Public International Law Green Notes 2015

Green Notes 2015
Public International Law

Notes compiled by: The Barristers Club 2015

Recent Jurisprudence:
Tubbataha reef was damaged due to
the fault of US Guardian. The respondents
argued that they are immune from suit and did
not participate to UNCLOS. The court ruled
that non-membership in the UNCLOS does not
mean that the US will disregard the rights of
the Philippines as a Coastal State over its
internal waters and territorial sea. The court
thus expects the US to bear international
responsibility under Art. 31 in connection
with the USS Guardian pgrounding which
adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Most
Rev. Pedro D. Arigo, Et Al. vs. Scott H. Swift in
His Capacity As Commander Of The U.S. 7th
Fleet, Et Al., G.R. No. 206510, September 16,
2014, J. Villarama, Jr.
The question of whether the Philippine
government should espouse claims of Malaya
Lolas against the Japanese government is a
foreign relations matter, the authority for
which is committed by our Constitution not to
the courts but to the political branches. In this
case, the Executive Department has already
decided that it is to the best interest of the
country to waive all claims of its nationals for
reparations against Japan in the Treaty of
Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is
not for the courts to question. Indeed, except
as an agreement might otherwise provide,
international settlements generally wipe out
the underlying private claims, thereby
terminating any recourse under domestic law.
Isabelita C. Vinuya, Et Al. vs. Executive
Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, Et Al., G.R. No.
162230, April 28, 2010, J. Del Castillo
As may be palpably observed, the
terms and conditions of Loan Agreement No.
4833-PH, being a project-based and
government-guaranteed loan facility, were
incorporated and made part of the SLA that
was subsequently entered into by LBP with the
City Government of Iligan. Consequently, this
means that the SLA cannot be treated as an
independent and unrelated contract but as a
conjunct of, or having a joint and
simultaneous
occurrence
with,
Loan
Agreement No. 4833-PH. Its nature and
consideration, being a mere accessory contract
of Loan Agreement No. 4833-PH, are thus the
same as that of its principal contract from
which it receives life and without which it

cannot exist as an independent contract.
Indeed, the accessory follows the principal;
and, concomitantly, accessory contracts should
not be read independently of the main
contract. Hence, as LBP correctly puts it, the
SLA has attained indivisibility with the Loan
Agreement and the Guarantee Agreement
through the incorporation of each others
terms and conditions such that the character of
fone has likewise become the character of the
other. Land Bank of The Philippines vs. Atlanta
Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 193796, July 2, 2014,
J. Perlas-Bernabe
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is
an emerging international norm that imposes a
responsibility on states and where they fail,
on the international community to protect
individuals within their borders. Today,
perhaps nowhere is protection more needed
than in Syria. Since Bashar al-Assads regime
met initially peaceful Syrian protests with
military force in March of 2011, a raging civil
war between the Assad regime and a number
of rebel groups has claimed more than
191,000 lives and resulted in numerous horrific
human rights violations. Nonetheless, on May
22, 2014, at the 7180th meeting of the U.N.
Security Council, the Council determines
threats to international peace and security and
adopts recommendations or Chapter VII
coercive measures (ICC referral, sanctions, and
military intervention) to resolve them. A draft
resolution referring the ever-worsening
situation in Syria to the International Criminal
Court (ICC) for investigation fell to a double
veto by Russia and China. The failure of this
resolution marks the fourth time that Russia
and China have used their vetoes to block a
Security Council resolution condemning the
violence in Syria and pressuring the Assad
regime to seek a peaceful settlement. This
pattern highlights the tension between the
purpose of R2P and the structure of the U.N.
Security Council and strengthens the argument
that R2P will prove unable to fulfill its larger
purpose of elevating concern for individuals
over national interests in deliberations on
international crisis response.
The Syrian Civil War began as a series
of protests inspired by demonstrations in
North Africa and in other parts of the Middle
East. The protests initially inspired some minor
changes in governance. For example, the
Page 1 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

government repealed the forty-eight-year state
of emergency. The violence escalated as
security forces opened fire on protesters in
March and April of 2011, deployed troops
with tanks to select cities, imposed a
communications blackout, and unleashed an
artillery assault on the city of Homs. As a
militarized opposition coa-lesced, both the
Arab Leagues and the U.N.s efforts to
negotiate
a
peaceful
outcome
consistently failed. The Arab League sponsored
a peace plan calling for the cessation of
violence against protesters. The Syrian
Government agreed and then violated it .
Even Kofi Annan, acting as Joint Special Envoy
for the U.N. and the Arab League to negotiate
a compromise, grew pessimistic about the
prospect of negotiations and resigned, as did
his replacement, Lakhdar Brahimi. Since then,
bombardments by government forces and
armed opposition, extremist, and terrorist
groups have killed hundreds of civilians, all
sides have targeted vital services, such as safe
drinking
water,
electricity,
and
medical facilities. Neither women nor children
have been spared from abuse. Violations
against children include the killing and
maiming of children, child recruitment and
arbitrary detention and abduction, and there
are reports of insurgent groups stoning women
for alleged adultery, and systematic torture by
security forces is widespread. The capacity of
U.N. agencies to meet humanitarian needs is
stretched thin Antnio Guterres, U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees, has called the
conflict the most dramatic humanitarian crisis
that we have ever faced.
The Security Council sought to respond
by condemning the violence and pressuring
the Syrian Government to seek a political
settlement. U.N. SCOR, 69th Sess., 7180th
mtg. at 4, U.N. Doc. S/PV.7180 (May 22,
2014) Draft Security Council Resolution
Referring Syrian Conflict to the International
Criminal Court Vetoed by Russia and China
(13 in Favor, 2 Against). Recent Draft
Resolution : U.N. SCOR, 69th Sess., 7180th
mtg. at 4, U.N. Doc. S/PV.7180 (May 22,
2014) J AN 12, 201 5 128 Harv. L. Rev. 1055
Who is a refugee?
A refugee is legally defined as a person
who is outside his or her country of nationality
and is unable to return due to a well-founded
fear of persecution because of his or her race,
religion, nationality, political opinion, or

membership in a particular social group. By
receiving refugee status, individuals are
guaranteed protection of their basic human
rights, and cannot be forced to return to a
country where they fear persecution.
Who is an internally displaced person (IDP)?
Internally displaced people (IDPs) have
been forced to leave their homes as a result of
armed conflict, generalized violence, or human
rights violations, but unlike refugees they have
not crossed an international border. Although
internally
displaced
people
outnumber
refugees by more than two to one, no single
UN or other international agency has
responsibility for responding to internal
displacement. As a result, the global response
to the needs of IDPs is often ineffective.
Who is a stateless person?
Stateless people are individuals who
do not have a legal bond of nationality with
any state, including people who have never
acquired citizenship of their birth country or
who have lost their citizenship and have no
claim to citizenship of another state. Children
of stateless people often are born into
statelessness and few manage to escape that
status. According to the 1954 Convention
relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, a de
jure stateless person is someone not
considered as a national by any State under
the operation of its law. Persons are
considered de facto stateless if they have an
ineffective nationality, cannot prove they are
legally stateless, or if one or more countries
dispute their citizenship. The Office of the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has
the international mandate for responding to
the needs of stateless people and leading the
global
effort
to
reduce
statelessness.
Historically, however, the agency has devoted
few resources to this aspect of its mandate.
What is an asylum seeker?
An asylum seeker is a person who is
seeking to be recognized as a refugee, but has
not yet received formal refugee status. During
2013, some 1.1 million individual applications
for asylum or refugee status were submitted to
governments and UNHCR offices. With
109,600 asylum claims, Germany was for the
first time since 1999 the worlds largest
Page 2 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

recipient of new individual applications,
followed by the United States of America
(84,400) and South Africa (70,000).
Can a country refuse to admit refugees?
Under international law, refugees must
not be forced back to the countries they have
fled. This principle of non-refoulement is the
key provision of the 1951 UN Refugee
Convention, which defines international law
and guidelines to protect refugees. Host
governments are primarily responsible for
protecting refugees and most states fulfill their
obligations to do so. Others, however, avoid
their responsibility by pointing to a lack of
resources, threats to national security, fears of
domestic political destabilization, or the arrival
of even greater numbers of refugees. This is a
violation of international law that is binding
on all states.
What is the Principle of Non-Refoulement?
The principle of non-refoulement is
well established in customary international
law, prohibiting states from expelling,
deporting or extraditing persons to countries
where they face torture or ill-treatment.
Non-refoulement is a fundamental rule
of refugee law and several human rights

instruments forbid the return of a person who
has reason to fear for his/her life or physical
integrity in his/her country of origin.
What is the 1951 Refugee Convention?
The 1951 Geneva Convention is the

main international instrument of refugee law.
The Convention clearly spells out who a
refugee is and the kind of legal protection,
other assistance and social rights he or she
should receive from the countries who have
signed the document. The Convention also
defines a refugees obligations to host
governments and certain categories or people,
such as war criminals, who do not qualify for
refugee status. The Convention was limited to
protecting mainly European refugees in the
aftermath of World War II, but another
document, the 1967 Protocol, expanded the
scope of the Convention as the problem of
displacement spread around the world.
What are the solutions to refugee and

displacement crises?
The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR)
speaks of three durable solutions to refugee
crises: return; local integration; and third
country resettlement.
The most desirable way to end forced
displacement is for people to return home
when conflict ends. To return in safety and
dignity, families need help with transportation
and require basic goods for restarting their
lives, including a provisional supply of food,
seeds and tools, and building materials for
home repair or construction. In addition,
support for the reconstruction of schools and
health clinics is also critical. Read more about
Refugees Internationals work on Return &
Reintegration.
If instability persists or if the individual
will face persecution when they return, then
integrating into the country of asylum is
another option. Most countries hosting
refugees, however, are reluctant to allow
refugees to integrate and become citizens,
fearing competition for scarce resources
between the refugees and residents of a
particular locale.
Resettlement to a third country can
also be a solution for refugees who cannot
return home, cannot establish a new life in
their country of asylum, or are considered to
be particularly vulnerable. Resettlement can
never be an option for more than a tiny
minority of the worlds refugee population,
but still benefits tens of thousands of refugees
who have made new lives in countries such as
the United States, Canada, Sweden, and
Norway.
A. Concepts
1. Obligations Erga Omnes
What is obligation erga omnes?
It is an obligation of every State
towards the international community as a
whole. All States have a legal interest in its
compliance, and thus all States are entitled to
invoke responsibility of such an obligation.
Page 3 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

An international obligation of such
character and importance that their violation
by any State allows any other State to invoke
the violators liability, even if only one state or
only a few states incurred direct material
damage.
It usually has to do with issues on
standing before a court or tribunal. Other
scholars further make a distinction between
obligations erga omnes omnium, which is
strictly speaking, the obligation owed to the
international community as a whole, and erga
omnes partes, which pertains to obligations
owed by states under a multilateral treaty.
However, it may also be the case that a multilateral treaty partakes of both sets of
obligations, inasmuch as the same merely
restates norms already held as binding under
customary international law (North Sea
Continental Shelf Cases ,1969; Nicaragua v.

