MARCOS, MA. MINETTE FRITZIE T.

1. Define International Law

International law is the body of law that governs the legal relations that exist between or
among sovereign states or nations. It governs the interaction of sovereign states (Public
International Law) and the rights and duties of citizens of sovereign states to citizens of
other sovereign states (Private International Law). It is generally acknowledged and
accepted as binding in inter-state and international interactions. International law is
established by custom or treaty and is regarded as binding in the interactions of nations.

2. How do we prove the existence of a customary law?

There is the existence of customary law when there is evidence of general practice
accepted as law through a constant and virtually uniform usage among States over a
period of time. The "general practice" must indicate a broad consensus regarding
content and applicability, stemming from a sense that the practice is compulsory (opinio
juris et necessitatis). Whether a state has ratified any relevant treaty, customary law is
binding on all states, excluding those that may have opposed to it during its
establishment.

3. Cite an example of subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law, and
explain why is it categorized as such.

Judicial decisions of state and international courts is a subsidiary means for determining
international law. Generally, such decisions help to define and solidify international legal
norms however, they are not binding but merely advisory in nature.

4. Cite a jurisprudence explaining the jurisdiction of states in international law.

The concept of jurisdiction refers to a state's power to prescribe and enforce criminal and
regulatory laws and its power over activities occurring within its territory. In the case of
People Vs. Wong Cheng [G.R. No. L-18924], appellee is accused of having illegally
smoked opium, aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while said
vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores of the city. The
issue concerned whether or not the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime committed
aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters. The court ruled that
Philippines have jurisdiction. The court used the two fundamental rules as to jurisdiction
over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in territorial waters of another
country; the French Rule and the English Rule. 

5. Show the phases in conflicts resolution in your jurisprudence in number 4.

In the judicial resolution of conflict-of-laws problems, three phases are involved:

jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. In the case of
People Vs. Wong Cheng [G.R. No. L-18924], there are two fundamental rules in
International Law on this subject: the French rule, which states that crimes committed
aboard foreign merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in the courts of the country
within whose territorial jurisdiction they were committed, unless their commission
MARCOS, MA. MINETTE FRITZIE T.

endangers the peace and security of the territory; and the English rule, which is based
on the territorial principle and is followed in the United States. The last of these two rules
applies in this jurisdiction, because the doctrines and jurisprudence prevalent in the
United States on this subject currently have authority in the Philippines, which is now a
territory of the United States.

The mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held by this court
not triable by or courts, because the primary object of our Opium Law is to protect the
inhabitants of the Philippines from the disastrous effects entailed by the use of this drug,
and its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not
bring about the effects that our statute contemplates avoiding in the said territory.
Hence, mere possession is not deemed a disruption of public order. However, to smoke
opium within our territorial bounds, even if aboard a foreign merchant ship, is
unquestionably a breach of the public order established here. It directly contradicts the
intent of our legislature in establishing the aforementioned restrictive statute.