CHAPTER 6

OTHER SUBJECTS OF INT’L LAW

States (Dominant)
International Organizations
Insurgents
Liberation Movements
Individuals (in a ltd way)

International Orgs
3 Qs:
Establishment/Existence
International Personality
Immunities

It is set up by a TREATY among 2 OR MORE STATES. As opposed to NGO’s which are set up
by private persons.
Constituent Doc: Treaty. Because of this, only states are members of international orgs.

What if claims are brought against states which are NOT MEMBERS of the Orgs?
The Court: Members of the UN created an entity possessing objective international
personality and not merely personality recognized by them alone.

IO’s powers and privileges are limited by the constituent instrument that created them (Advisory
Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons). IO’s are governed by the principle of specialty. They
can exercise implied powers.

Principle of Specialty
-they are invested by the states which create them with powers, the limits of which are a
function of the common interests whose promotion those States entrust to them.

Implied Powers
-subsidiary powers which are not expressly provided for in the basic instruments which
govern their activities.

IMMUNITIES
-based not on sovereignty as it is for states but the need for the effective exercise of their
functions.

*UN Immunities are in UN Charter Art. 105:

1. Org shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as
are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes;
 2. UN Members’ Reps and Org’s Officials shall similarly enjoy such privileges and
immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with
the Org.;
3. GenAss may make recommendations with a view to determine the details of the
application of pars. 1and 2 or may propose conventions to the UN Members for this
purpose.

STATE JURISDICTION
(Sarmiento)

A. INTERNATIONAL JD PRINCIPLES

INT’L JD
-allocation of power and authority among the States.
TYPES OF JD recognized in Int’l Law
1. to prescribe;
2. to enforce; and
3. to adjudicate.
BASES OF JD:

1. Territoriality
Subjective
Objective

*NCC Art. 14

2. Nationality
Active
Passive

*NCC Art. 15

3. Protective Principle
*RPC Art. 2

4. Universality
*In crimes like piracy

5. Agreement

As a general rule, JD IS TERRITORIAL; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its

territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or convention.
 Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that States may not extend the
application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside
their territory, Int’l Law leaves them in these certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other
cases, every State remains free to adopt the principles which it regards as best and most suitable
(SS Lotus; France v. Turkey).

The authority of a nation within its territory is absolute and exclusive. The seizure of a
vessel within the range of its cannon by a foreign force is an invasion of that territory and is a
hostile act which it is its duty to repel. But its power to secure itself from injury may certainly be
exercised beyond the limits of its territory (CJ Marshall; Church v. Hubbart).

EXTERRIORALITY
-that status of a person or thing physically present on a State’s territory, but wholly or
partly withdrawn from the State’s jurisdiction by a rule of international law. Under this,
diplomatic premises are deemed part of the sovereign territory of the sending State, HAS NOT
BEEN ADOPTED IN THE VIENNA CONVENTION.
It implies a fiction that the individuals enjoying the privilege shall be treated as if they
were not on the territory of the State.

EXTRADITION
-the removal of an accused from the requested State (asylum state) with the object of
placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting State or government to
hold him/her in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution
of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting State or
government.

a. UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY

A fugitive from justice may be extradited only upon the authority of an EXTRADITION
TREATY between the requesting and the requested states.

b. THE PERSONS
Those CHARGED OR CONVICTED of offenses that are extraditable under the terms of
the extradition treaty between the requesting state where the crime was committed and the
requested state where the person requested to be extradited has sought refuge.

c. EXTRADITABLE OFFENSES
Those which are specifically listed in the extradition treaty to be extraditable (LIST-TYPE
EXTRADITION TREATY) or which are defined and punished as crimes under the laws of
BOTH the requesting and the requested State (DOUBLE CRIMINALITY CLAUSE). The usual
exceptions are political and religious offenses.
 *In the absence of a treaty, there is no obligation to extradite. A state may volunteer to
extradite an individual without the existence of a treaty but is obliged only by the terms of a
treaty. In practice, therefore, the return of criminals is secured by means of extradition
agreements between the States.

ELEMENTS:
a. ACTS OF SOVEREIGNTY on the part of two states;
b. a REQUEST by one state to another state for the delivery to it of an alleged criminal;
and
c. the DELIVERY of the person requested for the purposes of trial or sentence in the
territory of the requesting state.

DEPORTATION
-is essentially a UNILATERAL act of the deporting State in order to get rid of an
UNDESIRED FOREIGN NATIONAL. Its purpose is achieved when such alien leaves the
deporting State’s territory.
Destination of the deportee is irrelevant to the purpose.

EXTRADITION
The surrender by force of a wanted person by
the requested State to the requested State.
May only be made pursuant to a treaty
between the requesting state and the requested
state.
For the benefit of the requesting state.
DEPORTATION
The expulsion of an unwanted or undesirable
alien.
A pure unilateral act and an exercise of
sovereignty.
Takes place in the interest of the country of
residence and is ordered without a request by
a third state.

REDUCTION TO THE BORDER

-is the forcible expulsion of undesirable aliens by arresting them and reconduction them to
the border or their home state. It is a police-to-police expulsion without any condition and
without judicial intervention.