US, 1984; Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 1949)
Barcelona Traction Light and Power Co. Case

(1970):
The grant of standing to sue because of
violationsof erga omnes obligations is
premised on the idea that the maintenance of
some norms are of interest to the entire world
community, their violation being an injury to
the interest of not only the state directly
offended, but also of all states.
Illustrations:
(1) Outlawing of acts of aggression and of
genocide
(2) Principles and rules concerning the basic
rights of the human person, including
protection
from
slavery
and
racial
discrimination (Barcelona Traction Case, 1970)
(3) The right to self-determination (East Timor
case, 1994; the Wall Opinion case)
2. Jus Cogens
A preemptory norm which States
cannot derogate or deviate from in their
agreements. It is a mandatory norm and stands
on a higher category than a jus dispositivum
norm which States can set aside or modify by
agreement.
llustrations:
(1) The prohibition against the use of force
under the U.N. Charter (Nicaragua Case)
(2) Law on genocide
(3) Principle of Self-Determination
(4) Prohibition against apartheid
(5) Crimes against humanity
(6) Prohibition against slavery and slave trade
(7) Piracy (Brownlie, Magallona)
In the 2012 case Questions Concerning
the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite
[Belgium v. Senegal (2012)], the ICJ affirmed
the obligation of states parties to the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CAT) to either prosecute alleged
perpetrators or extradite them to another
country with jurisdiction for prosecution (the
Grotian aut dedere, aut punire principle).
The case involved Hissne Habr, the
former president of Chad, who stands charged
in Belgian courts for torture, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity against thousands of
victims during his term in office from 1982
1990. Habr, who has been residing in Senegal
as a political asylee since he was ousted from
power two decades ago, was being sought for
extradition by Belgium.
The ICJ in this case observed that the
prohibition on torture is part of customary
international law and has become a
peremptory norm (jus cogens). However, the
obligation to prosecute alleged perpetrators of
torture only arises after the Convention has
entered into force for that state party. The ICJ
said, after noting that a number of complaints
regarding serious offenses committed by Habr
after that date for which Senegal is obligated
to prosecute, said Belgium is entitled to invoke
Senegals compliance with the Convention
beginning in 1999; in fact, Beligum has been
requesting Senegals compliance since 2000
when the first complaint against Habr was
filed in Senegal.
The ICJ, in this landmark decision,
affirms that memberstates to the CAT may
demand performance of obligations under the
the same, even if the alleged torture occurred
before the applicant state joined the
Convention and even if the alleged torturer or
victims have no connection with the applicant
state. The ruling therefore allows the
Page 4 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

enforcement of universal jurisdiction for
torture. Thus it held that States parties to the
Convention have a common interest to ensure
. . . that acts of torture are prevented and that,
if they occur, their authors do not enjoy
impunity,xxx stressing that these obligations
partake of the nature of obligations erga
omnes partes in the sense that each State party
has an interest in compliance with them in any
given case. Thus, any state party may make a
claim for the cessation of any breach by
another state party, whether or not the
applicant state has any connection at all to the
victims.
In the 2007 case of Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro,
2007), the ICJ finally erased all doubts as to
the existence of a duty to prevent genocide
separate from the duty to punish its
perpetrators under the Genocide Convention.
In the controversial Vinuya (2010)
case, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed a
petition by the Malaya Lolas - a group of
Filipino Comfort Women seeking state
espousal of their claims against Japan.
Towards the end of its Judgment of
April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court expressed
its great sympathy for Petitioners, saying its
members cannot begin to comprehend the
unimaginable horror they underwent at the
hands of the Japanese soldiers. And then it
goes on to say that it is deeply concerned
that in apparent contravention of
fundamental principles of law the Malaya
Lolas appear to be without a remedy to
challenge those that have offended them
before appropriate fora. The High Court had
rejected the Petitioners claim that rape and
other sexual crimes committed against them
were already prohibited as violations of jus
cogens norms during World War II.
In
their
pending
Motion
for
Reconsideration, the Petitioners argue that
early on, there has developed as a binding
customary norm in international law an
absolute prohibition on rape. Before San
Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, it was already
penalized as a war crime and as a crime against
humanity in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, as
a crime against humanity in German Courts
that tried war criminals of World War II and as
a war crime in the International Military

Tribunal in the Far East that tried Japanese war
criminals of World War II. In fact, they assert
that right after World War I, a Preliminary
Conference at Versailles created a Commission
on Responsibility of the Authors of War and
on Enforcement of Penalties.
Too, the 15-member Commission of
which Japan was part submitted a report to
the Conference on the responsibility of
belligerent states in which it included a list of
punishable war crimes as violations of the laws
and customs of war. These included, among
other crimes, (1) rape, (2) abduction of girls
and women for the purpose of enforced
prostitution, (3) deportation of civilians, (4)
internment of civilians under inhuman
conditions and and (5) forced labor of civilians
in connection with the military operations.
The Philippine Supreme Courts
decision sparked a massive controversy when
significant portions of it were discovered to
have been lifted from various sources without
proper attribution. In addition to the
plagiarism which is a word for word lifting
of pages from the three articles without the
proper attribution it appears that these
stolen passages were also twisted to support
the courts erroneous conclusion that the
Filipina comfort women of World War Two
have no further legal remedies.
All three plagiarized articles by foreign
authors an article published in 2009 in the
Yale Law Journal of International Law, a book
published by the Cambridge University Press in
2005, and, an article published in 2006 in the
Western Reserve Journal of International Law
argue
otherwise.
A
Motion
for
Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion
for Reconsideration subsequently filed by
lawyers on behalf of the Malaya Lolas
highlighting the alleged plagiarism and twisting
of sources are pending with the Court. The
Malaya Lolas, in their Supplemental Motion
for Reconsideration said the High Courts
ruling, penned by Justice Mariano Del Castillo,
"made it appear that these sources support the
assailed judgment's arguments for dismissing
instant petition when, in truth, the plagiarized
sources even make a strong case for the
petition's claims."
Page 5 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

3. Concept of ex aequo et bono
Ex Aequo Et Bono
Literally meaning what is equitable
and good, it is a standard that a court may
apply to decide a case when the parties to the
dispute so agree. This means simply that the
court may reach a fair compromise in
balancing the interests of the parties.
Judgment will not be on the basis of
the sources of international law, as listed in
Art. 38(1) of the ICJ Statute, but on the
grounds of fairness and justice. The court may
have to rely on its own understanding of the
broader context of equity and outside the
accepted norms of law under Art. 38(1).
But in the North Sea Continental Shelf
cases, the ICJ found a situation where the
Parties were under an obligation to act in such
a way that in the particular case, and taking all
the circumstances into account, equitable
principles were applied, which meant that its
decision on the applicability of the
equitadistance principle in the delimitations
proceeding was not founded on ex aequo et
bono. It said thus: [i]t was precisely a rule of
law that called for the application of equitable
principles, and in such cases as the present ones
the equidistance method could unquestionably
lead to inequity.
B. International and National Law
How may international law become a part of
domestic law? Explain.
Under
the
1987
Constitution,
international law can become part of the
sphere
of
domestic
law
either
by
transformation
or
incorporation.
The
transformation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a
domestic law through a constitutional
mechanism such as local legislation. The
incorporation method applies when, by mere
constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law.
Treaties become part of the law of the
land through transformation pursuant to
Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution
which provides that no treaty or international
agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
members of the Senate. Thus, treaties or

conventional international law must go
through a process prescribed by the
Constitution for it to be transformed into
municipal law that can be applied to domestic
conflicts. (Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assn.
of the Phil. v. Health Secretary Duque, et al.,
G.R. No. 173034, October 19, 2007).
May generally accepted principles of
international law form part of the law of the
land even if they do not derive from treaty
obligations? Explain.
Yes. Generally accepted principles of
international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form
part of the laws of the land even if they do
not derive from treaty obligations. The
classical formulation in international law sees
those customary rules accepted as binding
result from the combination of two elements:
the established, widespread, and consistent
practice on the part of States; and a
psychological
element
known
as
the opinion jurissive necessitates(opinion as to
law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element
is a belief that the practice in question is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule
of law requiring it. (Mijares v. Ranada, G.R.
No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397).
State the concept of the term generally
accepted principles of international law and
give examples.
Generally accepted principles of
international law refers to norms of general
or customary international law which are
binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war
as an instrument of national policy, the
principle of sovereign immunity, a persons
right to life, liberty and due process,
and pactasuntservanda, among others. The
concept of generally accepted principles of
law has also been depicted in this wise:
Some legal scholars and judges upon
certain general principles of law as a primary
source of international law because they have
the character of jus rationale and are valid
through all kinds of human societies. (Judge
Tanaka in his dissenting opinion in the 1966
South West Africa Case, 1966, I.C.J.
296).OConell holds that certain principles are
part of international law because they are
basic to legal systems generally and hence
Page 6 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

part of the jus gentium. These principles, he
believes, are established by a process of
reasoning based on the common identity of all
legal systems. If there should be doubt or
disagreement, one must look to state practice
and determine whether the municipal law
principle provides a just and acceptable
solution. (Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assn.
of the Phil. v. Sec. of Health Duque, et al.,
G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007).
What is customary international law? Explain.
Custom or customary international law
means a general and consistent practice of
states followed by them from a sense of legal
obligation (opinion juris). This statement
contains the two basic elements of custom: the
material factor, that is, how states behave, and
the psychological or subjective factor, that is,
why they behave the way they do.
The initial factor for determining the
existence of custom is the actual behavior of
states. This includes several elements: duration,
consistency, and generality of the practice of
states.
The required duration can be either
short or long.
Duration therefore is not the most
important element. More important is the
consistency and the generality of the practice.
Once the existence of state practice has
been established it becomes necessary to
determine why states behave the way they do.
Do states behave the way they do because
they consider it obligatory to behave thus or
do they do it only as a matter of
courtesy? Opiniojuris or the belief that a
certain form of behavior is obligatory, is what
makes practice an international rule. Without
it, practice is not law. (Pharmaceutical &
Health Care Assn. of the Phil. v. Health
Secretary Duque, et al., G. R. No. 173034,
October 9, 2007).
June 2003, ASIL; Pharmaceutical & Health

Care Assn. of the Phils. v. Health Secretary
Duque, et al., G.R. No. 173034, October 9,
2007). It does not fall under the international
law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the
1946 Statute of the International Court of
Justice.
Give examples of soft law.
Certain declarations and resolutions of
the UN General Assembly fall under this
category. (Louis Henkins, et al., International
Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed.).
The UN Declaration of Human Rights
is
an
example.
This
was
applied
in Government
of
Hongkong
Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia; Mejoff v.

Director of Prisons; 90 Phil. 70 (1951); Mijares
v. Ranada; Shangri-la International Hotel
Management Ltd. v. Developers Group of
Companies Inc., G.R. No. 159938, March 31,
2006, 486 SCRA 405.
It is resorted to in order to reflect and
respond to the changing needs and demands
of constituents of certain international
organizations like the WHO.
What is the effect of Municipal Law in
International Law?
2 Views:
1. Doctine Of Incorporation - rules of
international law form part of the law of the
land and no further legislative action is needed
to make such rules applicable in the domestic
sphere.
What is a soft law? Is it an international law?

Soft law is an expression of nonbinding norms, principles and practices that
influence state behavior. (David Fidler,
Development Involving SARS, International
Law & Infections Disease Control at the FiftySix Meeting of the World Health Assembly,
a. Such is recognized in art. 2, sec. 2, as

the Philippines "adopts the generally
accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land."
b. Rules of international law are given
equal standing with, but are not
superior
to,
national
legislative
enactments. Thus, the Constitution, as
the highest law of the land, may
invalidate a treaty in conflict with it.
(Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion
and Mark Jimenez, Jan. 18, 2000)
Page 7 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

2. Doctrine Of Transformation - the generally
accepted rules of int'l law are not per se
binding upon the State but must first be
embodied in legislation enacted by the
lawmaking body and so transformed into
municipal law. Only when so transformed will
they become binding upon the State as part of
its municipal law.
Elements of a state:
Art. 1, Montevideo Convention:
1.
2.
3.
4.
a permanent population;
a defined territory;
government;
capacity to enter into relations with
other States
C. Sources
Primary Sources (Article 38, ICJ Statute)
(1) International Conventions, whether general
or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contracting states (Treaties);
(2) International Custom, as evidence of a
general custom accepted as law;
(3) General Principles of Law recognized by
civilized nations;
Subsidiary Sources
If State A claims that State B acted without or

in excess of its jurisdiction, who has the burden
of proving that State B indeed acted without
or in excess of its jurisdiction?
There is no issue of having a burden of
proving jurisdiction as both states A and B are
considered equal in international law and both
may prosecute crimes committed within their
own jurisdiction.
The President of State A is in the territory of
State B. Can the President of State A claim that
State B cannot exercise jurisdiction over his
person?
(1) Judicial Decisions; and

(2) Teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations. (Art. 38, ICJ
Statute)
Yes. While jurisdiction of State B is complete

and absolute on its territory, it admits two
exceptions:
(1) sovereign immunity, and
(a) Treaties, Customs and General

Principles (Primary Sources) create law;
while court decisions publicists teachings
constitute evidence of what is the law.
(b) With respect to the three primary
sources, the order the enumeration does
not provide a hierarchy in all cases.
(2) immunity of the representative of states

(diplomatic
and
consular
immunities).
President A is the sitting foreign sovereign and
therefore immune from any claim of
jurisdiction over his person.
Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction
NOTE: Although treaties are mentioned first,

they are not ipso facto superior to customs and
(1) The balancing test

(2) International comity
(3) Forum non conveniens
general principles.
D. Subjects
Foreign State:
1. States
United States of America, et al. v. Hon. V. M.

Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985
A group of people, more or less

numerous, permanently living in a definite
territory, under an independent government
organized for political ends and capable of
entering into legal relations with other states
(Art. 1, Montevideo Convention on the Rights
and Duties of States, 1933)
The traditional rule of State immunity

exempts a State from being sued in the courts
of another State without its consent or waiver.
This rule is a necessary consequence of the
principles of independence and equality of
States. However, the rules of International Law
are not petrified; they are constantly
developing and evolving. And because the
Page 8 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

activities of states have multiplied, it has been
necessary
to
distinguish
them-between
sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii)
and private, commercial and proprietary acts
(jure gestionis). The result is that State
immunity now extends only to acts jure
imperii The restrictive application of State
immunity is now the rule in the United States,
the United Kingdom and other states in
Western Europe.
bring an international claim for reparations,

the UN nevertheless possessed functional
personality. (Reparations for Injuries Advisory
Opinion, 147)
IOs are deemed to have powers not
expressly granted in their charters where these
unstated powers are either:
(1) implicitly bestowed in their
charters; or
(2) necessary to effect powers
expressly granted.
2. International organizations
The status and powers of an IO is
determined by agreement and not by general
or customary international law.
IOs are considered subjects of
international law if their legal personality is
established by their constituent instrument
(charter).
Further, its constituent rights and
duties, or capacities and immunities, are
limited to those set forth in the treaty creating
the international organization. Thus, legal
personality in this context is a relative concept.
(Magallona)
PRECONDITIONS
PERSONALITY
FOR
3. Individuals
While States have traditionally been
deemed to be subject of international law,
individuals have likewise become in some
degree subjects of that law. However,
individuals may assume the status of subjects of
international law only on the basis of
agreement by states and in specific context,
not in accordance with general or customary
IL.
Illustrations:
(1) Art. 187(c), (d) and (e), UNCLOS:
INTERNATIONAL
The jurisdiction of the Sea-Bed

Disputes Chamber of the ITLOS
extends to disputes between parties to
contracts relating to the exploitation of
the Area. Parties to such contracts may
be natural or juridical persons.
(1) It must constitute a permanent

association of states, with lawful
objects, equipped with organs;
(2) There must be a distinction, in terms of
legal powers and purposes, between
the organization and its member states;
and
(2) Claims Settlement Declaration of 1981

between US and Iran:
Direct access to the Iran-US Claims
Tribunal is given to individuals for the
settlement of their claims involving
more than $250,000 either against
Iran or the US.
(3) It must have legal powers that it may

exercise on the international plane and
not solely within the national systems
of one or more states.
(3) Mixed Claims Tribunals established in the

Treaties of Peace concluded at the end of
WWI:
Capacity for Bring a Claim for Reparation

An International Organization such as
the United Nations (UN) must be deemed to
have such powers which, though not expressly
granted in its Charter, are conferred upon it by
Individuals enjoyed locus standi in

actions against States relating to
contracts,
debts,
and
property
adversely affected by the war.
necessary implication as being essential to the

performance of its duties.
Thus, though the UN Charter did not
expressly clothe the UN with the capacity to
(4) London Agreement of the International

Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:
Page 9 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

In crimes against peace, war crimes and
crimes against humanity, international
law imposes duties and liabilities upon
individuals as well as upon States.
(b) Envoys, Ministers and Internuncios

accredited to Heads of State;
(c) Charges daffaires accredited to
Ministers of Foreign Affairs.
(5) Art. VI of the Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide:
(2) Diplomatic Staff those engaged in

diplomatic activities and are accorded
diplomatic rank.
(3) Administrative and Technical Staff those
employed in the administrative and technical
service of the mission.
Parties charged with genocide refers

to individuals whose responsibility is
thus under international law.
(4) Service Staff those engaged in the

domestic service of the mission (Nachura)
E. Diplomatic and consular law
Diplomatic Intercourse, also referred to

as the Right of Legation, is the right of the
State to send and receive diplomatic missions,
which enables States to carry on friendly
intercourse.
NOTE: In the Philippines, the President

appoints (Sec. 16, Art.VII, Constitution), sends
and instructs the diplomatic and consular
representatives.
Functions and Duties:
Agents of Diplomatic Intercourse Head of State

The head of State represents the
sovereignty of the State, and enjoys the right
to special protection for his physical safety and
the preservation of his honor and reputation.
Upon the principle of exterritoriality, his
quarters, archives, property and means of
transportation are inviolate. He is immune
from criminal and civil jurisdiction, except
when he himself is the plaintiff, and is not
subject to tax or exchange or currency
restrictions.
The Foreign Office
The body entrusted with the conduct
of actual day-to-day foreign affairs. It is
headed by a Secretary or a Minister who, in
proper cases, may make binding declarations
on behalf of his government. (Legal Status of
Eastern Greenland Case, 1933)
The Diplomatic Corps
the collectivity of
diplomatic envoys accredited to a State.
It is composed of:
Refers
to
all
(1) Represent the sending State in the receiving

State;
(2) Protect in the receiving State the interests
of the sending State and its nationals,
within the limits allowed by international
law;
(3) Negotiate with the government of the
receiving State;
(4) Ascertain, by all lawful means, the
conditions and developments in the
receiving State and reporting the same to
the sending State;
(5) Promote friendly relations between the
sending State and receiving State, and
developing their economic, cultural and
scientific relations (Art. 3(1), VCDR)
(6) If diplomatic relation is severed, entrust the
protection of its nationals to the
diplomatic mission of a third State
acceptable to the receiving State (Art. 45,
VCDR)
(7) May protect the interest of a third State by
agreement with the receiving State, if there
is no diplomatic relations between the
third State and the receiving State (Art. 46,
VCDR)
(1) Head of Mission classified into:

(a) Ambassadors
or
nuncios
accredited to Heads of State, and

other heads of mission of equivalent
rank;
Page 10 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges (Asked 9
Times in the Bar Exam)
(a)
(b)
(c)
Theoretical Basis of Diplomatic Privileges and

Immunities
(1) Extraterritoriality theory the premises of
the diplomatic mission represent a sort of
extension of the territory of the sending State
Despite these differences, to be

considered an executive agreement, the
following three requisites provided under the
Vienna Convention must nevertheless concur:
(2) Representational theory the diplomatic

mission personifies the sending State
(a) the agreement must be between

states;
(b) it must be written; and
(c) it must governed by international
law.
(3) Functional necessity theory privileges and

immunities are necessary to enable the
diplomatic mission to perform its functions
F. Treaties
does not require legislative

concurrence;
is usually less formal; and
deals with a narrower range of
subject matters.
The first and the third requisites do not obtain

in the case at bar.
A 'treaty' is:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
an international agreement;
concluded between States;
in written form;
governed by international law;
whether embodied in a single

instrument or in two or more related
instruments; and
(6) whatever its particular designation -
Art.2(1), Vienna Convention on the

Law of Treaties or VCLOT)
Under the VCLOT, the term treaty

includes all agreements between states,
regardless of how they are called. Thus, for
purposes of international law, treaties,
executive agreements, exchanges of notes, etc.
are all treaties. Note, however, that Philippine
law makes a distinction between treaties and
executive agreements. Both are equally
binding, but only treaties require the
concurrence of the Senate to be effective.
Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention)
defines a treaty as follows:
An international agreement concluded
between States in written form and governed
by international law, whether embodied in a
single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular
designation.
In Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011), this
Court held that an executive agreement is
similar to a treaty, except that the former
First, the Supreme Court said that

CNMEG, the Chinese contractor, is neither a
government nor a government agency, noting
that Contract Agreement was not concluded
between the Philippines and China, but
between Northrail and CNMEG. Indeed, by
the terms of the Contract Agreement,
Northrail is a government-owned or controlled corporation, while CNMEG is a
corporation duly organized and created under
the laws of the Peoples Republic of China.
Thus, both Northrail and CNMEG entered into
the Contract Agreement as entities with
personalities distinct and separate from the
Philippine
and
Chinese
governments,
respectively.
Second, neither can it be said that
CNMEG acted as agent of the Chinese
government. The fact that the Chinese
Ambassador to Manila, in his letter dated 1
October 2003, described CNMEG as a "state
corporation" and declared its designation as
the Primary Contractor in the Northrail
Project, did not mean it was to perform
sovereign functions on behalf of China. That
label was only descriptive of its nature as a
state-owned corporation, and did not preclude
it from engaging in purely commercial or
proprietary ventures.
Finally, the Contract Agreement itself
expressly stated that is to be governed by
Philippine law, while as defined in the VCLOT,
a treaty or an executive agreement is governed
by international law.
Page 11 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

But contrast the holding of the Court
in Northrail with its ruling in the earlier case of
Abaya v. Ebdane (2007), where the High
Court ruled that a loan agreement, coupled
with an exchange of notes between two
governments,
constitutes
an
Executive
Agreement. The Exchange of Notes indicated
that the two governments have reached an
understanding concerning Japanese loans to be
extended to the Philippines and that these
loans were aimed at promoting our countrys
economic stabilization and development
efforts.
Requisites for Validity

(1) Treaty Making Capacity Possessed by
all states as an attribute of sovereignty.
International organizations also possess
treaty-making
capacity,
although
limited by the organizations purpose.
(2) Competence
of
the
Representative/Organ Making the
Treaty Generally exercised by the head
of state.
Full Powers - Refers to the authority of
An Exchange of Notes is a record of a

routine agreement that has many similarities
with the private law contract.
a person to sign a treaty or convention

on behalf of a state.
The agreement consists of the

exchange of two documents, each of the
parties being in the possession of the one
signed by the representative of the other.
Under the usual procedure, the accepting State
repeats the text of the offering State to record
its assent. The signatories of the letters may be
government
Ministers,
diplomats
or
departmental heads. The technique of
exchange of notes is frequently resorted to,
either because of its speedy procedure, or,
sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative
approval.
the head of state, head of government

or foreign minister must produce such
instrument in order to sign a treaty
binding their government. Such a
person is called a plenipotentiary.
The Supreme Court held that "treaties,

agreements, conventions, charters, protocols,
declarations, memoranda of understanding,
modus vivendi and exchange of notes" all refer
to "international instruments binding at
international law." Both the 1969 Vienna
Convention and the 1986 Vienna Convention
do not distinguish between the different
designations of these instruments. Instead, their
rules apply to all of those instruments as long
as they meet the common requirements.
Agreements concluded by the President
which fall short of treaties are commonly
referred to as executive agreements and are no
less common in our scheme of government
than are the more formal instruments: treaties
and conventions. They sometimes take the
form of exchange of notes and at other times
that of more formal documents denominated
"agreements" or "protocols".
Plenipotentiary - Persons other than
(3) Parties Must Freely Give Consent: If

consent was given erroneously, or it
was induced by fraud, the treaty shall
be voidable.
(4) Object and Subject Matter Must be
Lawful
(5) Ratification in Accordance with the
Constitutional Process of the Parties
Concerned
Doctrine of Transformation
In Philippine Law, treaties have to be
transformed in order to be part of Philippine
law.
A treaty is transformed when a
treaty is ratified after it has been concurred in
by the Senate (Sec. 21, Art.VII, Constitution).
After ratification, a treaty shall be deemed as if
legislated by our Legislature.
La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez (1984):

