General rule: states are free to act as long as there is no prohibition or customary rule that says

that they cannot do it.

The only limitation w/ respect to this independence is the scope and content.
— labor code will not apply if you are a filipino working for ICMC and IRRI
— NLRC has no jurisdiction

Specific context where individuals can be subject to IL:

1. UNCLOS disputes- parties to contracts exploitation to marine resources (parties can be
natural or juridical person)
2. Treat Claim Settlement declaration- IRAN US Claims Tribunal— individuals can submit
settlement of their claims
3. The Peace Treaty after the end of WWI– gave individuals standing to file action
regarding the money claims etc…
We can only claim locus standi by individuals by virtue of agreement between states
Emphasize this option regarding arbitrator and internationalized contract. — cannot be decided
by regular courts but by international courts because these kinds of contracts are not made
between governments and not wholly international— they are still considered as one because
they are entered into (last sentence in the first parag

*** typical oil contract in ME countries***

JURISDICTION
— not exclusive; can be concurrent with other states esp if the person or property is situated of
a third state.

You can be supreme within your territory as long as it does not violate the states legal
obligations

Case studies:
(MISSING SLIDES)
**** READ PP V GOZO
- Jurisdiction may diminish but it does not disappear
FACTS:
Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the US Naval Reservation within the
territorial jurisdiction of Olangapo City. She demolished the house and built another one in its
place without securing a building permit from the City Mayor of Olangapo City. The City Court
of Olangapo found her guilty of violating a municipal ordinance that requires permit from the
municipal mayor for construction of building as well as any modification, repairs or demolition
thereof.

On appeal with the Court of Appeals, Gozo put in issue the validity of such ordinance by
invoking due process. She likewise questioned the applicability of the ordinance to her in view of
the location of her dwelling within the naval base leased to the American Armed Forces; she
contended that the municipal government could not exercise therein-administrative jurisdiction.

ISSUES:

1. Whether municipal ordinance is valid?

2. Whether the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the area
where Gozo‘s house was located?

HELD:

1. YES, the municipal ordinance is valid. The authority to require building permits is
predicated upon the general welfare clause. Its scope is wide, well nigh all embracing,
covering every aspect of public health, public morals, public safety, and the well-being
and good order of the community.

2. YES, the municipal corporation retains its administrative jurisdiction over the said area.
By the agreement, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States
exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. This consent was given purely as a matter of comity,
courtesy or expediency. The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty
over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of
jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United
States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such
 offenses. The Philippine jurisdiction retains not only jurisdictional rights not granted, but
also such ceded rights as the United States Military authorities for reasons of their own
decline to make use of.

Moreover, the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation is the property of a state force

due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.
x x x A state is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise
of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means
follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status
as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be dismissed, but
it does not disappear. Therefore, it is with the bases under lease to the American armed
forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be
foreign territory.
3.

DISCUSSION OF THE CASE ABOVE: SC discussed that states can restrict its sovereign rights
as auto limitation— they autolimit their power because of (3 par above)------ LOSE SOME, GAIN
SOME
4th question: tanada vs angara 3rd par. Of the slide

– only consent that jurisdiction is recognized or waived

- State consent can be express or implied; limitation of jurisdiction—- traced back to
consent of the state
 - These are customary international rules; universally recognized

FOCUS: CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

3 kinds: prescriptive, adjudicative, enforcement
Eg. bin laden; US enforcing laws on terrorism outside their territory
— France and Turkey
– collision in the high seas and the nearest port was turkey and when they embarked, the french
officer was apprehended and France got angry
Blocking legislation- (defined in the last sentence) usually nadakpan na ang offender
It is not the ownership of the ship but the registration of the ship
Even if the owner is Filipino but it is registered in China— vessel must fly the Chinese flag.
Next meeting: TREATIES
Upload the jurisdiction cases at the beginning of the class
Last two cases: Ker v Illinois, Sosa v Alvarez