resources of
the EEZ. The Africans met in Kampala and made a declaration on the Law of the
Sea in 1985. Landlocked states of Africa would exploit the EEZ resources with
the same rights as coastal nations. This was taken to the 3 rd World Caucus where
the proposal was rejected. However, it remained a concept of EEZ remained a
viable concept that was finally accepted and is written in the Law of the Sea. A

26
country can now have 12 nautical miles of territorial sea and 188 nautical miles
EEZ making it a total 200 miles of jurisdiction.
Within the EEZ a coastal state permits other states the right of over-flight and
they can layout pipelines, can install submarine cables within the EEZ of a state
but with that state’s consent. In the exclusive economic zone, no state can do any
research of any kind without the consent of the coastal state. consent regime on
scientific research and the treaty enumerates the rights and obligations of the
states that want to conduct research on the EEZ, the coastal states have to
approve. Since it is the Western world that have the capacity to do the research,
it became clear that the Western World were not going to accept the consent
regime, the Western World Engineers manipulated another clause that provides
that although there was the consent regime, they would introduce the concept of
implied consent meaning that if a Norwegian Government ship sent an
application to come and study the mating habits of Lobsters and answered all the
questions as required by the treaty, if they wait for 3 months without consent,
there is implied consent and they can now come and do their research. States
have the right of not being held hostage by other nations. This implied consent
became a big problem to the 3rd world.

The law of the sea took so long to succeed. Some countries have concave coasts,
other convex coasts. The Geneva Convention of 1958 had a provision saying that
the states with opposite or adjacent coasts were to delimit their territories by
medium equidistant lines which are drawn in such a way such that the states
with convex and those with concave could avoid being cut off. But the states
with straight line i.e. between Germany and Netherlands, the question of the use
of the Median/Equidistance line to delimit was tested. Here the court advocated
equitable principles of delimitation so that a state could avoid an unjust result.
Where it was possible to use the Median/Equidistance line one could use where
not one could use other methods of delimitation and up to today the Law of the
Sea failed to reach an agreement on the method of delimitation. Look at the
Pemba Channel delimitation.
In the area of managing the fisheries, every state has the right to sustainably
develop the resources of the EEZ as follows:
Our scientists must tell us that for the Lobster in order to achieve avoiding over-
utilisations and under-utilization of the species, the scientists must every year tell
us how to maintain maximum sustainable yield of the Lobster so that we do not
over-utilise the species. The scientists must tell us the total allowable catch. The
law requires that if a state’s technical capability allows it to only harvest 60% less
than optimum yield, the law requires that state to declare the surplus. The
problem arises though where states may have submarines in other states’ coasts

27
without anyone knowing what they are doing and developed countries do
sometimes dispute the figures that are given but not so developed states like
Kenya.
Continental shelf
They agreed to give the coastal states the continental shelves upto to the slopes,
this was not unanimously agreed. They then allowed 60 extra nautical miles
from the slopes and the states refused. The scientist were called in who said that
the difference was in the earth crust and the ocean crust – just follow the sand
sediments and you will know when you are exiting the earth crust and in any
case more than 350 nautical miles was disallowed. Stay within the earth crust
but don’t go beyond 350 nautical miles. The law of the sea is now the continental
shelf, the slope and the earth’s crust and not more than 350 nautical miles of the
earth’s crust.
The deep sea bed area is the common heritage of mankind. The minerals like
manganese nodules are potato crisps like nodules which are rich in Nickel,
copper, cobalt which can be mined and distributed to mankind.
USA, France and Germany who had the technology to mine the sea beds and
have access to the minerals were stopped from exploiting the minerals wanted
automatic access to the sea bed had to agree to keep the sea shelf for upto 350
nautical miles to be allowed automatic access to the minerals in the common
heritage sea bed area.
Two studies were commissioned on the economic consequences of seabed
mining, whether the seabed mining had the capacity to affect the economies of
states who depended on mining the minerals in their own countries. The two
studies produced opposite results. The question of automatic access to seabed
mining was therefore rejected as the 3rd world created their poor multinational
called enterprise. This enterprise was supposed to be the operational arm of the
seabed. They created the Seabed authority to govern all the activities of seabed
mining. Only the seabed authority could giving mining authority to prospecting
states. The Seabed Authority came up with the banking system that allowed
them to negotiate with the countries with technology such that where they
allowed mining, the area was to be divided into two equal parts, one for the
prospecting state and the other for the Authority to negotiate and share with a
company that could share the proceeds with the Authority.
All these problems were surmounted and there was a new law of the sea, all
states agreed they wanted a new law of the sea and in the spirit of compromise,
consensus to deal with issues and agree came out.