Lacoste, a French corporation, sued
local counterfeiters before Philippine courts.
When the counterfeiters challenged its legal
personality to sue before Philippine courts, the
Court held that the Philippines has ratified
international conventions for the protection of
intellectual property, and it would frustrate the
object of these conventions if Lacoste is barred
Page 12 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Genocide Conventions Advisory

Opinion)
from filing its claims directly in Philippine

courts.
Philippine Law
Invalid Treaties
(1) If the treaty violates a jus cogens
norm of international law (void);
In the Philippines, the negotiation of

treaties and their ratification are executive
functions, subject to concurrence of the Senate.
Under Sec. 21, Art. VII, (Treaty Clause) of the
Constitution, treaties must receive the
concurrence of the Senate before they may be
effective.Pimentel v. Executive Secretary
(2005):
(2) If the conclusion of a treaty is

procured by threat or use of force
(void);
(3) Error of fact, provided that such
fact formed an essential basis of a
states consent to be bound;
The power to ratify is vested in the

President, subject to the concurrence of the
Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only
to giving or withholding its consent, or
concurrence, to the ratification. Although the
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that
should not be taken lightly, such decision is
within the competence of the President alone,
which cannot be encroached by SC via a writ
of mandamus. SC has no jurisdiction over
actions seeking to enjoin the President in the
performance of his official duties.
(4) If the representative of a state was

corrupted to consent by another
negotiating state;
(5) If consent was obtained through
fraudulent conduct of another
negotiating state;
(6) If the representative consented in
violation of specific restrictions on
authority, provided:
i. the restriction was notified
to the other negotiating
States
Amendment or Modification of Treaty
General Rule: Consent of all parties is required.
ii. prior to the representative

expressing such consent;
Exception: If the treaty itself so allows, two

States may modify a provision only insofar as
their relationship inter se.
(7) If consent was given in violation of

provisions
of
internal
law
Reservations
regarding competence to conclude

treaties that is manifest and of
A unilateral statement made by a state

upon entering a treaty whereby it purports to
exclude or modify the legal effect of certain
provision/s of the treaty in their application to
the reserving state (Art. 19, VCLOT).
fundamental importance.
Grounds for Termination
(1) Expiration
modify or exclude the provisions of a treaty:

(1) Where
the
treaty
expressly
prohibits reservations in general;
(2) Where
the
treaty
expressly
prohibits that specific reservation
being made; or
(3) Where
the
reservation
is
incompatible with treatys object
and purpose (Reservation to the
term,
or
of a party
accordance with the treaty;
in
withdrawal
Exceptions: A reservation shall not operate to
of
the
(2) Extinction of a party to the treaty,

when the treaty rights and
obligations would not devolve
upon the successor state;
(3) Mutual agreement of parties;
(4) Denunciation or desistance by a
party;
Page 13 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

(5) Supervening
performance;
(6) Conclusion
impossibility
of
inconsistent treaty;
of
subsequent
international law which renders void

any existing, conflicting treaty.
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
BAYAN v. Zamora,
G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
(7) Loss of subject matter;
(VFA as a treaty in international law)
(8) Material breach or violation of

treaty
(9) Fundamental
Change
of
Circumstance (Rebus sic stantibus)
A contracting state may unilaterally

withdraw from a treaty when a vital or
fundamental change of circumstance occurs
such that the foundation upon which its
consent to be bound initially rested has
disappeared. (Art. 62, VCLOT)
Requisites of rebus sic stantibus:

(a) Change is so substantial that the
foundation of the treaty has
altogether disappeared
(b) Change
was
unforeseen
or
unforeseeable at the time of the
treatys perfection
(c) Change was not caused by the
party invoking the doctrine
(d) Doctrine was invoked within a
reasonable time
(e) Treatys duration is indefinite
(f) Doctrine
cannot
operate
retroactively (it must not adversely
affect provisions which have
already been complied with prior
to the vital change)
(10)Outbreak of war between the parties,
unless the treaty relates to the conduct
of war (ex. The Four Geneva
Conventions).
(11) Severance of diplomatic relations (if
such relationship is indispensable for
the treatys application).
(12)Jus Cogens Application: Emergence of
a new peremptory norm of general
This Court is of the firm view that the

phrase recognized as a treaty means that the
other
contracting
party
accepts
or
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To
require the other contracting state, the United
States of America in this case, to submit the
VFA to the United States Senate for
concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to
accord strict meaning to the phrase.
Well-entrenched is the principle that
the words used in the Constitution are to be
given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed, in which case
the significance thus attached to them prevails.
Its language should be understood in the sense
they have in common use.
Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the
United States treats the VFA only as an
executive
agreement
because,
under
international law, an executive agreement is as
binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the
VFA possesses the elements of an agreement
under international law, the said agreement is
to be taken equally as a treaty.
A treaty, as defined by the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, is an
international instrument concluded between
States in written form and governed by
international law, whether embodied in a
single instrument or in two or more related
instruments, and whatever its particular
designation. There are many other terms used
for a treaty or international agreement, some
of which are: act, protocol, agreement,
compromis
d
arbitrage,
concordat,
convention, declaration, exchange of notes,
pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi. All
writers, from Hugo Grotius onward, have
pointed out that the names or titles of
international agreements included under the
general term treaty have little or no legal
significance. Certain terms are useful, but they
furnish little more than mere description.
Article 2(2) of the Vienna Convention
provides that the provisions of paragraph 1
Page 14 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

regarding the use of terms in the present
Convention are without prejudice to the use
of those terms, or to the meanings which may
be given to them in the internal law of the
State.
Thus, in international law, there is no
difference between treaties and executive
agreements in their binding effect upon states
concerned, as long as the negotiating
functionaries have remained within their
powers. International law continues to make
no distinction between treaties and executive
agreements: they are equally binding
obligations upon nations.
Nicolas v. Romulo,
G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009
(These are petitions for certiorari, etc.
as special civil actions and/or for review of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in Lance
Corporal Daniel J. Smith v. Hon. Benjamin T.
Pozon, et al., in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212, dated
January 2, 2007)
The rule in international law is that a
foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones
territory is immune from local jurisdiction,
except to the extent agreed upon. The Status
of Forces Agreements involving foreign
military units around the world vary in terms
and conditions, according to the situation of
the parties involved, and reflect their
bargaining power. But the principle remains,
i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction
over the forces of the sending State only to the
extent agreed upon by the parties.
As a result, the situation involved is
not one in which the power of this Court to
adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or
violated, but rather one in which, as is
normally encountered around the world, the
laws (including rules of procedure) of one
State do not extend or apply except to the
extent agreed upon to subjects of another
State due to the recognition of extraterritorial
immunity given to such bodies as visiting
foreign armed forces.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits
such agreements recognizing immunity from
jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction
(such as custody), in relation to long
recognized subjects of such immunity like
Heads of State, diplomats and members of the
armed forces contingents of a foreign State

allowed to enter another States territory. On
the contrary, the Constitution states that the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the
law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).
xxx
It is clear that the parties to the VFA
recognized the difference between custody
during the trial and detention after conviction,
because they provided for a specific
arrangement to cover detention. And this
specific arrangement clearly states not only
that the detention shall be carried out in
facilities agreed on by authorities of both
parties, but also that the detention shall be by
Philippine authorities. Therefore, the RomuloKenney Agreements of December 19 and 22,
2006, which are agreements on the detention
of the accused in the United States Embassy,
are not in accord with the VFA itself because
such detention is not by Philippine
authorities.
Respondents should therefore comply
with
the
VFA
and
negotiate
with
representatives of the United States towards an
agreement on detention facilities under
Philippine authorities as mandated by Art. V,
Sec. 10 of the VFA.
How may one invoke rules of International

Law before a Philippine court?
International law may be used in the
same manner as citing primary sources of
Philippine laws. It may be invoked by citing
treaties, customary law or general principles of
international law as written by highly qualified
publicists.
What are the Philippine rules on treatymaking?

Philippine rules on treaty making are
enunciated in the 1987 Constitution and
Executive Order No. 59 (1997). Treaty
agreements shall have the concurrence of 2/3
of the Senate and ratification by the President.
Ichong v. Hernandez
101 Phil. 1155 (1957)
Another subordinate argument against
the validity of the law is the supposed
violation thereby of the Charter of the United
Nations and of the Declaration of the Human
Page 15 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Rights adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly. We find no merit in the Nations
Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations
regarding the rights and freedom of their
subjects (Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United
Nations, 1951 ed. pp. 29-32), and the
Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing
more than a mere recommendation or a
common standard of achievement for all
peoples and all nations (Id. p. 39.) That such is
the import of the United Nations Charter aid
of the Declaration of Human Rights can be
inferred the fact that members of the United
Nations Organizations, such as Norway and
Denmark, prohibit foreigners from engaging in
retail trade, and in most nations of the world
laws against foreigners engaged in domestic
trade are adopted.
The Treaty of Amity between the
Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of
China of April 18, 1947 is also claimed to be
violated by the law in question. All that the
treaty guarantees is equality of treatment to
the Chinese nationals "upon the same terms as
the nationals of any other country." But the
nationals of China are not discriminating
against because nationals of all other countries,
except those of the United States, who are
granted special rights by the Constitution, are
all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.
But even supposing that the law infringes upon
the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualification or amendment by a subsequent
law (U. S. vs. Thompson, 258, Fed. 257, 260),
and the same may never curtail or restrict the
scope of the police power of the State (plaston
vs. Pennsylvania, 58 L. ed. 539.)
Gonzales v. Hechanova
9 SCRA 230 (1963)
It is contended that the Government of
the Philippines has already entered into two
(2) contracts for the Purchase of rice, one with
the Republic of Vietnam, and another with the
Government of Burma; that these contracts
constitute valid executive agreements under
international law; that such agreements
became binding effective upon the signing
thereof by representatives the parties thereto;
that in case of conflict between Republic Acts
Nos. 2207 and 3452 on the one hand,
and aforementioned contracts, on the other,
the latter should prevail, because, if a treaty
and a statute are inconsistent with each other,
the conflict must be resolved under the