American JD:
Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose presence is deemed
inimical to the public interest is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent
their entry into the country. This right is based on the fact that since the aliens are not part of the
nation, their admission into the territory is a matter of pure permission and simple tolerance
which creates no obligation on the part of the government to permit them to stay.
MAY THE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ORDER THE CANCELLATION OF
PASSPORT WHERE ITS HOLDER IS FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES TO COMPEL HIS
RETURN TO THE COUNTRY WITHOUT PRIOR HEARING? (BAR 1959)
Yes. Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or
cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. But where the holder of a passport is
facing a criminal charge in our courts and left the country to evade criminal prosecution, the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of his discretion to revoke a passport already
issued; cannot be held to have acted whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing and canceling
such passport. Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion is
exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious
criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a
prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not violate the due
process of law clause of the constitution; and the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot
be deemed whimsical and capricious of because of the absence of such hearing (June 29, 1957,
Suntay v. People, G.R. No. L-9430).

DISGUISED EXTRADITION/INFORMAL SURRENDER

-there is disguised extradition where deportation is used to achieve extradition.
IRREGULAR RENDITIONS
-a practice of some states that is borne of frustration caused by the unwillingness of a
country upon which a valid extradition request has been made to carry out its international
obligations.

KINDS OF IRREGULAR RENDITIONS

TRANSNATIONAL FORCIBLE ABDUCTIONS
-one sovereign may simply kidnap the culprit seeking refuge in a foreign land, an action
that is invariably against the law of the foreign jurisdiction. Adolf Eichmann case.

INFORMAL SURRENDER/DISGUISED EXTRADITION

-without process, the foreign jurisdiction may simply grant permission or silently accede
to the requesting state’s demand for the surrender of the fugitive or it may affirmatively move to
deport or expel him/her. Pakistani surrendered to the US following the World Trade Center
bombing.

LURES
-Tricked by subterfuge or deception, the fugitive may be lured from an extradition refuge
to the territory of the pursuing State, international waters, or to another country permitting
extradition to the pursuing State.

KER-FRISBIE DOCTRINE
-It is a doctrine that holds that criminal defendants may be tried regardless of whether
their presence before the court was secured from outside its territorial jurisdiction by means other
than pursuant to a valid extradition.
AIMS OR PURPOSES OF EXTRADITION
a. Criminal prosecution - instituted by authorities of the requesting State or government
charging the accused with an offense; and
b. Execution of a prison sentence - imposed by a court of the requesting State or
government, with such duration as that stipulated in the relevant extradition treaty or convention,
to be served in the jurisdiction of and as a punishment for an offense committed by the accused
within the territorial jurisdiction of the requesting State or government. (P.D. 1069, Art. 3)

PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE CRIMINALITY

The Principle of Double Criminality makes all offenses defined and punished as crimes
under the laws of both States Parties as extraditable without need of a specific listing of
extraditable offense in the treats.

*The rule does not require that the act must be punished under the laws of both the
contracting parties at the time of its commission. It simply requires that to be extraditable, the act
must be punished under the laws of both contracting parties at the time of the making the request
for extradition. Moreover, not being penal in nature, an extradition treaty is not covered by the
constitutional proscription against ex post facto laws.

SOME STANDARD TREATY LIMITATIONS ON EXTRADITION

Prohibition of discrimination
Lack of probable cause clause
Exceptions for political and military offenses
Rule of Specialty – designed to ensure that a fugitive surrendered for one offense is not
tried for other crimes the rule of specialty prevents a request for extradition from being used as a
subterfuge to obtain custody of a person for trial or execution of a sentence on different charges
that are not extraditable or properly documented in the request.

ATTENTAT CLAUSE
-an exception to the political crimes except in extradition treaties. It provides that the
assassination, murder, attempt on the life of, or other willful cries against the person of the Head
of State or Government of either of the state parties or of a member of his/her family shall not be
regarded political crime.

*As long as the request for extradition is upon the authority of an existing extradition
treaty between the requesting and the requested states, then it may NOT BE REFUSED. The
requested state is bound by pacta sunt servanda to comply in good faith with its obligations
under the treaty.

BAIL OF A POTENTIAL EXTRADITEE

-a prospective extraditee may be granted bail during the pendency of the extradition
proceedings.
 The Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under
detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies
include the right to be admitted to bail.

*An extradition treaty may apply to crimes committed prior to its effectivity unless the
treaty expressly exempts them.
*The concept of EPF laws is limited only to penal and criminal statutes that affect the
substantial rights of the accused. An extradition treaty is neither a piece of criminal legislation
nor a criminal procedural statute. It merely provides for the extradition of persons wanted for
prosecution of an offense or a crime which was already committed or consummated at the time
the treaty was ratified (Wright v. CA).

*Extradition is not a criminal proceeding but it bears all the earmarks of a criminal
process. It is characterized by:
a. it entails a DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY on the part of the potential extradite; anad
b. the MEANS EMPLOYED to attain extradition’s purpose is also the “machinery of
criminal law.”

It is SUI GENERIS, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different
nations. It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extradite. Nor is it a
full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. Its object is to prevent
the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his/her return to the state
from which s/he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment.

THE UNITED NATIONS