PROBLEM III

28
The chase of Ogulmama chased a foreign vessel to the High Seas – this is the
concept of hot pursuit. This exists in customary international law and was
frequently used by Coastal States in relation to their territorial seas (which was
an area of coastal jurisdiction and a state could pursue a ship that invaded its
waters.
Article 111 of Law of Sea – establishes concept of the Law of the Sea. States as
follows the hot pursuit of a ship may be undertaken …
Such pursuit must be commenced
Hot pursuit can now be applied mutatis when …mutandis in the EEC including
safety zones. The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory
signal has been issued or
There is no indication that ogulmama sent any signal to stop the foreign ship so
there was no ship or auditory or visual signal.
Para 3 – foreign vessels claims to be in the High Seas Ogulmama claims the ship
is in the EEC.
Ogulmama had no business to enter into the foreign ship if it was in the High
Seas. The ships fly the flags of the states of which they are nationals. In the High
seas they are only subjects to the jurisdiction of the states whose flags they fly. In
the High Seas the ships are assumed to be in the territory of the state whose flag
it is flying and cannot be subject to any other jurisdiction. Objective territory.
Since states are equal they are sovereign you cannot enter their territory without
their permission. In customary international law the case most cited for hot
pursuit concept is called I’M Alone Case.
The case most cited for objective territoriality is the Lotus Case

Paragraph 4:
A government ship entitled to protection under customary international law
means that “it was a government ship that enjoyed sovereign immunity.” What
is sovereign immunity? There are two types
1. Public Acts of a State: - Acta jure Imperil’ total immunity
2. Private Acts of a state: - (Commercial Activities of a state) Acta Jure
Gestionis – qualified immunity to begin with then finally no immunity.
for years US, UK Germany France claimed that Act Jure Imperil are immune
from questions by anybody. Later on they began to change the rules and to come
up with the private acts of a state or commercial activities of a state which are not
immune – they don’t have total immunity. And finally they have no immunity at
all. There were a lot of disagreements and the United Nations suggested that a
particular legal standard be made on jurisdiction of immunity.
The developed nations tried to codify the acts which would be act jure gestionis
for which no immunity would be granted. The study went on for 15 years. The

29
conclusion and the model treaty which was suggested has not been produced
even today. This is because it became baffling to the states on why the
developed nations were passing on sovereign immunity Acts saying that the acts
they enjoyed before are now no longer going to be covered by immunity. The
draft articles produced never saw the light of day because the argument was that
if a state undertakes a commercial activity and competes with individuals and
they all sign a contract with the same supplier, how is the problem where one
refuses to pay and the other one is compel to be resolved.
For an act to be act jure gestationis Nigeria in the Trendtex Case argued that they
had bought cement from Texas to build army barracks, they argued that the
nature of the contract. Which was for government purposes, if the activity
involved was an act that any ordinary person would do, then it could not be
afforded immunity.
Properties that Foreign states owned abroad how were these to be treated? One
cannot attach the property of a foreign state. This means that domestic courts
cannot issue judgments against other states and their property. This jurisdiction.

Sovereign immunity -
Act of state doctrine – every state should respect the sovereignty and political
independence of other states. An act of one state taking place within its own
territory is not subject to be question by the court of another state. not the same
as saying that a state is immuned from jurisdiction.
In trendtex Case it was sovereign immunity Nigeria was claiming as the act
happened in Texas.
For a court to conclusively establish that International Law forms part of the law
of the State ‘Paquette Habana’ is the case most quoted where the court confirmed
that international law forms part of the law of the state.
West Rand Central Mining Company V. The King – cited for Her Majesty’s judges
confirming that International law forms part of England’s state law.
Withdrawal of Ambassadors is meant to show displeasure.
Severing diplomatic relations
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,
Provisional Measures – under Article 41 of the Statute of ICJ the court shall have
the power to indicate provisional measures if it considers that circumstances so
require. Any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the rights
of both parties.
Article 290 – If a dispute duly submitted to a court or tribunal which considers
that prima facie it has jurisdiction under the Article the Court or tribunal may
prescribe provisional measures which it considers appropriate under
circumstance to protect the rights of either party.