American jurisprudence in favor of the one
which is latest in point of time; that petitioner
herein assails the validity of acts of the
Executive relative to foreign relations in the
conduct of which the Supreme Court cannot
interfere; and the aforementioned contracts
have already been consummated, the
Government of the Philippines having already
paid the price of the rice involved therein
through irrevocable letters of credit in favor of
the sell of the said commodity. We find no
merit in this pretense.
The Court is not satisfied that the
status of said tracts as alleged executive
agreements has been sufficiently established.
The parties to said contracts do not pear to
have regarded the same as executive
agreements. But, even assuming that said
contracts may properly considered as executive
agreements, the same are unlawful, as well as
null and void, from a constitutional viewpoint,
said agreements being inconsistent with the
provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and
3452. Although the President may, under the
American constitutional system enter into
executive agreements without previous
legislative authority, he may not, by executive
agreement, enter into a transaction which is
prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto.
Under the Constitution, the main function of
the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by
Congress. The former may not interfere in the
performance of the legislative powers of the
latter, except in the exercise of his veto power.
He may not defeat legislative enactments that
have acquired the status of law, by indirectly
repealing the same through an executive
agreement providing for the performance of
the very act prohibited by said laws. The
American theory to the effect that, in the
event of conflict between a treaty and a
statute, the one which is latest in point of time
shall prevail, is not applicable to the case at
bar, for respondents not only admit, but, also
insist that the contracts adverted to are not
treaties. Said theory may be justified upon the
ground that treaties to which the United States
is signatory require the advice and consent of
its Senate, and, hence, of a branch of the
legislative department. No such justification
can be given as regards executive agreements
not authorized by previous legislation, without
completely upsetting the principle of
separation of powers and the system of checks
and balances which are fundamental in our
Page 16 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

constitutional set up and that of the United
States.
As regards the question whether an
international agreement may be invalidated by
our courts, suffice it to say that the
Constitution of the Philippines has clearly
settled it in the affirmative, by providing, in
Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the
Supreme Court may not be deprived "of its
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify,
or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error
as the law or the rules of court may provide,
final judgments and decrees of inferior courts
in (1) All cases in which the constitutionality
or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or
executive order or regulation is in question". In
other words, our Constitution authorizes the
nullification of a treaty, not only when it
conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also,
when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
Taada v. Angara,
G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
Third issue (WTO Agreement and Legislative
Power)
The Constitution has not really shown
any unbalanced bias in favor of any business
or enterprise, nor does it contain any specific
pronouncement that Filipino companies
should be pampered with a total proscription
of foreign competition. On the other hand,
respondents claim that WTO/GATT aims to
make available to the Filipino consumer the
best goods and services obtainable anywhere
in the world at the most reasonable prices.
Consequently, the question boils down to
whether WTO/GATT will favor the general
welfare of the public at large.
This Court notes and appreciates the
ferocity and passion by which petitioners
stressed their arguments on this issue.
However, while sovereignty has traditionally
been deemed absolute and all-encompassing
on the domestic level, it is however subject to
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed
to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as
a member of the family of nations.
Unquestionably, the Constitution did not
envision a hermit-type isolation of the country
from the rest of the world. In its Declaration of
Principles and State Policies, the Constitution
"adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the
land, and adheres to the policy of peace,

equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
amity, with all nations." By the doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by
generally accepted principles of international
law, which are considered to be automatically
part of our own laws. One of the oldest and
most fundamental rules in international law is
pacta sunt servanda international
agreements must be performed in good faith.
"A treaty engagement is not a mere moral
obligation but creates a legally binding
obligation on the parties . . . A state which has
contracted valid international obligations is
bound to make in its legislations such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure
the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken."
By their inherent nature, treaties really
limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty.
By their voluntary act, nations may surrender
some aspects of their state power in exchange
for greater benefits granted by or derived from
a convention or pact. After all, states, like
individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit
of mutually covenanted objectives and
benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the
exercise of their otherwise absolute rights.
Thus, treaties have been used to record
agreements between States concerning such
widely diverse matters as, for example, the
lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of
territory, the termination of war, the
regulation of conduct of hostilities, the
formation of alliances, the regulation of
commercial relations, the settling of claims, the
laying down of rules governing conduct in
peace and the establishment of international
organizations. The sovereignty of a state
therefore cannot in fact and in reality be
considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter
into the picture:
(1) limitations imposed by the very nature
of membership in the family of
nations; and
(2) limitations
imposed
by
treaty
stipulations.
As aptly put by John F. Kennedy,
"Today, no nation can build its destiny alone.
The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over.
The age of interdependence is here."
In the foregoing treaties the Philippines
has effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its
sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain
Page 17 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

and
police
power.
The
underlying
consideration in this partial surrender of
sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of
the other contracting states in granting the
same privilege and immunities to the
Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The
same reciprocity characterizes the Philippine
commitments under WTO-GATT.
Treaty-making under Philippine law
Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary,

G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005
The case is about a petition for
mandamus filed by Pimentel et al. to compel
the Office of the Executive Secretary and the

Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the
signed copy of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court to the Senate of
the Philippines for its concurrence in
accordance with Section 21, Article VII of the
1987 Constitution. Justice Isagani Cruz, in his
book on International Law, describes the
treaty-making process in this wise: The usual
steps in the treaty-making process are:
negotiation, signature, ratification, and
exchange of the instruments of ratification. The
treaty may then be submitted for registration
and publication under the U.N. Charter,
although this step is not essential to the
validity of the agreement as between the
parties.
Negotiation
may be undertaken
directly by the head of state but he now
usually assigns this task to his authorized
representatives. These representatives are
provided with credentials known as full
powers, which they exhibit to the other
negotiators at the start of the formal
discussions. It is standard practice for one of
the parties to submit a draft of the proposed
treaty which, together with the counterproposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent
negotiations. The negotiations may be brief or
protracted, depending on the issues involved,
and may even collapse in case the parties are
unable to come to an agreement on the points
under consideration. If and when the
negotiators finally decide on the terms of the
treaty, the same is opened for signature. This
step is primarily intended as a means of
authenticating the instrument and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the
parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate
the final consent of the state in cases where
ratification of the treaty is required. The

document is ordinarily signed in accordance
with the alternat, that is, each of the several
negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy
which he will bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the
formal act by which a state confirms and
accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by
its representatives. The purpose of ratification
is to enable the contracting states to examine
the treaty more closely and to give them an
opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should
they find it inimical to their interests. It is for
this reason that most treaties are made subject
to the scrutiny and consent of a department of
the government other than that which
negotiated them.
xxx
The last step in the treaty-making
process is the exchange of the instruments of
ratification, which usually also signifies the
effectivity of the treaty unless a different date
has been agreed upon by the parties. Where
ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity
clause isembodied in the treaty, the instrument
is deemed effective upon its signature.
Petitioners
submission
that the
Philippines is bound under treaty law and
international law to ratify the treaty which it
has signed is without basis. The signature does
not signify the final consent of the state to the
treaty. It is the ratification that binds the state
to the provisions thereof. In fact, the Rome
Statute itself requires that the signature of the
representatives of the states be subject to
ratification, acceptance or approval of the
signatory states. Ratification is the act by which
the provisions of a treaty are formally
confirmed and approved by a State. By
ratifying a treaty signed in its behalf, a state
expresses its willingness to be bound by the
provisions of such treaty. After the treaty is
signed by the states representative, the
President, being accountable to the people, is
burdened with the responsibility and the duty
to carefully study the contents of the treaty
and ensure that they are not inimical to the
interest of the state and its people. Thus, the
President has the discretion even after the
signing of the treaty by the Philippine
representative whether or not to ratify the
same.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties does not contemplate to defeat or
even restrain this power of the head of states.
Page 18 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

If that were so, the requirement of ratification
of treaties would be pointless and futile. It has
been held that a state has no legal or even
moral duty to ratify a treaty which has been
signed by its plenipotentiaries. There is no
legal obligation to ratify a treaty, but it goes
without saying that the refusal must be based
on substantial grounds and not on superficial
or whimsical reasons. Otherwise, the other
state would be justified in taking offense. It
should be emphasized that under our
Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in
the President, subject to the concurrence of the
Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is
limited only to giving or withholding its
consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Hence, it is within the authority of the
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
Senate or, having secured its consent for its
ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that
should not be taken lightly, such decision is
within the competence of the President alone,
which cannot be encroached by this Court via
a writ of mandamus. This Court has no
jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the
President in the performance of his official
duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the
writ of mandamus prayed for by the
petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to
compel the executive branch of the
government to transmit the signed text of
Rome Statute to the Senate. Petition was
dismissed.
PCIJ Advisory Opinion on Tunis and Morocco

Nationality Decrees (1923).
G. Nationality and Statelessness
Diplomatic protection theory:
Are there international rules on nationality?

Rule 1: Each state determines who its nationals
are.
Limitation 1: custom, Art.15 of UDHR
(1) Everyone has a right a right to a
nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality.
Limitation 2: treaty, Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness (NOTE: PH not a
party)
Bases for determining membership in political
entity
Membership in political entity determines
Nationality of juridical persons shall be in the

place of registration. (Barcelona Traction Case,
Belgium v. Spain, 1970)
Is nationality different from citizenship?

Yes. Nationality refers to membership
in a nation (ethnic, cultural) while citizenship
refers to membership in a state (political).
Status
Legal rights
Importance of membership in political entity
Nationality is a legal bond having as its

basis a social fact of attachment. Nottebohm
Case (Lechtenstein v. Guatemala, 1955)
Accident of birth
Free choice
Individual may ask for protection

State may claim right to protect
-injury to national is injury to the state

Statelessness
The condition or status of an
individual who is born without any nationality
or who loses his nationality without retaining
or acquiring another. (Cruz)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Who determines whether an individual is a

national (or citizen) of a certain state?
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality.
It is usually the state who determines

their nationals or citizen. This was affirmed in
Page 19 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Covenant Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons
(1) The injured alien must first exhaust all

local remedies
A stateless person is entitled to, among

others, the right to religion and religious
instruction, access to courts, elementary
education, public relief and assistance and
rationing of products in short supply, as well
as treatment of no less favorable than that
accorded to aliens.
(2) He must be represented in the int'l

claim for damages by his own state
(ordinarily, individuals have no
standing to bring a claim before
international law).
I. Jurisdiction of States
H. State responsibility
1.
1. Doctrine of state responsibility

STATE RESPONSIBILITY
1. It is the doctrine which holds a state
responsible for any injury sustained by an alien
within its jurisdiction. Because of an
international wrong imputable to it, the state
will be responsible if it is shown that it
participated in the act or omission complained
of or was remiss in redressing the resultant
wrong.
2. Elements of State Responsibility
a, breach of an international obligation
b, attributability
3. Types of State responsibility
a, Direct responsibility-attaches to the state
if the wrongful act/omission was effected
through any of its superior organs acting on
its behalf
b, Indirect responsibility- Acts of the
following are attributable to the state:
i, state organs
ii, other persons exercising elements of
governmental authority in the
absence or default of the official
authorities and in circumstances
calling for the exercise of those
elements of authority
iii, insurrectional or other movement
which becomes the new government
4. Conditions for the enforcement of the
doctrine of state responsibility
Territoriality
principle:
The
fundamental source of jurisdiction is
sovereignty over territory. A state has
absolute, though not necessarily
exclusive,
power
to
prescribe,
adjudicate, and enforce rules for
conduct within its territory.
2. Nationality principle: Every state has

jurisdiction over its nationals even
when those nationals are outside the
state.
3. Protective principle: A state may
exercise jurisdiction over conduct
outside its territory that threatens its
security, as long as that conduct is
generally recognized as criminal by the
states in the international community.
4. Universality principle: Recognizes that
certain offenses are so heinous and so
widely condemned that any state, if it
captures the offender, may prosecute
and punish that person on behalf of
the world community regardless of the
nationality of the offender or victim or
where the crime was committed.
5. Passive personality principle: A state
may apply law particularly criminal
law to an act committed outside its
territory by a person not its national
where the victim of the act was its
national. This principle has not been
ordinarily accepted for ordinary torts
or crimes, but is increasingly accepted
as applied to terrorist and other
organized attacks on a states nationals
by reason of their nationality, or to
assassination of a states diplomatic
representatives of other officials.
Page 20 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

J. Treatment of aliens
e.
1. Extradition
f.
a) Fundamental principles
g.
1.
EXTRADITION is the surrender of a

person by one state to another state
where he is wanted for prosecution
or, if already convicted, for
punishment.
2. Basis of Extradition: a treaty. Outside

of treaty, there is no rule in
international law compelling a State
to extradite anyone. Such may be
done, however, as a gesture of
comity.
h.
hearing (provide counsel de

officio if necessary)
appeal to CA within 10 days
whose decision shall be final and
executory;
decision forwarded to DFA
through the DOJ;
Individual placed at the disposal
of the authorities of requesting
state-costs and expenses to be
shouldered by requesting state.
c) Distinguished from deportation
Deportation is the expulsion of an alien who

is considered undesirable by the local state,
usually but not necessarily to his own state. It
is usually a unilateral act of the local state and
is made in its own interests.
3. Principles:
a. Principle of Specialty - a fugitive
who is extradited may be tried
only for the crime specified in the
request for extradition and such
crime is included in the list of
extraditable offenses in the treaty.
b.
Under the Political offense

exception,
most
extradition
treaties provide that political and
religious offenders are not subject
to extradition.
Attendant Clause- assassination of
head of state or any member of
his family is not regarded as
political offense for purposes of
extradition. Also for the crime of
genocide.
c. There can only be extradition if

there is a treaty between the
states.
b) Procedure
PROCEDURE FOR EXTRADITION: (Judicial
and diplomatic process of request and
surrender) PD 1069
a. Request
through
diplomatic
representative with:
b. DFA forwards request to DOJ
c. DOJ files petition for extradition
with RTC,
d. RTC issues summons or warrant
of
arrest
to
compel
the
appearance of the individual;
The Philippines entered into an

extradition treaty with another country which
provided that it would apply crimes
committed before its effectivity. The country
asked the Philippines to extradite X for a crime
committed before the effectivity of the treaty.
X argued the extradition would violate the
prohibition against ex post facto laws. Is he
right?
No. The constitutional prohibition
applies to penal laws only. The extradition
treaty is not a penal law.(Wright v. CA, 235
SCRA 341)
Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion And Mark

