Jose Cristobal Liwanag

Public International Law

1. Ukrainian Conflict
I am against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Russia’s action violates several international laws,
like:

- The United Nations Charter

o Article 2(4): This article prohibits member states from using force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Russia's annexation
of Crimea and the use of force in Eastern Ukraine are seen as clear violations of
this principle.
Article 33: This article encourages member states to settle their disputes
peacefully. Russia's failure to engage in good-faith negotiations before launching
the invasion is seen as a violation of this obligation.
- The Charter of the Council of Europe
o Article 2: This article guarantees the right of each member state to its "territorial
integrity and political independence." Russia's invasion and annexation of
Ukrainian territory are seen as clear violations of this right.
o Article 3: This article prohibits member states from "engaging in any act of
aggression against another member state." Russia's use of military force against
Ukraine is seen as a clear violation of this prohibition.
- The Helsinki Accords
o Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States: This
document includes principles such as respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity,
and the non-use of force. Russia's actions have violated all of these principles.
- The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
o In this memorandum, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom pledged
to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and to refrain from the
threat or use of force against Ukraine. Russia's invasion is a clear violation of this
commitment.
- International Humanitarian Law
o The Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law treaties set out
rules for the conduct of armed conflict. Russia has been accused of violating these
rules by, for example, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.
In addition to these specific legal violations, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has also been
condemned as a violation of the fundamental principles of international law, such as the rule of
law and the sovereign equality of states.
2. Hamas Conflict
I support Palestine and gravely denounce the actions of both Hamas and the Israel
Defense Forces.
The IDF’s response in carpet bombing and indiscriminate shelling of places where
Hamas is believed to be hiding, and cutting off supply of electricity, water, food and internet
from the Gaza Strip suffers from the lack of the aforementioned fundamentals principles
governing the laws on war.
The carpet bombing does not distinguish whether the targets contain civilians and non-
combatants, thus, there is unnecessary collateral damage and loss of innocent human lives when
Israel conducts the bombing raids. This alone violates the principle of humanity and distinction.
Since Israel has a more powerful military and an even bigger number of armed forces
personnel, the response to the terrorist attack done by Hamas should be limited and targeted
enough to minimize civilian casualty. This means that it should not be indiscriminately bombing
the entirety of the Gaza Strip just to draw out and eliminate Hamas. Moreover, it should facilitate
the evacuation of innocent civilian lives and non-combatants from suspected war zones or hide
outs. There should be proportionality in responses. As of 1st of December, the death toll for
Palestinians has reached over 15,000 while for the Israeli side, as of the1st of December, around
1,332 Israelis have been killed since 7 October (inclusive), including 395 IDF soldiers, 10 Shin
Bet agents and 59 police officers, and at least 1,271 have been wounded. For the Palestinian side,
the numbers are much worse. The Gaza Health Ministry's official documentation indicates that a
substantial death toll has been incurred since the commencement of the conflict, with a reported
minimum of 15,000 Palestinian casualties, encompassing 6,150 children, 36,000 injuries, and
7,000 individuals classified as missing beneath debris. This cumulative figure of over 58,000
casualties, equivalent to approximately 2.4% of Gaza's population of 2.3 million, underscores the
severity of the situation. Remarkably, within a span of four weeks, this conflict has surpassed all
preceding conflicts in Gaza's history in terms of its human cost, surpassing the combined
fatalities of the First Intifada, Second Intifada, Operation Cast Lead, and Operation Protective
Edge. It is noteworthy, however, that the Hamas-administered Gaza Health Ministry adopts an
inclusive approach in its casualty reports, refraining from distinguishing between combatant and
civilian victims, as well as various causes of death. Upon closer examination, the recorded death
toll among women, children, and the elderly is estimated to be around 11,000. The
aforementioned figures show that the response of Israel is that it is using excessive force that is
not proportional to that of what Hamas had done.
More importantly, Israel has to address the oppression that has been felt by the
Palestinians due to being considered as second-class citizens. This oppression further fueled the
propaganda being put out by Hamas which causes radicalization of more people especially those
whose family members have died due to the indiscriminate bombing. Israel’s cutting off of the
Gaza Strip’s supply of electricity, water, food and Internet causes unnecessary suffering since the
Hamas armed group’s numbers compared to that of the civilians and non-combatants are quite
small. Why should civilians suffer and die from these blockades of primary needs when they did
not participate in the conflict at all?
On the contrary, the utilization of civilians as human shields by Hamas stands as a grave
transgression that warrants meticulous examination through the lens of international
humanitarian law. This egregious practice, inherently incompatible with the principles enshrined
in the Fourth Geneva Convention, represents a blatant violation of the fundamental tenets
governing armed conflicts. The deliberate exposure of non-combatants to potential harm with the
intent of shielding military assets not only places innocent lives at imminent risk but also runs
afoul of the established legal doctrines of proportionality and distinction. Such actions, if
substantiated, would unequivocally constitute war crimes, invoking the legal censure reserved
for those who defy the norms established to safeguard civilian populations during times of
conflict.
To engender a milieu that upholds the sanctity of human life and adheres to the precepts
of international law, it is imperative that all parties involved, including Hamas, desist from the
reprehensible practice of employing civilians as human shields. This cessation would not only
align with the legal imperatives governing armed conflicts but also underscore a commitment to
the overarching principles of justice, ethics, and the protection of fundamental human rights.
3. Philippines return to ICC

Rejoining the International Criminal Court (ICC) is, a matter of paramount importance
for our nation. Chief among these considerations is the imperative of accountability and justice.
The ICC serves as an indispensable conduit for addressing human rights violations and
international crimes, realms where our domestic justice system may encounter limitations. My
particular concern lies in the context of the war on drugs during the Duterte administration, and I
am genuinely persuaded that the ICC's involvement could redress the grievances of victims while
simultaneously acting as a deterrent against prospective transgressions.
Beyond the realm of justice, the prospect of rejoining the ICC holds broader implications,
particularly in the fortification of the rule of law and the demonstration of our unwavering
commitment to international human rights norms. This strategic move has the potential to elevate
our nation's global standing, casting us as a bastion of democratic values and a proponent of
accountability for crimes against humanity. The consequential positive impact on our foreign
relations and trade partnerships cannot be overstated.
Most importantly, some of our key allies, such as the European Union and the United
States, remain steadfast in prevent the misuse of aid funds that they provide. The Philippines'
decision to rejoin the ICC underscores a commitment to upholding international standards of
justice and human rights. As a member, the country aligns itself with a global community that
places a premium on accountability, thereby fostering an environment conducive to responsible
governance and the effective utilization of foreign aid.
While some posit that ICC involvement compromises our sovereignty, I posit an
alternative perspective: an opportunity for collaborative capacity building. The ICC, through its
technical assistance and expertise, could play a pivotal role in augmenting our domestic
investigative and prosecutorial capabilities, ultimately contributing to the cultivation of a more
robust and independent judicial system. The envisaged deterrence of future abuses adds a
compelling layer to my support, as the notion that ICC membership could act as a deterrent to
serious human rights violations aligns seamlessly with my advocacy for a more peaceful societal
milieu. Moreover, the international collaboration fostered by rejoining the ICC extends beyond
our national borders, presenting an avenue for collective efforts in addressing global crimes and
human rights concerns. Despite concerns about sovereignty, potential political interference, and
the operational efficiency of the ICC, I remain steadfast in my belief that the accrued benefits of
reintegration far outweigh these apprehensions. In essence, the decision to rejoin the ICC is, in
my perspective, a bold and imperative step towards fostering justice, accountability, and securing
a stronger global standing for our nation.