30
The difference between Article 290 (1982) UN law of the Sea and the article 41 OF
THE Statute of the ICJ is that this one had power to prescribe provisional
measures and once prescribed they were meant to be complied with and the
former was meant to indicate.
If there is a conflict between states that have not both accepted either the ICJ or
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the case should go for
Arbitration.
A Compromis is the legal term referring to an agreement between states that the
parties have agreed to submit a certain dispute to an agreed forum to which they
have conferred jurisdiction for dispute settlement.

PROBLEM IV
Treaty
How are treaties negotiated.
Usually a problem is identified by states and meetings are held.
NOTE VERBAL (Verbal Note)
The instruments exchanged between governments to initiate communication
between themselves.
1. Convention:
2. International Agreements
3. Accord
4. Protocol
5. Covenants
6. Charter
7. Memorandum Of Understanding – an instrument with connotations and
legal consequences for non-compliance.

These are all means of recording agreements reached on negotiations. There are
no hard and fast rules to the distinctions of the above. Because of this reason the
international community got together to decide how to negotiate all these
instruments and they called it the Law of the Treaties. All these terms are alright
but they will stick to the term Treaty.
Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: a treaty is an international agreement
concluded between states in writing governed by international law and may be
in a single or more documents whatever designation.
Preamble: a preamble is a part of a treaty in which the drafters establish the
philosophy, inspirations and reasons why they are putting a particular matter in
writing. The preamble is the rationale behind the desire to have the treaty.
Examples of a preamble is where states after realising that something they are
responsible for together they get together to form a treaty. The preamble will be

31
the inspiration of the subject matter. They have to have an issue in common. E.g.
in problem IV sustainable use of Lolwe river.
Every treaty must have a preamble and a final clause. Final clause is where the
treaty says that it will be open for signature when the treaty is concluded. The
text of a treaty is deposited with a person who keeps the text and circulates it to
all the involved parties. Usually it is head of an organisations e.g the Secretary
General of OAU etc.
The law of treaties is to the effect that a state negotiating a treaty can sign within
the specified period wherever it has been agreed upon to be signed within a
certain period.
The law of treaty says that the treaty in the final clause shall be subject to
ratification, accession or approval. These are key terms in any treaty and
together they are referred to as expression of consent to be bound.
If a state takes part in the negotiation of the treaty and the treaty opens for
signature, unless the treaty itself permits the only way a state can bind itself is by
ratification, signature and then ratification. Ratification is done by producing an
instrument to express consent to be bound.
Where the treaty was negotiated and never signed because open day has expired,
it means the state who did not sign on time can no longer become party to it and
can only become party to the treaty by accession.
Signature alone does not mean that if a country signs it becomes bound on that
date of signing unless the treaty permits but this is rare.
The final clause will also by agreement of the state negotiating decide how many
such instruments i.e. ratification, accession, approval are needed for that treaty to
enter into force. Entry into force of a treaty – i.e. the treaty shall enter into force
on 30th August 2004. Once it is signed and ratified by a number of states even
though it has not reached the maximum number but once it receives 7 stated
instruments, it is ready. The treaty only becomes law when it achieves the 7
instruments of a treaty it enters into force. The states themselves agree on how
many instruments are required before the treaty can be binding. For example the
state can agree on how many instruments are required to make the treaty
binding.
Ratification, Signatory, Accession
Ratification - The state binds itself to the convention and agrees to immediately
start implementing steps to realise the rights contained in the covenant;
Signatory – The state shows willingness to be bound by the convention, but the
convention is not binding on it yet; (state binds itself not to do anything
derogative from the main provisions of the treaty i.e something that will work
against the realization of the benefits of the treaty)