Jimenez (G.R. # 139465, Oct. 17, 2000
(overturning the Courts previous decision in
322 SCRA 160 dated Jan. 18, 2000)
FACTS: By virtue of an extradition
treaty between the US and the Philippines, the
US requested for the extradition of Mark
Jimenez for violations of US tax and election
laws. Pending evaluation of the extradition
documents by the Philippine government,
Jimenez requested for copies of the US'
extradition request. The Secretary of Justice
denied that request.
ISSUE: During the evaluation stage of
the extradition proceedings, is private
respondent entitled to the two basic due
process rights of notice and hearing?
HELD: Private respondent is bereft of
the right to notice and hearing during the
Page 21 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

evaluation stage of the extradition process.
Extradition is a proceeding sui generis. It is not
a criminal proceeding which will call into
operation all the rights of an accused
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The process of
extradition does not involve the determination
of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His
guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the
court of the state where he will be extradited.
There is NO deprivation of the right to due
process.
Dissent (original decision): Under the
extradition treaty, the prospective extraditee
may be provisionally arrested pending the
submission of the request. Because of this
possible consequence, the evaluation process is
akin to an administrative agency conducting an
investigative proceeding, and partakes of the
nature of a criminal investigation. Thus, the
basic due process rights of notice and hearing
are indispensable. Assuming that the
extradition treaty does not allow for such
rights, the Constitutional right to procedural
due process must override treaty obligations.
When there is a conflict between international
law obligations and the Constitution, the
Constitution must prevail.
the purpose of securing due recognition and

respect for the rights of others and of the
meeting the just requirements of morality,
public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society. Rights may not be
exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the UN. (Article 29 of the UDHR)
2. International
Political Rights
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
What is the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (UDHR)?
The UDHR is the basic international
statement of the inalienable and inviolable
rights of human beings. It is the first
comprehensive international human rights
instrument.
What are the rights covered by the UDHR?

proclaims two
broad
(a) civil and political rights; and

(b) economic,
rights.
social,
and
on
Civil
and
What are some of the civil and political rights

recognized under the ICCPR?
K. International Human Rights Law
The UDHR
category of rights:
Covenant
cultural
Are these rights subject to limitations?

Yes, the exercise of these rights and
freedoms may be subject to certain limitations,
which must be determined by law, only for
1.
Right of the peoples to selfdetermination (art. 1)

2. Right to an effective remedy (art. 2)
3. Equal rights of men and women in the
(a) enjoyment of civil and political
rights/non-discrimination on the basis
of sex (Art. 3)
4. Right to life (art. 6)
5. Freedom from torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment
(art. 7)
6. Freedom from slavery (art. 8)
7. Right to liberty and security of person
(art. 9)
8. Right to be treated with humanity in
cases of deprivation of liberty (art. 10)
9. Freedom from imprisonment for
failure to fulfill a contractual obligation
(art. 11)
10. Freedom of movement and the right
to travel (art. 12)
11. Right to a fair, impartial and public
trial (art. 14)
12. Freedom from ex post fact laws (art.
15)
13. Right of recognition everywhere as a
person before the law (art. 16)
14. Right to privacy (art. 17)
15. Freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion (art. 18)
16. Freedom of expression (art. 19)
17. Freedom of peaceful assembly (art. 21)
18. Freedom of association (art. 22)
19. Right to marry and found a family (art.
23)
20. Right of a child to protection, a name
and nationality (art. 24)
21. Right to participation, suffrage, and
access to public service (art. 25)
22. Right to equal protection before the
law (art. 26)
Page 22 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

23. Right of minorities to enjoy their own
culture, to profess and prtactice their
religion and to use their own language.
When can a State Party derogate from the
ICCPR?
A state party to the ICCPR may
derogate from the treaty in time of public
emergency which threatens the life of the
nation and the existence of which is officially
proclaimed, the States Parties to the present
Covenant to the extent strictly required by the
exigencies of the situation, provided that such
measures are not inconsistent with their
obligations under international law and do not
involve discrimination solely on the ground of
race, colour, sex, language, religion or social
origin. (Art. 4 (1), ICCPR)
ii. right to adequate food (Art. 11

(1).11 (2));
iii. to adequate clothing (Art.
11(1))
2. Right to health (Art. 12)
3. Right to education (Arts. 13 &14)
4. Cultural rights (Art. 15)
What are the States-parties obligations under
the Covenant?
What are the Non-derogable rights under the

ICCPR?
Even in times of national emergency,
no derogation can be made from the
following:
1. Right to life (art. 6)
2. Freedom from torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading punishment
(art. 7)
3. Freedom from slavery (art. 8)
4. Freedom from imprisonment for
failure to fulfill a contractual obligation
(art. 11)
5. Freedom from ex post fact laws (art.
15)
6. Right of recognition everywhere as a
person before the law (art. 16)
7. Freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion (art. 18) (Art. 4 (2), ICCPR)
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
What are the rights guaranteed by the
Covenant?
(1) Right of self-determination (Art. 1)
(2)Right to work and accompanying
rights thereto (Arts. 6, 7, 8)
(3)Right to Social Security and other
social rights (Arts. 9& 10)
(4)Adequate standard of living (Art. 11
(1)) including:
i.
1. Specific Obligations under Article 2

To take steps ti the maximum
available resources, towards the
progressive realization of the rights in
the covenant;
Non-discriminationstates
guarantee the exercise of the rights
without discrimination (Art. 2 [2]).
2. Three General duties/ obligations of
states:
Just like the ICCPR and other
human rights conventions, ESCR
imposes three different types of
obligations:
a. To respect- requires to refrain from
interfering with enjoyment of rights.
Thus, there is violation if it engages in
forced eviction;
b. To protect- requires states to prevent
violations by third parties. Thus, failure
to ensure compliance by private
employers with basic labor standards
violates the right to work;
c. To fulfill- requires states to take
appropriate
measures
(legislative,
judicial etc.) towards the full
realization of the rights. Thus, the
states failure to provide essential
primary health care to the needy
amounts to a violation.
right to adequate housing (Art.

11 (1));
Page 23 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

L. International
Neutrality
Humanitarian
Law
and
(2) With respect to the persons

mentioned above, the following
acts shall remain prohibited:
What is international humanitarian law (IHL)?

(a) Violence to life and person, in
particular, murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and
torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages
upon
personal
dignity,
in
particular
humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and
the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly
constituted court, affording all
the judicial guarantees which
are recognized as indispensable
by civilized peoples.
It is the law that governs armed

conflict short of war, when a state may use
force (jus ad bello) and how combatants
should behave (jus in bello).
1. Categories of armed conflicts
a) International armed conflicts
An Armed Conflict exists when there is
resort to the use of force:
(1) between two states (international
armed conflict), or
(2) between government authorities and
an organized armed group, or
(3) between such groups within the
same territory non-international
armed conflict (Prosecutor v. Dusko
Tadic, 1995)
Note: Wars of National Liberation

have been classified as international armed
conflicts (ICRC). Mere internal disturbances
and tensions, or riots or isolated or sporadic
acts of armed violence does not amount to an
armed conflict (Tadic)
Note: Cases of this type are governed
by the provisions of human rights law and the
relevant domestic laws.
b) Internal or non-international armed conflict
(3) The wounded and the sick shall be

collected and cared for.
The application of provisions above
does not affect the legal status of the parties to
the conflict. Hence, an insurgent or a rebel
group does not assume belligerency status.
Article 3 is indifferent to the legal
character of such group. It must be noted that
Article 3 is to be applied as a minimum.
Common Article 3 and Protocol II
Protocol II develops and supplements
common Article 3 (Art. 1, Protocol II).
Conventions are the only provision

applicable
to
non-international
armed
conflicts. It defines the following obligations:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including
(a) members of the armed forces
who have laid down their arms and
(b) those placed hors de combat,
shall in all instances be treated
humanely without any adverse
distinction founded on race, color,
religion or faith, sex, birth or
wealth, or any other similar criteria.
It applies to:
(1) all armed conflicts which take
place in the territory of a State
Party,
(2) between its armed forces and
dissident armed forces or other
organized groups
(3) which,
under
responsible
command, exercise such control
over a part of its territory
(4) as to enable to carry out sustained
and concerted military operations
and to implement the Protocol.
Page 24 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Application of Article 3 and Protocol II
The rules in Article 3 are recognized as
customary norms of international law, and
therefore applicable to all States. However,
Protocol II is a treaty and binding only States
that are parties to it. Its rules, however, may
still develop into customary norms binding on
all states, by the general practice of states
coupled with their acceptance of them as law
(opinio juris).
Control-of-Territory
The test of whether a dissident armed
force has control of territory is when such
armed force can
(1) carry out sustained and concerted
military operations, and whether it
has
(2) the capacity to comply with the
provisions of the Protocol.
In a non-international armed conflict
where the dissident armed forces do not
exercise such control over territory, Article 3,
and not Protocol II may be applicable. The
result is that this situation may give rise to two
categories of non-international armed conflicts:
one where only Article 3 applies, and the
other where both Article 3 and Protocol II
apply.
Wars by peoples against racist, colonial

and alien domination "for the implementation
of their right to self-determination and
independence is legitimate and in full accord
with principles of international law," and that
any attempt to suppress such struggle is
unlawful (Resolution 3103 [XXVIII]).
When peoples subjected to alien
domination resort toforcible action in order to
exercise their right to selfdetermination, they
"are entitled to seek and to receive support in
accordance with the purposes and principles of
the Charter (1970 Resolution 2625 XXV)
2. Core international obligations of states in
International Humanitarian Law
Combatants: Members of the armed
forces of a Party to a conflict (Art. 3(2),
Protocol 1). They have the right to participate
directly and indirectly in hostilities. ( Art 43(2)
Protocol 1)
Note: Only combatants are allowed to

engage in hostilities.
A combatant is allowed to use force,
even to kill, and will not be held personally
responsible for his acts, as he would be where
he to the same as a normal citizen (Gasser)
Hors de combat: Under Art. 41(2) of

Protocol I, a person is hors de combat if he:
c) War of national liberation
(1) Is in the power of an adverse party

to the conflict;
(2) He clearly expresses an intention
to surrender; or
(3) He has been rendered unconscious
or is otherwise incapacitated by
wounds or sickness, and is
therefore incapable of defending
himself, provided that in any of
these cases, he abstains from any
hostile act and does not attempt to
escape.
An armed conflict may be of such

nature in which peoples are fighting against
colonial domination and alien occupation and
against racist regimes in the exercise of their
right to self-determination.
This conflict, however, is considered an
international armed conflict under Art. 1, par.

3 and 4 of Protocol I.
Note: Article 2 common to the four

Geneva conventions provides that all cases of
declared war or any other armed conflict
which may arise between two or more of the
High Contracting Parties, even if the state of
war is not recognized by one of them. Hence,
the Geneva conventions and Protocol I govern
wars of national liberation.
Persons hors de combat shall be

protected and treated humanely without any
adverse distinction. Their right to life and
physical and moral integrity shall be respected
Protected Persons: They are those who
enjoy or are entitled to protection under the
Geneva Conventions. Categories of protected
persons include:
Page 25 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

(1) The wounded,
shipwrecked;
(2) Prisoners of War
(3) Civilians
the
sick,
and
(1)
Members of the armed forces of a

Party to the conflict, including
militias or volunteer corps
(2) Militias or volunteer corps
operating in or outside their own
territory, even if such territory is
occupied provided:
For purposes of protection, civilians

are further classified as:
(1) Civilians who are victims of
conflict in countries involved
(2) Civilians in territories of the
enemy;
(3) Civilians in occupied territories;
(4) Civilians internees
(a) They are being commanded

by a person responsible for his
subordinates
(b) Have a fixed distinctive sign
recognizable at a distance
(c) Carries arms openly
(d) Conducts their operations
in accordance with the laws and
customs of war
3. Principles of International Humanitarian

Law
What are the fundamental IHL principles?
(3) Members of regular armed forces

who profess allegiance to a
government or authority not
recognized by the Detaining
Power
(4) Civilians who accompany the
armed forces, provided that they
have received authorization from
the armed forces which they
accompany
(5) Members of crews of merchant
marine and the crews of civil
aircraft of the Parties to the
conflict
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied
territory who on the approach of
the enemy spontaneously take up
arms to resist the invading forces,
without having had time to form
themselves into regular armed
units, provided they carry arms
openly and respect the laws and
customs of war
(7) Persons belonging to the armed
forces of the occupied territory
Distinction
Distinguish between civilian population
and combatants.
Proportionality
Action must be focused on attainment
of military objective. No unlimited choice of
means and methods.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Persons hors de combat and those

not taking part in hostilities shall
be
protected
and
treated
humanely.
It is forbidden to kill or injure an
enemy who surrenders or is hors
de combat.
The wounded and the sick shall
be cared for and protected by the
party to the conflict which has
them in its power.
Captured combatants and civilians
must be protected against acts of
violence and reprisals.
No one shall be subjected to
torture, corporal punishment or
cruel or degrading treatment.
a) Treatment of civilians
b) Prisoners of war
Article
4,
Geneva
Convention:
Prisoners of war are persons belonging to one

of the following categories:
4. Law on neutrality
Neutrality is the legal status of a State
in times of war, by which it adopts impartiality
in relation to the belligerents with their
recognition.
The Hague Convention Respecting the Rights
and Duties of Neutral Powers (Oct. 18, 1907)
governs the status of neutrality by the
following rules:
Page 26 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

(1) The territory of the neutral Power
is inviolable;
(2) Belligerents are forbidden to move
troops or munitions of war and
supplies across the territory of a
neutral Power;
(3) A neutral power is forbidden to
allow belligerents to use its
territory for moving troops,
establishing
communication
facilities, or forming corps of
combatants.
(4) Troops of belligerent armies
received by a neutral Power in its
territory shall be interned by away
from the theatre of war;
(5) The neutral Power may supply
them with food, clothing or relief
required by humanity;
(6) If the neutral Power receives
escaped prisoners of war, it shall
leave them at liberty. It may assign
them a place of residence if it
allows them to remain in its
territory;
(7) The neutral power may authorize
the passage into its territory of the
sick and wounded if the means of
transport bringing them does not
carry personnel or materials of war
The Third Geneva Convention
(Prisoners of War) allows neutral

Powers to cooperate with the parties to the
armed conflict in making arrangements for the
accommodation in the formers territory of the
sick and wounded prisoners of war.
Interned persons among the
civilian population, in particular the children,
the pregnant women, the mothers with infants
and young children, wounded and sick, may
be accommodated in a neutral state in the
course of hostilities, by agreement between the
parties to the conflict.
M. Law of the sea
The Convention on Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) is the body of treaty rules and
customary norms governing the use of the sea,
the exploitation of its resources, and the
exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes.
(Magallona)
It is the branch of PIL which regulates

the relations of states with respect to the use of
the oceans.
How are international rules of the sea created?
They are created by treaties and
customs. The latest was the Convention of the
Law of the Sea (LOS) of 1982 whose provisions
are a repetition of earlier convention law
(Geneva Conventions 1958, 1960) or a
codification of customary law, with matters
not regulated is governed by the principles of
international law.
Who are bound by international rules of the
sea?
State parties to the convention or
those states which have consented to be
bound by international rules of the sea shall be
bound as such. All other states are deemed
party to the Convention after failing an
expression of different intention (Article
316(4), UNCLOS)
1. Baselines
The line from which a breadth of the
territorial sea and other maritime zones, such
as the contiguous zone and the exclusive
economic zone is measured. Its purpose is to
determine the starting point to begin
measuring maritime zones boundary of the
coastal state.
NORMAL BASELINE
-the territorial sea is the low-water line
along the coast as marked on large-scale charts
officially recognized by the coastal state. (Art.
5, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or

UNCLOS)
STRAIGHT BASELINE
-where the coastline is deeply indented
or cut into, or if there is a fringe of islands
along the coast in its immediate vicinity, the
method of straight lines joining the
appropriate points may be employed in
drawing the baseline from which the breadth
of the territorial sea is measured (Art. 7,
UNCLOS)
Page 27 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

(1) Rights under existing agreement on
the part of third states should be
respected by the archipelagic state.
(2) Within its archipelagic waters, the
archipelagic state shall recognize
traditional fishing rights and other
legitimate activities of immediately
adjacent neighboring states.
(3) The archipelagic state shall respect
existing submarine cables laid by
other states and passing through
its waters without making a
landfall.
(4) Right of archipelagic sea lanes
passage: It is the right of foreign
ships and aircraft to have
2. Archipelagic states
It is a state made up of wholly one or
more archipelagos. It may include other
islands. An archipelago is a group of islands,
including parts of islands, interconnecting
waters and other natural features which are so
closely related that such islands, waters and
natural features form an intrinsic geographical,
economic and political entity, or which
historically have been regarded as such.
Two Kinds of Archipelagos:
(1)
Coastal situated close to a
mainland and may be considered

part thereof, i.e. Norway
(2) Mid-Ocean situated in the
ocean at such distance from the
coasts of firm land, i.e. Indonesia
(note: The Archipelagic State
continuous,
expeditious,
and
unobstructed passage in sea lanes
and air routes through or over
archipelagic waters and the
adjacent territorial sea of the

archipelagic state. Note:
the
archipelagic state designates the sea
lanes as proposals to the
competent
international
organization.
provisions apply only to midocean archipelagos composed of

islands, and NOT to a partly
continental state.)
a) Straight archipelagic baselines

Straight baselines join the outermost
points of the outermost islands and drying
reefs of an archipelago, provided that within
such baselines are included the main islands
and an area in which the ratio of the water to
the area of the land, including atolls, is
between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. Such are called
It is the International Marine

Organization (IMO) which adopts them
through Art. 53(9) of the UNCLOS which
states that the Organization may adopt only
sea lanes and traffic separation schemes as may
be agreed with the archipelagic state, after
which such state may designate, prescribe or
substitute them.
Territorial sea and other maritime
Special Issue: Under Art. 1 of the 1987

Constitution, the archipelagic waters of the
straight archipelagic baselines.
zones the breadth of the territorial sea, the

contiguous zone, and the EEZ is measured
from the straight archipelagic baselines.
b) Archipelagic waters
These are the waters enclosed by the

straight archipelagic baselines, regardless of
their depth or distance from the coast. It is
subject to the sovereignty of the archipelagic
state, but subject to the right of innocent
passage for the ships of all states.
c) Archipelagic sea lanes passage
Other Rights
Archipelagic Waters
with
Respect
to
Philippines are characterized as forming part of

the internal waters of the Philippines.
However, under the UNCLOS, archipelagic
waters consist mainly of the waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of breadth or
dimension.
Thus, conversion from internal waters
under the Constitution into archipelagic waters
under the UNCLOS gravely derogates the
sovereignty of the Philippine state. Remember
that sovereignty over internal waters precludes
the right of innocent passage and other rights
pertaining to archipelagic waters under the
UNCLOS. Also, under Art. 47 of the UNCLOS,
it is not mandatory upon concerned states to
declare themselves as archipelagic states; the
Philippines did, under its new baselines law,
Page 28 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

RA 9522 a legislative act upheld as
constitutional by the Supreme Court in
Magallona v. Executive Secretary. The result
could be disastrous, at least, in Dean
Magallonas view.
3. Internal waters
These are waters of lakes, rivers, and
bays landward of the baseline of the territorial
sea. However, in case of archipelagic states,
waters landward of the baseline other than
those rivers, bays and lakes, are archipelagic
waters.
NOTE: Internal waters are treated as

part of a State's land territory, and is subject to
the full exercise of sovereignty. Thus, the
coastal state may designate which waters to
open and which to close to foreign shipping.
4. Territorial sea
These waters stretch up to 12 miles
from the baseline on the seaward direction.
They are subject to the jurisdiction of the
coastal state, which jurisdiction almost
approximates that which is exercised over land
territory, except that the coastal state must
respect the rights to (1) innocent passage and,
in the case of certain straits, to (2) transit
passage.
Innocent passage: Navigation through

the territorial sea w/o entering internal waters,
going to internal waters, or coming from
internal waters and making for the high seas.
It must:
(1) involve only acts that are required
by navigation or by distress, and
(2) not prejudice the peace, security,
or good order of the coastal state.
Transit passage The right to exercise

freedom of navigation and over flight solely
for the purpose of continuous and expeditious
transit through the straights used for
international navigation. The right cannot be
unilaterally suspended by the coastal state.
economic resources, artificial installations,

scientific research, and pollution control.
NOTE: Under the UNCLOS, states

have the sovereign right to exploit the
resources of this zone, but shall share that part
of the catch that is beyond its capacity to
harvest.
Resources covered by sovereign rights
of coastal states in the EEZ include living and
non-living resources in the waters of the
seabed and its subsoil.
Note: Coastal states have the primary

responsibility to utilize, manage and conserve
the living resources within their EEZ, i.e.
ensuring that living resources are not
endangered by overexploitation, and the duty
to promote optimum utilization of living
resources by determining allowable catch. If
after determining the maximum allowable
catch, the coastal state does not have the
capacity to harvest the entire catch, it shall
give other states access to the surplus by means
of arrangements allowable under the
UNCLOS. The UNLCOS, however, does not
specify the method for determining allowable
catch. Hence, states may establish illusory
levels.
Geographically disadvantaged states
(those who have no EEZ of their own or those
coastal states whose geographical situations
make them dependent on the exploitation of
the living resources of the EEZ of other states)
and land-locked states have the right to
participate, on equitable basis, in the
exploitation of the surplus of the living
resources in the EEZ of coastal states of the
same sub region or region.
Note: a coastal state whose economy

is overwhelmingly dependent on the
exploitation of its EEZ is not required to share
its resources.
Jurisdiction of Coastal State over EEZ:
5. Exclusive economic zone