32
Accession – Instead of signing and then ratifying a convention, a state becomes
party to it by a single act.
A state can send its instruments of ratification indicating what it chooses to be
bound by. The reservation must be indicated in the face of the instrument and
when the reservation has been formulated and received by the depository it is
circulated to all parties who have agreed to be bound. Please note that the treaty
must be one that allows reservations. There are however treaties that says they
are not subject to reservations and this means that all its clauses must be
accepted by everybody. The states that feel that they will not ratify a treaty that
does not permit reservations may decide to vote against it.
If a treaty is silent about reservations, can a state make reservations anyway? Yes
a state can make reservations but not to the article that forms the fundamental
purpose of the treaty. The reason why
The law of treaty will decide whether a reservation effectively nullifies the
membership of a state to that treaty. Most treaties opt for a no reservation clause
or silence.
CLEAN SLATE DOCTRINE (Tabular Rasa)
Where a state becomes independent and says it will no longer be bound by the
treaties ratified by the colonial masters and want to start with a clean slate.
Concept of historical rights: Egypt insisting on historical rights vis-à-vis
waters of the Nile.

PROBLEM IV
The population dependent in riparian in each riparian state.
Equitable utilisation of a river
The idea of treaty law and conflict management in dealing with shared natural
resources like rivers.

PROBLEM V
There are 5 international relations problems
Mining Contract – Concession- an agreement between a sovereign state and a
corporation is called a concession. It is also called a ‘State Contract’ signed
between a state and a natural or juridical person.
Which law governs the contract? Lex loci celebrationis - the law of the place
where the contract is negotiated, the contract makes the choice on whether to
follow the law of the place where the contract was negotiated or the law of the
state that party to the contract.

33
Any dispute arising from such contracts – usually the contracts have an
arbitration clause.
Choice of laws and dispute settlement.
There must be Environmental Impact Assessment after mining is completed e.g.
to fill the holes already dug and to leave the area in a habitable way. This is
called an Agreement for Natural Resources Development. If a company wants
to build a subsidiary foreign company, it has to use local materials, if it is
employing many people it has to build schools for the children of the employees
living there, if they are prospecting for hard minerals or oil, the expert
prospectus must be accompanied by local experts of technology.
Jus cogens – this is the peremptory/absolute norm, the norm that cannot be
delegated to it will prevent states from conspiring to attack another state. Other
states cannot also enter into an agreement in which they produce counterfeit.
Can countries change their boundaries? In 1964 the OAU meeting in Cairo
passed a resolution in which they all agreed to accept unchanged the inherited
colonial boundaries at independence. This is the principal adopted by African
Countries relying on the principle of not disturbing the boundaries and leaving
them as they were – the principle is called Uti Possidetis. This principle is
invoked on any country that wants to change boundaries.
The principle of proportionality: The crossing of the border to another country
could be met by a comparable force proportionate to the force that is incoming
or in responding to an unarmed attack. Refer to the case of Naulilaa Case:
Provisional Measure of Protection Interim Measure of protection under
International Law and under domestic law is called an interlocutory injunction:
this is where somebody wanting to stop some activities from continuing while
there is a dispute going on. Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations. The
court must weigh the case before it and indicate if it considers the circumstances
required to preserve the rights of the party, but where the court feels that the
activities are going on that are not okay the court will preserve the rights of the
parties.

Article 62 of the Charter deals with question of an interest of a legal nature.

Intervention is only allowed where the interest being protected is of a legal
nature.
The Temple Preah Vihear Case [1962] I.C.J. Reports (Thailad& Burma
Changing your position to the detriment of another person who relied on your
position before it was changed is estopped. The doctrine of estoppel.
This country is estopped from denying since it acquiesced.
Walvis Bay was administered as part of Namibia although it was part of the
Orange Free State in South Africa. When South Africa realised that Namibia was

34
about to become independent they annexed Walvis Bay. South Africa had not
raised the question of Walvis Bay for the 10 years that Namibia was fighting for
independence. As the matter came up and became a problem, the republic of
South Africa declared Walvis Bay annexed to its territory but Namibia re-
annexed it back to Namibia, it was held that Walvis Bay was part of Namibia and
South Africa could not all of a sudden change its position and declare that Walvis
Bay is not part of Namibia, South Africa was estopped from claiming Walvis Bay.
Acquiescence and estoppel, one must show conduct, reliance upon that conduct,
detriment from that reliance.

35