A stretch of area up to 200 miles from
its baselines. Within this zone, a State may
regulate nonliving and living resources, other
(1) establishment and use of artificial

islands, installations and structures,
(2) scientific research,
(3) the preservation and protection of
marine environment.
Page 29 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Under Art. 58 of the UNCLOS, all
states enjoy the freedom of navigation, over
flight, and laying of submarine cables and
pipelines in the EEZ of coastal states. The
coastal state has the right to enforce all laws
and regulations enacted to conserve and

manage the living resources in its EEZ. It may
board and inspect a ship, arrest a ship and its
crew and institute judicial proceedings against
them.
Note: In detention of foreign vessels,

the coastal state has the duty to promptly
notify the flag state of the action taken.
Conflicts regarding the attribution of rights and
jurisdiction in the EEZ must be resolved on the
basis of equity and in the light of all relevant
circumstances, taking into account the
respective importance of the interests involved
to the parties as well as to the international
community as a whole. (Art. 59, UNCLOS)
6. Continental shelf
a) Extended continental shelf
It is the seabed and subsoil of the
submarine areas extending beyond the
territorial sea of the coastal state throughout
the natural prolongation of its lands territory
up to:
(1) the outer edge of the continental
margin, or
(2) a distance of 200 nautical miles
from the baselines of the territorial
sea where the outer edge of the
continental margin does not
extend up to that distance.
Continental margin the submerged

prolongation of the land mass of the
continental state, consisting of the continental
shelf proper, the continental slope, and the
continental rise
When the continental shelf extends

beyond 200 nautical miles, the coastal state
shall establish its outer limits. At any rate, the
continental shelf shall not extend beyond 350
nautical miles from the baseline of the
territorial sea, or 100 nautical miles from the
2500 meter isobath (or the point where the
waters are 2500 meters deep).
Rights of the Coastal
Continental Shelf
State
over
the
The continental shelf does not form

part of the territory of the coastal state. It only
has sovereign rights with respect to the
exploration and exploitation of its natural
resources, including the mineral and other
non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil
together with living organisms belonging to
the sedentary species.
For example, the coastal state has the
exclusive right to authorize and regulate oildrilling on its continental shelf. These rights are
exclusive in the sense that when the coastal
state does not explore its continental shelf or
exploit its resources, no one may undertake
these activities without the coastal states
consent.
NOTE: In instances where the

continental margin is more than 200 nautical
miles from the baselines, and hence extends
beyond the EEZ, the coastal state has the
exclusive right to exploit mineral and nonliving resources in the excess area.
7. International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea
Jurisdiction of Court or Tribunal
The court or Tribunal has jurisdiction
over:
Limits of The Continental Shelf

Juridical or Legal Continental Shelf: 0200 nautical miles from baselines.
Extended Continental Shelf: 200-350

nautical miles from baselines depending on
geomorphologic or geological data and
information
(1) any dispute submitted to it

concerning the application or
interpretation of UNCLOS
(2) any
dispute
concerning
the
interpretation or application of an
international agreement:
(a) related to the purposes of
the UNCLOS
(b) when such dispute is
submitted
to
it
in
accordance
with
that
agreement.
Page 30 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

Composition of the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)
It is composed of 21 independent
members elected from among persons
enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and
integrity and of recognized competence in the
field of the law of the sea.
The composition shall also be
representative of the worlds principal legal
systems and of equitable geographical
distribution.
Jurisdiction of ITLOS
Its jurisdiction covers all disputes
submitted to it in accordance with the
UNCLOS. It also includes matters submitted to
it under any other agreement.
Applicable Laws in Settlement of Disputes by
the ITLOS
The Tribunal shall apply the UNLCOS
and other rules of international law not
incompatible with the UNCLOS. It may also
decide a case ex aequo et bono (what is
equitable and just) if the parties so agree.
Notes on the Philippine Arbitral Case Over the
Chinese Nine-Dash Claim
CHINESE NINE-DASH LINE CLAIM
This declaration, first made known
internationally in 1947, features a map with a
series of nine dashes or dotted lines forming a
U-shaped enclosure and covering about 90
percent of the South China Sea. Included in the
Chinese claim are areas that, under the
UNCLOS, would normally pertain to the
maritime entitlements of the other states in the
region, with the Philippines and Vietnam being
its most vocal critics.
Practically all the coastal states with
the possible exception of Indonesia reject the
Chinese Nine-Dash Line claim as a legallydefinitive maritime boundary for China in the
South China Sea. In 1995, Ali Alatas, then the
Indonesian
Foreign
Minister
obtained
assurances from Beijing that it has no quarrel
with Indonesia. This served as basis for
Indonesias exploitation of the Natuna gas
fields with nary a protest from the Chinese.
In 2009, China formally submitted a

map to the UN showing the areas in the area it
claims under the declaration. One observer
says the situation is compounded by the lack
of clarity in the territorial and maritime
assertions being made by China through its
Nine-Dash Line claim, stressing that China has
chosen to leave the nine-dash line ambiguous
(with no map coordinates), because the
ambiguity gives greater room for manoeuvre.
Growing Chinese naval presence in SCS
Since 2012 China has been stepping up its
presence in the area with new warships
including its very first aircraft carrier and
expanded naval patrols and swarms of quasigovernmental fishing vessels. While, just a few
months ago, amid much fanfare, China put up
a new administrative structure to govern areas
it has occupied and those it claims, much to
the protestations of the other claimants.
It has also engaged the Philippines in a
standoff over the Scarborough Shoal (also
known to Filipinos as Panatag Shoal and Bajo
De Masinloc), a rock and coral reef formation
about 220 kilometers off Masinloc town in the
Philippine coastal province of Zambales and
about 840 kilometers from the nearest point
of the Chinese coast. The shoal has been
tacked to Philippine territory by a Treaty
between London and Washington in the year
1900 and declared by the Philippines in a 2009
new baselines law to be an island regime as
defined under article number 121 of the
UNCLOS.
As early as 1913, Manila courts have
heard cases of shipwrecks in the vicinity. With
Philippine permission, the shoal was also used
for live-fire exercises by the US Navy while it
ran its largest naval facility outside the US
mainland at Subic Bay until the early 1990s.
The US and the Philippines still maintain a
Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1951 and
regularly hold joint training exercises under a
Visiting Forces Agreement. Yet China
designates the shoal Huangyan Island and
asserts historic entitlements over it because it
falls inside the Nine-Dash Line claim.
One expert observer argues that
Scarborough shoal occupies a central place in
the Chinese plans to enforce its sovereignty
claims over what it calls the Zhongsha
Qundao, which consists of Macclesfield Bank,
Truro Shoal, Saint Esprit Shoal, Dreyer Shoal
Page 31 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

and
Scarborough
Shoal.
Except
for
Scarborough, all banks and shoals of Zhongsha
Qunda are underwater for the most part.
Without Scarborough, it is said that the
Chinese cannot assert ownership over the
entirety of Zhongsha Qundao, thus making the
Nine-Dash Line claim useless.
In June last year, China established
Sansha City on Yongxing Island in its
southernmost province of Hainan to
administer the Spratlys, the Paracels and
Macclesfield Bank, with provision for a
deployment of troops there. To be sure, China
has also resorted to deceptively innocuous but
no less rankling ways, such as printing new
passports with a map of territories it claims (to
include land areas India also considers its own
), and perhaps, even exporting to unsuspecting
bookstores in the Philippines educational
globes indicating Chinas expansive territorial
claims.
Philippines Takes China to Arbitration
In late January this year, the
Philippines brought matters to a head by
bringing China to arbitration over the latters
Nine Dash Line claim.
For this reason, the Philippines was

emphatic in its Notification and Statement of
Claims against China, that its arbitral challenge
does not cover any of the items in the Chinese
reservations.
Among others things, the Philippines
wants the arbitral tribunal to rule on the
compatibility of the Nine-Dash Line Claim with
Chinas internal waters, territorial sea, or
exclusive economic zone under the UNCLOS.
In other words, the Philippine submission asks
whether properly interpreted, the Chinese
declaration complies with the maritime
regimes set under the UNCLOS. In addition, it
also questions Chinese occupation of reefs
which are underwater namely Mischief,
McKeenan, Gaven and Subi asking the
tribunal to rule that since these are neither
rocks nor islandsunder the UNCLOS, these
should be interpreted as part of the Philippine
continental shelf. As for Scarborough Shoal,
which consists of six small rocks now conceded
as uninhabitable islands, the Philippines claims
it as part of its EEZ.
N. Madrid Protocol and the Paris Convention
for the Protection of Industrial Property
Madrid Protocol
As expected, China while insisting on

bilateral negotiations immediately rejected the
arbitration proceedings. This raises questions
over the viability of arbitration under the
UNCLOS on the Law of the Sea as a binding
procedure.
Truth to tell, UNCLOS procedures for
binding arbitrations are complicated and
tricky. Membership means a states acceptance
of compulsory and binding dispute mechanism
procedures provided in the treaty. However,
the treaty also allows member-states to opt
out of these binding dispute mechanisms under
Article number 298 exceptions, which, among
other things, pertain to disputes concerning
military activities, including military activities
by government vessels and aircraft engaged in
non-commercial
service,
and
disputes
concerning law enforcement activities in
regard to the exercise of sovereign rights or
jurisdiction as well as sea boundary
delimitations, or those involving historic bays
or titles. China has made such an exception in
a formal declaration on 25 August 2006.
The Protocol Relating to the Madrid

Agreement Concerning the International
Registration of Marks or The Madrid Protocol
is one of two treaties comprising the Madrid
System for international registration of
trademarks and it deals more with the
procedure for filing than with substantive
rights.
Purpose: It provides a cost-effective and

efficient way for trademark holders -individuals and businesses to ensure
protection for their marks in multiple countries
through the filing of one application with a
single office, in one language, with one set of
fees, in one currency.
While an International Registration
may be issued, it remains the right of each
country or contracting party designated for
protection to determine whether or not
protection for a mark may be granted. Once
the trademark office in a designated country
grants protection, the mark is protected in that
country just as if that office had registered it.
Page 32 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

The Madrid Protocol also simplifies the
subsequent management of the mark, since a
simple, single procedural step serves to record
subsequent changes in ownership or in the
name or address of the holder with World
Intellectual
Property
Organization's
International Bureau. The International Bureau
administers
the
Madrid
System
and
coordinates the transmittal of requests for
protection, renewals and other relevant
documentation to all members.
The Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property
The treaty was signed in 1883 and it is
one of the first treaties dealing with intellectual
property and its protection.
Substantive Provisions:
National Treatment: requires that each
member state grant the same quality and

quantity of protection to eligible foreigners as
it grants to its own nationals in respect to the
intellectual property enumerated in the
Convention.
The Right of Prioriy:
It provides that an applicant eligible

for Convention benefits who files a first regular
patent or trademark application in any of the
countries of the Union, can then file
subsequent applications in other countries of
the Union for a defined period of time which
subsequent applications will have an effective
filing date as of the first filed application.
O. International environmental law
Environmental law
-is a collective term describing
international treaties (conventions), statutes,
regulations, and common law or national
legislation (where applicable) that operates to
regulate the interaction of humanity and the
natural environment, toward the purpose of
reducing the impacts of human activity.
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration
1972 Stockholm Declaration of the United
Nations
Conference
on
the
Human
Environment Principle 21
States have, in accordance with the

Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign
right to exploit their own resources pursuant
to their own environmental policies, and the
responsibility to ensure that activities within
their jurisdiction or control do not cause
damage to the environment of other States or
of areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction.
2002 Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable
Development
The Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development was adopted at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD), sometimes referred to as Earth
Summit 2002, at which the Plan of
Implementation of the World Summit on
Sustainable Development was also agreed
upon.
The Johannesburg Declaration builds
on earlier declarations made at the United
Nations
Conference
on
the
Human
Environment at Stockholm in 1972, and the
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. While
committing the nations of the world to
sustainable development, it also includes
substantial mention of multilateralism as the
path forward.
In terms of the political commitment
of parties, the Declaration is a more general
statement than the Rio Declaration. It is an
agreement to focus particularly on the
worldwide conditions that pose severe threats
to the sustainable development of our people,
which include: chronic hunger; malnutrition;
foreign occupation; armed conflict; illicit drug
problems; organized crime; corruption; natural
disasters; illicit arms trafficking; trafficking in
persons; terrorism; intolerance and incitement
to racial, ethnic, religious and other hatreds;
xenophobia; and endemic, communicable and
chronic diseases, in particular HIV/AIDS,
malaria and tuberculosis.
P. International economic law
A field of international law that
encompasses both the conduct of sovereign
states in international economic relations, and
the conduct of private parties involved in
cross-border
economic
and
business
transactions.
Page 33 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015
Green Notes 2015

FIELDS4: International Economic Law

covers, among others, the following:
(1) International Trade Law
(2) International Financial Law
(3) Regional Economic Integration
(4) International Development Law
(5) International Business Regulation
(6) Intellectual Property law
--God Bless--
Page 34 of 34
BAR OPERATIONS 2015

Public International Law Green Notes 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public International Law Green Notes 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Green Notes 2015